Dr. Bill McCoy's Amazon Blog

Here's another correction:
You say in your book, ""Under the rubric of free speech and the twisted idea of the separation of church and state there has evolved more and more an anti-Christian bias in this country," and, "Being Christian should bring goodness to our culture. But the way it is being censored in our society you would think that to be a Christian is to be a wicked torturous warmonger who wields religion over the heads and hearts of local governments to establish more wicked rules of right and wrong for everyone to obey without question. Where is this wickedness? Since when did Christian become evil?" I think you need to be a little more honest with yourself and the rest of us and address the issue that a great deal of wickedness has been perpetrated in the name of Christ. To the left and right of the state house in Boston, MA are two Puritan women, one exiled from the 'city on the hill' and eventually killed by Native Americans, and the other hung on Boston Common by the Christian based church state of the time. Catholics and Protestants both afflicted horrendous slaughter on the innocent people of Europe for hundreds of years as they contested the truth of their vision with blood soaked swords. I think a little humility on the part of so called Christians would be a good thing. In fact, it was in part the memories of such atrocities that led the founders of this country to work hard to establish a wall between church and state. It is one thing, and I respect and honor you decision to do this, to minister to the needs of the troops of your faith. It is quite another to have the arrogance to maintain that you somehow know Christ's will and intent and that your vision (or that of your co-religionists) should somehow be seen as superior. I think you need to do a little self reflection.

Why are the endorsemenrts still on the Kindle edition page? Shame on Petreaus for endorsing you idea of an army of the United States of American made up solely of evangelical christians.

Sir,

I thought the best parts of your book were those which, however fleetingly, dealt with a more ecumenical and tolerant point of view than that usually propounded by the "Christian" right.

I was very sorry to see this good work offset by the more polemic aspects of the book, and by your apparent conclusion that all soldiers and all people should embrace the Christian religion, which, as several others have pointed out here, has no particular moral high ground, at least based on its recorded history. Like many religions and other belief systems, its proponents seem to be telling us; "Do as I say, not as I do."

I was also saddened and perplexed to hear a man who has sworn an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" make statements like those quoted in the other comment; "Under the rubric of free speech and the twisted idea of the separation of church and state there has evolved more and more an anti-Christian bias in this country"

"...twisted idea of the separation of church and state...?" You need to reexamine the Constitution (which you swore an oath to uphold and defend), which (wisely) explicitly and unequivocally states that there shall be NO established church in the US, and that there shall be no religious test for public office. Also, there is NOWHERE in that document that the word, name, or idea of a deity, let alone a particular one, is mentioned. That was no mistake.

Let me refresh your memory;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." (1st Amendment)

That clearly means what it says - that NO religion is or shall be preferred or made THE state religion over any other, and that free exercise of ALL religions (including Judaism, Islam, and any others, or NO others) shall not be prohibited. That means we all have freedom of conscience - you, me, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Culdees, Amish, Branch Davidians (oops! They were wiped out by our "benevolent" govt. - in violation of the Constitution!) pagans, Wiccans, and any other religion, creed, or cult - or NO religion - have equal rights to practice (or not) as they choose (as long as they don't violate the federal and state laws).

". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Article VI, Section III, US Constitution

Some religious fundamentalists have tried to bill these as "oversights" - they were not.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the main thinkers and authors of the period, when writing in his autobiography about the passage of the Virginia Bill Establishing Religious Freedom, said:

"...a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

James Madison wrote something almost identical when describing the same incident.

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli (in the present state of Libya), declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate and signed under John Adams.

It is clear that the Founders were liberal (indeed radical!) thinkers and true members of the Enlightenment. Many were Deists at best, and the others had varying degrees of faith. Some were clearly closet agnostics or atheists.

As to Christianity somehow being "censored" in society, I have no idea of what you are talking about. Though some aspects of the mass media concentrate on what some would describe as shocking or scandalous news items and entertainment (because that's what sells), there has always been a depiction of religion in the media, and I think it is usually balanced.

What you describe as the attitude towards Christians is actually not a case of skewed media depictions, but a product of the actual history of the church itself (unfortunately twisted early on to become one of the most aggressive and warlike religions in the Western world), combined with the words of some its most prominent spokespersons. I quote; "God is pro-war." Rev. Jerry Falwell, January 31, 2004, on WorldNetDaily.com
and "I think it's (Iraq) going well. CNN doesn't always get it right, but it goes pretty well if you watch it on FOX." And again; "I think Muhammad was a terrorist."

Pat Robertson (who lied about his military service and decorations) said: "...holy war between Islam and Christianity" is "going to come."

And finally, from that great Christian and patriot bulwark of freedom, Ms. Ann Coulter; "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

The Dominionist (aka Reconstructionists, with whom the aforementioned Falwell and Robertson, Rick Warren, and others are affiliated to some extent) are even more blatant and ugly.

