By using the Pentagon Chaplain and his office, Christian Embassy set up a bogus imprimatur and ran roughshod through the Pentagon, filming as it went.

The Inspector General of the Department of Defense was tasked with discovering what, if any, rules were broken by various senior Pentagon personnel, including generals in uniform, during the filming of a promotional video for Christian Embassy. CE is a non-profit, non-Federal entity that operates within our Federal government with the ostensible purpose of providing “support for leaders in their walk with the Lord,” serving many arms of government including Congress, various Federal agencies…and the Pentagon.

In “Jeebus, we salute you!” Our military, on gawd’s steroids, I posted excerpts from Jason Leopold’s Truthout post Video, Report Details Evangelism at Highest Levels of US Military.

I referred readers to Truthout’s piece for the video and the OfficerMisconduct.pdf report, little knowing what I would find when I started to skim the report for myself…

The following are sections that either upset my sense of “fair play”, made me shake my head in frustration or dismay (or want to pull my hair out), and once made me laugh at how powerful a simple taco can be, in the right hands.

For brevity’s sake, I have shortened Christian Embassy to “CE”; it appears many, many times throughout the report, since that was the locus of the problem: CE’s manipulation of the Department of Defense, its rules and regulations, its personnel and its forbearance. CE “worked” every angle and sucked many people in and caused them to break Federal regulations and, for some, even personal ethical standards. By using the Pentagon Chaplain, CE set up a bogus imprimatur and ran roughshod through the Pentagon, filming as it went.

Additionally, the page numbers are the actual page numbers from the report itself and do not correspond to the .pdf numbering; the title page of the report is pageone.pdf and so on.

DoD/IG Report, page 3

Maj Gen Sutton and BG Caslen accepted full responsibility for their actions and committed to be more alert to ethical issues in the future. Each raised, in extenuation and mitigation, the fact that he participated in good faith under the understanding that Chaplain Benson’s assertion that the video had been approved, including their own appearances.

In fact, Benson knew why this video was being made - fund-raising and support - when he sought and received approval for a “one-day/9-hour shoot” and was reportedly never present at any of the interviews (other than his own) during the alleged nine months of filming that actually occurred.

DoD/IG Report, page 3

BG Brooks responded that he believed he was operating within accepted parameters for a Government official and did not need to “pursue a pathway of self-protection through specific permissions”.

Brooks was one of the few that actually watched the completed film; ironically, it was at a CE fundraiser - and he still doesn’t get what the whole “kerfuffle” is all about!

DoD/IG Report, page 3

Chaplain Benson submitted a response through council that asserted in part that this [DoD/IG] Office violated Chaplain Benson’s due process rights; that we lacked authority to investigate any complaint submitted by a non-Federal employee (the complaints against the video were made by religious and other organization); and the Chaplain Benson had engaged in speech protected by the Establishment Clause and by his professional status. Further, he alleged that his identification in the video as “Pentagon Chaplain” was not improper and that a reasonable person could not find that the video implied DoD endorsement.

But if you consider your christian peers to be the only “reasonable persons” and they think this video doesn’t praise jesus strongly enough, you might see it that way… The rest of us agree with the Inspector General’s assessment.

DoD/IG Report, page 20

Maj Gen Catton asserted that CE was treated as an instrumentality of the Pentagon Chaplain’s office for over 25 years, and had effectively become a “quasi-Federal entity”. We note that at no point did CE become a Federal entity. Further, the length of time an organization operates in the Pentagon does not confer Federal status to that organization or provide express or implied approval to engage in activities to support that organization that are specifically prohibited by regulation. For example, Taco Bell provides certain food preparation services to individuals in the Pentagon. Its presence in the Pentagon for any length of time does not imply DoD sanction or confer Federal status to Taco Bell. Maj Gen Catton’s endorsement of Taco Bell under circumstances similar to those of the present video would be similarly improper. The fact that CE was a non-profit or religious organization, as opposed to a purely commercial one, did not make CE less of a non-Federal entity.

I especially admire the IG’s use of Taco Bell as a tool for a “smackdown”!

DoD/IG Report, page 25

After carefully considering BG Brooks’ response and reexamining the evidence, we stand by our conclusions. As we addressed in response to Maj Gen Catton’s comments, the length of time an organization is permitted to do business within the Pentagon does not confer DoD sponsorship or make that organization a Federal entity. The fact that some CE employees held contractor access badges was a clear indication to those who came into contact with those employees that CE was a non-Federal entity, and, like a contractor, subject to particular constraints in its relationship with BG Brooks and other DoD personnel. Entities recognized as having a special relationship with DoD (to include the Combined Federal Campaign, United Services Organization [USO], and the Service Relief Societies) are listed in the JER at Sections 3-210 and 3-212: CE is not among them.

