whose water?

[cellio]

There's not much water available in the Iraqi desert, of course, so most soldiers haven't bathed in a long time. According to this article, there's an army chaplain in Iraq who has a large pool of water for use by the soldiers, but there's a catch: they have to get baptised first.

Unless that chaplain personally collected the water without using any army resources (including protection), I hope they kick him out of there. Because in any other case, it's not his water; it's the army's water. And yes, my reaction would be exactly the same if it were a rabbi who required everyone to pray the daily service first, or a Republican who required you to change your voter registration to his party first, or anyone collecting a fee.

I'm all for having folks along with the army who aren't part of the effort but who do provide support services valued by some members of the unit. But when support staff become parasites, it's time for them to go.

Comments

[amergina.livejournal.com]

If this is true, it is disgusting. That man should be ashamed of himself.

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. How does that water belong to him? If he is with the army, he is almost certainly enjoying their protection. That's disgusting! It reminds me of something similiar that happened after one of the hurricanes down here.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

That is so completely wrong. :(

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

See, I find this whole thing insulting because it appears to trivialize the entire concept of baptism. You figure, especially once bullets start flying, a certain number of guys who have been sorta religious but never officially so are going to be interested in being baptised for real, and here (it sounds like) they're likely surrounded by a bunch of giggling smart aleks who've decided that they've scammed a bath. Not only is it grossly unfair to those who aren't willing to be baptised, it undercuts any meaning the ritual has for those who are.

That being said, it's not clear to me exactly what use the GIs are getting - baptism itself would involve getting immersed in water (I'm assuming - it varies by denomination and sometimes specific pastor, but it sounds like this guy is from the immersion tradition), so the baptism itself could be the extent of it. I could also see them getting bumped to the front of the shower line to slow down fouling the baptism water (like having to take a shower before using the pool - I'm not sure whether it would be more water-efficient in the long run to shower first or just replace the baptism pool more often.) Also, a baptism is a once-per-lifetime ritual, so while it leaves less physical evidence than, say, circumcision, it's also not something you can run back and do every day like someone sitting through the sermon at the soup kitchen in order to get a hot meal.

[cellio]

Good point. This wrongs the sincere people in a big way. Just as easy conversion for the sake of marriage wrongs true converts. It's not so much that the ritual loses meaning for the sincere, I'd say, but rather that everyone will assume they aren't really serious, which will make it harder for them to get whatever other support they'll need due to this change later.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Good point about how other people would view participants, but I also think it hurts the earnest participant as well. Sort of like someone for whom a formal church wedding is a big part of their concept of marriage being married at a drive-through chapel in Las Vegas, surrounded by drunks who are there so they can say they were "married" by an Elvis impersonator.

[greenegirl.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually a christian, but I entirely agree with you, both about trivialising what he's supposed to be there for, and because its just Corrupt
x

[sk4p.livejournal.com]

Pig****er. Dishonorable discharge, all the way.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

Also, even if it is HIS water, which he brought from the States from his very own personal spring, it's STILL wrong. Bargaining for someone's soul in exchange for a basic neccessity is just wrong, no matter what the source of the neccessity. It certainly doesn't say much for his concept of Christianity.

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

It's apparently not meant to be drinking water, but bathing water... but all the same, smacks of the kind of fanaticism that frightens me. I would imagine that he'd refuse to minister to people of other faiths, as well, when all chaplains are supposed to give comfort and succor no matter the faith of the supplicant.

This isn't dishonorable discharge material, but I definitely think that his boss needs to have a chat with him, come review time, about whether the Army is the right career path for him.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

That is *icky* - and, yeah, I'd be as upset no matter who did it.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

So, while I agree with you in general, I feel a need to quibble. :)

Protection cannot count as a resource--if that were the case, then all things acquired here in the states would belong to the government, under whose protection we all live.
That said, I have no doubt that the water sources used by the army in Iraq have been taken over for their own use and are not in fact public. The only likely way the chaplain could have gotten duty-free water is if he waited for it to rain, or if the water was unconditionally and explicitly given to him by the army.

Your objections to his imposing arbitrary conditions on access to the water hinge on it not being his water, right? I mean, public bathhouses also charge fees for bathing.

