Military ban on evangelism already exists

A ban on proselytizing sought in a lawsuit against the Air Force would be weak compared with one in place for the past six years for American troops serving in the Middle East.

The ban, included in U.S. Central Command’s General Order No. 1., prohibits “proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice” for soldiers, sailors and airmen in the region, including those at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ban includes soldier-to-soldier contact.

Central Command says the ban is necessary because most nations in the region are overwhelmingly Muslim, and Christian evangelism is forbidden by local laws.

Critics, though, fear the ban blocks service members from freely practicing their faiths.

A lawsuit filed last fall by Mikey Weinstein of New Mexico seeks an outright ban on uninvited proselytizing and evangelism throughout the Air Force.

In the suit, Weinstein claims non-Christian cadets at the Air Force Academy face discrimination from evangelical Christians.

“Why is it acceptable over here but not in the combat zone?” said Weinstein. “This is hypocrisy of the highest order.”

The academy graduate says his proposed ban is weaker than Central Command’s, because it would still allow all religious speech if it took place offduty and if all those involved were willing participants.

His lawsuit is pending before a U.S. District Court in New Mexico. The Air Force won’t comment on the case.

Conservative organizations that oppose Weinstein’s suit are mixed on the Central Command ban that applies to more than 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kyle Fisk, executive administrator of the National Association of Evangelicals in Colorado Springs, said Central Command’s ban is necessary in the context of war but shouldn’t be applied in this country because it would violate free-speech rights.

“It’s needed over there for good order and discipline,” Fisk said. “It’s understandable.”

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs said the rule could be used to stop soldiers from finding faith when they need it most.

“On a battlefield is precisely where a soldier might want to begin considering their ultimate values and to deny someone the chance to depend on God is a concern,” said Minnery, the organization’s vice president of public policy. “We would respect it as it applies to conduct in a Muslim country, but as it applies to soldierto-soldier religious discussion, its problematic.”

U.S. Central Command put the order in place to deal with “host-nation sensitivities,” said Ensign Joseph P. Vermette, a spokesman at the command’s Tampa, Fla., headquarters.

Although the order applies to interactions between members of the U.S. military, it is designed to prevent soldiers or airmen from attempting to convert people in Islamic nations to another faith.

Such an action could easily become an international incident with disastrous consequences, Vermette said.

“Proselytizing has to be handled with discretion,” he said. “We’re very sensitive to the host nations we are in. Obviously, if someone goes out and preaches on the streets of Tikrit or Kuwait City, that’s a problem.”

He said religious expression at camps in Iraq and Afghanistan is regulated by local commanders who choose how to interpret and enforce the ban.

“It’s done with common sense,” he said.

Violating the ban could bring criminal charges, but in the six years it has been in place, Vermette said he is not aware of anyone getting into trouble for breaking the rules.

U.S. forces have had to distance themselves from religion to avoid what could be a massive increase in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Michael O’Hanlon of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan policy research group.

“It raises the spectre of religion and force of arms being combined against the Muslims,” O’Hanlon said. “Proselytizing plays into that image and our enemies would use it against us.”

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said religion rules for troops serving in the Middle East have been a hot topic since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

He said many groups at that time protested Defense Department policies that limited religious expression.

“Oddly enough, those groups then included many liberals,” he said. “Conservatives didn’t want to oppose the policies of the first President Bush.”

He said support of the White House is likely muting some opposition to the existing Central Command rules.

But Fisk, from the evangelical group, said the lack of an outcry comes from an understanding of the hardships faced by soldiers deployed in the Middle East.

“You have to look at it in the context of war,” he said.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0240 or

tom.roeder@gazette.com