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

[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.