I will have to doubt the guy's intelligence, though--he's set up a framework where people do tricks for treats. If he really wants people to be closer to God, he should be giving the water away free and preaching by actions. Holding the water back until he gets 'paid' with cooperation in baptism just makes him a hypocrite, really. His scheme with raisins is likely to be even worse...

[cellio]

So, while I agree with you in general, I feel a need to quibble. :)

Ok. Quibble accepted. :-) Though there is a difference between the passive protection here, which we fund through tax dollars, and the active protection (no extra charge to the volunteer protectees) over there. I mean, the soldiers who shoot down the incoming missiles that would have toasted that chaplain don't charge him for the service... But I'm quibbling, too.

Your objections to his imposing arbitrary conditions on access to the water hinge on it not being his water, right?

Correct. He is selling what he does not own. In other contexts we would use words like "thief" and "fence" for this sort of person. I have no problem with people who have legitimately acquired resources using them for their own gain. If Soldier A trades his cookies from home for Soldier B's cigarettes from home, that's fine. And if Soldier C agrees to polish Soldier A's boots every day for some of those cookies, fine and dandy. But if Soldier A swiped those cookies from the KP, it's not legit.

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

I read that same article on ASCF yesterday and was so incredibly livid I couldn't even think straight. I am a Christian, and that is *not* what Christ taught. Christ denied no one food or drink in the story of the Loaves and the Fishes, and the parable of the Good Samaritan is also quite clear in how you are to behave. In Matthew 25 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+25&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on):34-46 Christ specifically says, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." There is no mention in any of the passage that the requirement was that it was to do this only to those who followed Christ. But to do so to all.

Christ said to love *all*, meaning *everyone*, not just people you like and believe the same things that you do. In my opinion, if Christ saw what this so called "Man of God" was doing, it would break his heart that it was being done in His name.

My faith calls me to love all and to serve all in love, because that's what the New Testament is telling me is how Christ lived and wants us to live. While i'm not always successful, it sickens me that someone is using such a powerful message of love and acceptance to manipulate others. I am hoping that this minister's higher ups in the Baptist church denounce his actions and pray that he will better understand Christ's message through self-reflection and God's intervention.

It saddens me that someone who supposedly is my "Brother in Faith" is such a dimwitted, manipulative, clueless human being. I can not bring myself to believe that someone that was actually *thinking* would still do this.

[cellio]

There is no mention in any of the passage that the requirement was that it was to do this only to those who followed Christ. But to do so to all.

Indeed. The message is supposed to be about love (for all, as you said, and not just a select few), and as I understand it one of the highest goals is to emulate Jesus. (Also to do good works in general, yes?)

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

Doing good works in general *is* following Christ's example, and by that emulating him. This minister is failing in that, big time.

I've been trying to find out if anything was done about this idiot, and i'm coming up with nothing. I can't even find who to talk to with the US Army to find out if they are planning to do anything about it. Does anyone here know this stuff?

[magid.livejournal.com]

Looks like something is being done (here (http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001769.html)). The comments are well worth reading, too.
+

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

There is an open question here of exactly what is going on, and (based on my limited experience) no reason to believe the article characterized it completely correctly. Many branches of Christianity practice baptism by immersion. It's a one time thing, and calling it a "bath" is a pretty substantial exaggeration, although to anyone who had gone several weeks maintaining minimal hygine, any even momentary dunking is probably meaningful in an a not strictly spiritual sense. If that's all that's happening, and he's "advertising" this by emphasizing the fact that you get dunked rather than the spiritual value, it's a lot different than if he's saying you get a pool pass for the day and all you can drink if you get baptized. Still too much the "OK, I'll give you a WHOLE LOLLIPOP if you'll go to Sunday School" approach to reconcile fully with my sense of honest Christianity, but some of the writeups on this are, I suspect, giving him credit for a lollipop that is much bigger and less neccessarily implicit in baptism anyway than what's going on, on the strength of a journalist who's motivated to get cute with his angle so that a fluff piece with no real bearing on the news would sound interesting enough to get published.

I'm disgusted and appalled!

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Someone should point out to him that only Satan and his followers barter for souls!

[sf-rose.livejournal.com]

Definitely disgusting.

"Get a bath for Christ?"

Oh please.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

That is soooo wrong on soooo many levels I don't even know where to begin. Eeeuw.