Grace and peace, Saints.
Last year, publicist Jack Chick addressed the growing hostility toward biblical Christianity in the military. He cited the following examples given by the World News Service that exemplify the military’s growing apostasy:
- An Army Reserve training brief on hate groups declares that evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics are extremists as dangerous as al Qaeda.
- A commander tells a chaplain to “stay in your lane” when he offers spiritual advice about the military’s exploding sexual assault problem.
- A superior tells an Air Force major to remove from his desk the Bible he had kept there for 23 years.
- An Army lieutenant colonel instructs his subordinates to recognize the “religious right in America” as a domestic hate group like the KKK and Neo-Nazis.
- An Army master sergeant with 25 years of service faces punishment for serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party.
- Christian prayers banned at veteran funeral services in Houston’s National Cemetery.
- Bibles temporarily banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
- A Christian cross, banned from a military chapel in Afghanistan.
- A chaplain called into his supervisor’s office and chewed out for closing a prayer with the words “In Jesus’ name.”
These are just a few of the examples cited in the article. As you can see, the situation is pretty grim. And I can tell you from personal experience that it’s a lot worse than that.
I had forgotten about this issue, until the other day, when, while filing some old magazine articles, I came across the following leaflet I picked up from a U.S. Army installation last year:
iWatch Army is a program that encourages soldiers and their families to be on the lookout for suspicious activity that may indicate terrorist activity. This is a good idea, especially when you consider what happened at Fort Hood a few years ago.
But, while reading the leaflet, I came across this (note the highlighted area):
It is important to note that, according to this leaflet, iWatch Army asks soldiers “to report behavior and activities that are unusual or seem out of the ordinary,” and it lists examples of behaviors and activities to watch out for. But notice that soldiers may also use iWatch to not only report suspicious behaviors, but behaviors and activities “that make you feel uncomfortable.” Given the program is intended to heighten awareness of potential terrorist activity, where does discomfort fit in? Are activities that “make you feel uncomfortable” necessarily terrorist activities? Think about this.
On any given day, the average person is faced with myriad situations that are uncomfortable: Sitting next to a person with a flatulence problem on the subway is uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to be considered terrorism.
Standing on the bus stop with a dog humping your leg is uncomfortable, but not enough to report as terrorist activity.
Your phone bill might make you uncomfortable, but would you consider it terrorism? (Hmmm. Maybe that’s not the best example.)
The point is that what is uncomfortable for one, may be very comfortable or even pleasurable to another. Comfort is subjective. And what does comfort have to do with terrorism? Shouldn’t the litmus test of whether an activity is suspicious be the possibility that the activity could be terrorist related? Should activities that make us uncomfortable be considered terrorist activities?
Whether they should or not is irrelevant. The point is that under the USA Patriot Act, they can be. You see, before 911, Section 2331 of Title 18, United States Code, defined terrorism as “acts that attempt to affect the conduct of a government by assassination, or kidnapping.”
After 911, however, Section 802(A) of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the definition to read: “Acts that:
- “involve acts dangerous to human life‚
- “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce,
- “influence the policy of a government‚
- “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”
Note that the USA Patriot Act not only modifies the original definition of terrorism (subsection 4), by adding “mass destruction,” but actually adds three new activities, one of which (subsection 2) is totally subjective in that it is based on an appearance, rather than an action, and neither specifies what actions would be considered terrorism, nor whom or what needs to feel intimidated or be coerced in order for the “appearance” to be considered terrorism!
The second definition is boldfaced, because “activities that make you feel uncomfortable” fall under this. You must understand that under the current definition, Christianity, as a religion, and evangelization, as an activity, can now be considered terrorism. Unlike the prior definition of terrorism, which stipulated that activities had to be directed towards a government to be considered terrorism, the new definition does not make this distinction. This means that any individual, who feels intimidated or coerced in any way by someone else’s actions, however benign, can report that individual and his activities as terrorist.
It must also be noted that intimidation is a feeling, and, as such, is totally subjective. What is intimidating to me may not be intimidating to you.
The truth is that this vague subjective terminology has been included in the definition of terrorism expressly for the purpose of persecuting Christians and to discourage evangelization. And people are taking advantage of it.
I have a personal testimony of this. A few years ago, I went back to college to finish my degree. One of my English professors was a woman who was raised Roman Catholic and hated Christianity, though she embraced every other religion. She even had Buddhist prayer flags hanging on her office door.
Religion was a topic that she loved to talk about, and her literary analysis assignments always included a couple of essays or short stories with a religious theme. I always chose to analyze those types of stories, because it gave me an opportunity to hone my discernment skills, and to learn what all the “great” writers actually felt about the Lord Jesus. I would always break the pieces down to their skivvies, cutting through the twilight language that modernist writers are known for, and exposing the writers’ real motives, which were always anti-Christianity.
This professor absolutely hated me for this: so much so, that on one of my papers, right beneath my grade, she “strongly advised” that I choose something other than a religious theme, for my next essay. I told her that I would stop choosing a religious theme, when she stopped offering a religious theme as a choice. At this, she went to the dean and told him that I intimidated her. Needless to say, I never earned better than a C from this professor. She even failed me once.
But, returning to our subject, it is distressing to see that our military is becoming so godless. And it is becoming godless, as many in our military are into the occult. In fact, the military is rife with witches. In many military bookstores, both in the United States and in Europe, books on witchcraft and the occult outnumber Bibles 10 to 1. Once, about five years ago, I happened upon a website that was exclusively for soldiers who are witches. I found out, through that website, that there are witches’ covens at many military installations, including Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Carson, Colorado; and Fort Lewis, Washington. As a matter of fact, back in 2011, at Fort Carson, witches dedicated an $80,000 pagan worship temple.
This is important, because witches hate Christians. And, if there are soldiers who are witches serving in our military, then there are soldiers who hate Christians serving in our military. These soldiers take an oath to protect our country and our Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” But, if they hate Christians, how can they protect Christians? They can’t, in fact. And that should be a problem for you.
As an aside, the oath of enlistment of the United States Army doesn’t specify who the enemy is. So, what if witches, when they take that oath, are thinking of Christians as the enemy, whether “foreign or domestic?” If that were the case, then they would be in keeping with their oath if (and when) they are deployed to America as a “peacekeeping” force, they regard all Christians as enemy combatants. What a scary thought.
This ought to concern you, because, as we warned in our article, The Roman Catholic Takeover of America, our military no longer belongs to us, but to the United Nations. That means that it will go and will do whatever the United Nations Security Council orders it to go and to do. If our military is anti-Christian, what do you think it is going to do when it is deployed to America as part of Step Four of Phase Three of the Roman Catholic Takeover of America? You should think about this very carefully.
And the military is not only full of witches. Since the ban on homosexuals in the military was lifted, the military is now full of homosexuals. You may be aware that there is an historic enmity between homosexuals and Jesus Christ. Just ask Sodom and Gomorrah. If homosexuals hate Jesus, then it is a foregone conclusion that they hate Christians.
I’m not trying to cast any dispersion upon the United States military. I’m just trying to get you to understand that the military is the policy enforcer for the United States government. And, as the United States government has redefined terrorism, then the military, as the policy enforcer for the United States government, must also redefine terrorism. If under this redefinition, Christian activities–both in and out of the military–could be considered terrorism, then, it stands to reason that, at some point, Christians–both in and out of the military–will be at odds with our military. And this is what we need to remember.
The podcast of this discussion is available at the iTunes Store for download to your favorite listening device. Subscribe to The Gospel Light and Truth Crusade on iTunes today! For your convenience, it is also available below.
Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.
The Still Man