given the poor track record christians have through history when it comes to tolerating adherents of other faiths (despite the whole new testament god-got-over-his-vengeance-kick-and-learned-to-love thing), it should come as no surprise to me that a christian pastor would threaten a fellow christian with “forty years in prison” for what essentially boils down to a difference in biblical interpretation. but i still find it disturbing.

the circumstances giving rise to the conflict of interpretation certainly bear examination. in 2001, jake malloy enlisted in the army reserve. in 2005, four months after he found out his unit was to be sent to iraq, malloy filed for classification as a consciencious objector, prompted by the evolution of his religious beliefs. the timing is certainly suspect, but malloy convinced the officer assigned to investigate his case of his sincerity; her recommendation was that he be granted non-combatant status, but kept in the army. however, after malloy’s hearing, the army denied his application. he took a chapter 10 — “other than honorable” — discharge, rather than deploy to iraq or face court martial for disobeying orders.

did the army make the right decision? i don’t know. while it is unusual that the decision was at odds with the recommendation of the investigating officer, i wasn’t there. i didn’t hear the evidence. so i’ll set that issue aside.

what disturbs me is this: for approximately two-thirds of malloy’s hearing, his commanding officer — an evangelical christian pastor, in civilian life — grilled him on questions of theology in an effort to convince the examiners that malloy’s beliefs were not based on “real biblical or christian positions.” translation: malloy’s interpretation of the bible differed from his CO’s — which made malloy’s request for conscientious objector status the action of a coward who deserved court martial. so much for the loving god of the new testament, i suppose; the CO wrote, “…as a christian and as a pastor, i find [malloy's interpretation of the bible] shameful, reprehensive (sic), and terribly flawed. i expect that viewed in the light of truth, and better biblical understanding, spc malloy’s actions will be seen for the cowardice that they truly represent.”

procedurally, this is disturbing to me because there is no military requirement that a petitioner’s beliefs be grounded in mainstream interpretation of the petitioner’s faith of choice, or even that the beliefs be grounded in any faith. the commanding officer’s faith-based arguments and badgering of malloy should never have been allowed in the hearing, as his (the CO’s) religious beliefs had no bearing on the legitimacy of malloy’s convictions. had the hearing been a formal legal procedure, the CO’s opinions on religion would never have been admissible — they were not relevant to malloy’s beliefs.

personally, this is disturbing to me for a very different reason. the bullying, holier-than-thou, and apparently vengeful commanding officer/pastor is none other than my brother-in-law.