Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
Someday the more rabid elements within Christianity may come to respect the constitution, individuals, spirituality, and the American people.
Soldiers stationed in Virginia were punished for not attending a performance by the Christian rock group BarlowGirl as part of the “Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concerts.” A new definition of the term “command performance.”
That this was nothing more than evangelism tarted up as entertainment was made explicit by the military bases’ own paper, the Fort Eustis Wheel, which informed the reader afterwards /that
Following the Apostle Paul’s message to the Ephesians in the Bible, Christian rock music’s edgy, all-girl band BarlowGirl brought the armor of God to the warriors and families of Fort Eustis during another installment of the Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concert Series May 13 at Jacobs Theater.
This is the doings of the base’s commander, Maj. Gen. James E. Chambers, who apparently does not take either his oath to the constitution ior hoinesty with much seriousness. Chris Rodda writes
Maj. Gen. Chambers was quoted as saying, “The idea is not to be a proponent for any one religion. It’s to have a mix of different performers with different religious backgrounds.” But there has been no “mix of different performers with different religious backgrounds” at these concerts. Every one of them has had evangelical Christian performers, who typically not only perform their music but give their Christian testimony and read from the Bible in between songs.
In other words, Chambers is a liar. And little beyond that. He needs to be made a civilian ASAP.
You can keep an eye on the subversion of our armed forces by crazy extremists through the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
posted August 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Christian soldiers are…militantly Christian…
“The Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concert Series…”
Listen, or clean your barracks…
Evangelizers gotta evangelize…by any means necessary…
Here, for comparison and mulling over, is the U.S. Army Officer;s Oath of Service, found at About.com (I changed formatting to highlight certain passages):
>
>
>
>
I’d say that spiritual fitness of service people should be the concern of military chaplains. But this “compulsory Christianity” thing does crop up in their ranks, too.
How about classes on what The Constitution means and how it works for the benefit of all our country’s diverse citizenry. The People’s Constitutional Fitness Summer Concert Series…
posted August 22, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Trying again for the quotation–
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
posted August 22, 2010 at 12:42 pm
This is an important story, and in my linked blog post I ask everyone to do two things: Find out what military law says about illegal orders (as in those situations where a soldier’s rights might be violated beyond the oath of service he or she took), and refrain from metaphorically calling for the heads of military commanders until being sure of what military law states.
There are two outcomes here. One is that the situation did constitute illegal orders, the other is that the orders were legal and we must start the process of changing that.
posted August 22, 2010 at 3:25 pm
What are some possible outcomes if the situation did constitute illegal orders? They certainly SHOULD be illegal, and if proven to be, then what?
posted August 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I don’t know the details, Cheryl, but one or the other of the soldiers or the base commander’s superior would take the first step towards a court martial.
A fellow blogger with military experience (not legal expertise) opines that it was not illegal orders per se, but abuse of authority. That’s still something the chain of command must handle, but it may not rise to the level of a court martial.
posted August 22, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I have read stories before about military personnel being pressured by commanding officers to participate in sectarian religious activities. I recall that an incident of this kind occurred at one of the service academies, probably West Point. I don’t remember how it was resolved.
I don’t think that Major General Chamber’s superiors are unaware of what he is doing, or that this is an isolated incident. This kind of thing cannot go on without support higher up in the chain of command. Which leads me to wonder whether Secretary Gates, who is a holdover from the previous administration, is aware of, condones or even actively supports evangelizing within the military. He certainly should be aware, and if he has been ignoring the problem because he has other priorities, pressure should be brought to bear on him.
Apart from the constitutional violation, evangelizing within the armed services undermines unit cohesion and retention. It reduces readiness by creating a hostile environment for officers and enlisted personnel who don’t belong to the favored religion. In the long run, having a volunteer army composed mainly of people who belong to one religion could be a danger to our republic.
posted August 22, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I do not know what the big deal is. Here is an article from the Fort Lee paper (Fort Eustis is part of the same region) announcing the concert: (http://www.ftleetraveller.com/articles/2010/05/06/news/top_stories/top01.txt)
It was clearly sponsored by the Chaplain’s Office and reported as a “christian” event. The troopers were given the choice to attend or not. Also, these Soldiers are there for “training.” If they are AIT (ie. trainees), if they did not go to the concert, which is their right, then the only other option they have is to stay in the barracks. AIT students do not have the freedom to wander off post.
This story is really a tempest in a teapot.
posted August 23, 2010 at 8:57 am
This concert series is a direct result of this Army Program called Comprehensive Soldier Fitness. Please check out the posters on this page:
http://www.army.mil/csf/resources.html
posted August 23, 2010 at 9:01 am
Thank you Gus for blogging about this and the fight of Mikey Weinstein’s organization Military Religious Freedom Foundation. At least one BeliefNet blogger takes notice. These stories should be noted in BeliefNet News but are not. I wish they’d invite someone from MRFF to blog on this site. I am going to bitch to the BeliefNet editor about this. Can we start a movement to get others who read BeliefNet to do the same?
posted August 23, 2010 at 9:06 am
Your point is well taken, Mike, but the concerned observer is left to wonder about a few points.
1) If this was a formal “training” event, then the Christian religious theme was definitely inappropriate. The NCOs at least are aware of the non-Christians in the ranks, and should be able to see the obvious potential for problems.
2) If this was primarily through the chaplain’s office, then the standing and well-defined policy of open access to an individual’s practice of faith should make it easy to see the concert attendance as voluntary. Putting non-attendees on a work detail, restricting them to barracks and ordering them to not use personal electronic devices is a direct contradiction of the voluntary aspect.
You can’t have it both ways. Some people with military experience, when asked, believe that this is not an “unlawful orders” situation, but has strong evidence of being an abuse of authority situation. Personally, I don’t see any need to respect a unit morale argument when non-Christian members of the unit were clearly made uncomfortable.
posted August 23, 2010 at 11:50 am
Mike-
To Franklin’s apt comments let me add this one: How would you feel if the word “Wiccan” replaced the word “Christian” in the story? So that soldiers who were antagonistic or simply uninterested in a Wiccan concert were treated the same way?
I suspect you’d object.
posted September 1, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Chris Rodda and Mikey are just up to their usual media-hog games. The news links to the base paper were CRYSTAL clear that this was a Christian concert. I was in the Army from 01-04 and NEVER forced to go to any event that was religious. If there were any Wiccan bands/concerts, only like 3 people would show up. That’s lame.