DoD/IG Report, page 26

BG Caslen stated that he saw the final video product at a private CE fundraising dinner about one year after he participated in the filming, and that he requested the video be removed from the CE public Web site when be became aware that it was causing offense to some viewers. Finally, BG Caslen stated that he truly regretted his appearance if it brought any discredit or embarrassment to DoD or the Joint Staff.

“…causing offense…”? “…IF it brought any discredit…”? Holy crap! Talk about back-pedalling!

The following is an examination of Chaplain Benson’s (CB) written response to the Inspector General’s (IG) correspondence, who dissects CB’s excuses/alibis/”weak defense”. All excerpts are from pages 31-32 (except as noted) and are, at times, paraphrased for brevity.

CB: contends that [IG] Office violated his due process rights by failing to advise him that he might remain silent or to seek counsel; [lack of jurisdiction by a non-Federal complainant; abridged freedom of protected speech]

IG: determines CB received such notice and opportunity, IG has authority to investigate and to conduct investigations under plenary authority within DoD. IG disagreed with CB’s claim his speech is protected by his professional status. CB was authorized to conduct religious duties and perform religious rites and observances in uniform - not participate in a promotional advertisement for a non-Federal, albeit nonprofit, entity.

CB: contends “private gain” and “affiliated” are not defined in JER Section 2635.702.

IG: A CE employee testified that “the video was filmed to attract personal and financial support for that organization.” IG finds such purpose constitutes “gain” within the meaning of the regulation and determines “affiliated” maintains its common dictionary definition.

CB: His appearance couldn’t possible be construed to imply that the Government sanctioned or endorsed his personal activities. But he further testified to the IG that “he could see why some people would see his appearance in the video as an endorsement, and that ‘obviously [CE] should have put some sort of disclaimer before they showed it.”

IG: disagrees that a reasonable observer would notice that the video was “made by Christians for a Christian audience.” Due to…technology (including the WWW) and print media, the video reached a broad audience. Still photos from the video and excerpts…were published…[in] Turkey…and Maj Gen Sutton was asked to provide explanation to his Turkish counterparts [why his photo was shown, in Turkish newspaper Sabah, wearing his uniform and described as a member of "a radical fundamentalist sect." Page 14]

CB: contends…the “Christian church” is also a non-Federal entity [so] he could not endorse Christianity without also endorsing a non-Federal entity. [?]

IG: CB’s argument is off the mark. CE - a non-profit, private organization - falls squarely within the JER definition of a non-Federal entity; the “Christian church writ large and Christianity do not. Neither are discrete persons or organizations as contemplated by the JER definition.

CB: contends that his interview was not public and…he was entitled to be in uniform, citing a prior case investigated by IG’s Office.

IG: finds the two cases to be dissimilar in facts and circumstances.

CB: asserts that the filming was for his own ministry…

IG: CB neither discussed his ministry as Pentagon Chaplain during his interview, nor did he obtain a copy of the video for use by DoD. CB’s own testimony highlights his prior knowledge of the…promotional purpose of the video…CB testified, “[CE] wanted to do a video that they could use to encourage people within CE.”

CB: characterizes the DoD participants’ statements as testimonials, not endorsements.

IG: The preponderance of the evidence…supports our conclusion that the DoD participants’ statements…constituted endorsements of that non-Federal entity.

If you’ve stayed for my conclusions, I am heartily grateful. I wanted to make my point about sociopathic behavior, specifically the “lack of boundaries” in all religions.

Underneath all the “goodness” that CE purports to provide the Pentagon staff, I saw a consistent theme: we’re here - we’ve been here for more than 25 years - we’ve been here so long, we can’t be kicked out.

As my title referenced, getting a foot in the door leads to trouble. This is especially true, in my opinion, with religion. Once in (your home, your family, your office, your business, your school, your hospital, your government), it will not settle for less than complete dominance. It seeks to replace opinions, practices and other-beliefs. It shows no gratitude for your forebearance and tolerance. It will not stop with “more” - it wants ALL of you and yours.

There’s an old warning: give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile. I’ve said many times:

Give religion an inch and it takes the entire Interstate Highway system.

It will NEVER settle for just “a mile”…

I frankly don’t know how this can be corrected. How do we lop off or weaken the tentacles of an entity that has a “free pass” in our lives? They’ve been given a license to print their own “get out of jail - free” cards. The media is afraid of them. And their leaders behave as if they are immune to both scrutiny and criticism. They have millions of “citizen advocates” that stand ready to carpet the country with howls of outrage - all at one word from a leader.

And what’s worse is that it’s like fighting a terrible pandemic - without help from the populace. But many religious people don’t even recognize that this is a pandemic… We are forced to give them the “freedom to BE sick”.

I hope you have the answers. I know I don’t.