They are little known outside their own inner circles or by those who have studied them, but they are a very pervasive and powerful group, with a reach far beyond their actual numbers.

A number of the new "mega-churches" (including Mr. Warren's) are affiliated directly or indirectly with the Dominionist movement, and are often recruiting grounds for the Domnionists.

For those unfamiliar with them the Dominionists encompass a number of essentially fundamentalist-extremist religious groups, whose collective agenda includes ultimately gaining control of the US by exploiting the democratic process, and installing a Old Testament-based "Christian" theocracy based on their interpretation of "God's law" cognate with Muslim Sharia. Essentially, they are a "Christian" Taliban.

These people are not truly in favor of democracy in any sense, though they are exploiting it for their own ends. In fact, their seminal thinkers (if this is not an oxymoron) have often written that democracy and Christianity are incompatible. They are theocratic totalitarians who seek to take political control of first the US, and then the world. In the words of the late RJ Rushdoony, their plan forhumankind is to; "...lead them to Jesus, in chains, if necessary."

The goal of Reconstructionists is to have their biblical interpretation rule every aspect of life.  Rushdoony believed democracy is a "heresy", and admonishes Christians that in creating God's kingdom here on Earth, they must remember that "a monarchy is not a democracy."  Rushdoony claims "Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life." (interesting conclusion!) The pursuit of total dominion is described in the November 1994 issue of Rushdoony's newsletter Chalcedon Report as "preparing the path for the Kingdom."

They plan to establish an Old Testament-based theocracy and law that would include public stoning, burning at the stake, or death by the sword of "transgressors" (including, apparently, those who do not keep a Kosher kitchen!).  Rushdoony listed eighteen "capital crimes", including blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, promiscuity, incorrigible delinquency, homosexuality, and (for women only) unchastity before marriage.  

Punishment for non-capital crimes includes whipping and / or indentured servitude or slavery. Prisons would only be temporary holding tanks while prisoners awaited sentencing to death or slavery. Their theology dictates that, among other things, women may not wear red dresses; all kitchens be Kosher; slavery be allowed; and women and children be chattel. 

Legal systems would be forced to comply with their interpretation of Biblical Law. Rushdoony's Chalcedon organization helped establish a radical right legal organization, The Rutherford Institute, to promote, through the courts, the Religious Right's agenda.

They also plan to "convert" (by force, if necessary) or eliminate all who refuse to accept their warped version of Christianity.  In other words, as they have been so aptly described elsewhere, they are an American Taliban, practicing a "biblical" form of Sharia. 

These are not just some fringe loonies (though they are or should be certifiable, in my opinion). They high-jacked the Southern Baptist Convention some years ago, and they have many "mainstream" fellow travelers and dupes

They have slowly been infiltrating government, the military, and other areas of power for over fifty years. These far right-wing zealots are now deeply embedded in all branches of the government and the military, and have worked or schemed their way into positions of great authority. They are now in positions of power at all levels, especially since the advent of the Bush regime.

The difficulty is that even many Christians who are associated with them are totally unaware of what is going on - not just in this matter but in many areas.  Many Christians (even those in Dominionist sects who are not in the inner circles) don't know what is really afoot.  

They are already priming their kids for this eventuality with violent Apocalyptic video games in which the game player tries to convert "heathens"  (i.e.; not a far-right fundamentalist Christian) but if he / she cannot do that, they can KILL them. They lose "spirit points" for killing, but can make them back by "praying."  

One such was designed and released by a company headed by Troy Lyndon, a close associate of Rick Warren, leader of the "mega-church" at Saddleback. The game shows a post-Millenial New York in which your "duties" as a member of the "good guy" Christian Tribulation Forces include to either convert or kill non-Christian people, who are all forces of the Anti-Christ's Global Peacekeeping Force (which is obviously based on the UN -
see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hatevgame.htm for details.) 

It has apparently also gotten support and good reviews by Dr. Dobson's group, Focus on the Family (who normally rail against vid game violence) and who have recently boarded the Green Evangelical train, and other purportedly "Christian" groups.

I have also seen some web-based "games" of this nature, and other sites - one specifically by and for US Special Forces members, some of whom are apparently also in this cult - which encourages them to be preparing to murder unbelievers. 

So I would question whether the perception of Christianity some have as a murderous religion is due to some sort of bias. A reasonable person might well arrive at that conclusion just by reading and listening to the words of some of its principle spokespersons.

You need to tell us, Chaplain McCoy - what is YOUR view on these matters? Do you agree with those who want to subject all of us to a theocratic American Taliban-style "Biblical" Sharia? Do you agree with Falwell, Robertson, Ms. Coulter, and others? Or is your idea of Christianity different? Do you want to preach your version of the truth persuasively and lead by example? Or would you secretly like to see Rushdoony and his friends prevail?