One of the Greatest Threats to Religious Liberty Exists within Our Own Military

 []Ron Crews: Religious Freedom Project

It is almost the height of irony that the American military is experiencing serious religious disharmony. The nation founded on the promise of religious tolerance now boasts a military where devout service members are increasingly forced to choose between hiding their religious beliefs and leaving the service. Serving as an openly faithful, devout person is proving to be difficult, if not impossible.

Take the case of Monifa Sterling, a Marine currently awaiting word on the appeal of her court-martial. She had printed out small strips of paper with her favorite scripture paraphrased on it: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” (Isaiah 54:17). She posted them at her Camp Lejeune work station in three places (she said it was one for each part of the Holy Trinity) for daily inspiration and devotion.

Though other Marines had similarly decorated their workspaces with personal effects, only Monifa was asked by her superior to remove her papers. When Monifa asserted that she had the freedom under the First Amendment to express herself in that way, her superior took them down. When Monifa reposted her papers, she found herself charged with criminal offenses and brought before a panel for trial by court-martial.

Monifa was found guilty and given a bad-conduct discharge. She will never get the veterans benefits she earned, and her discharge will be a “Scarlet Letter” on her record for life. She lost her appeal to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals. In fact, that court went so far as to find that posting those scripture verses was not an exercise of religion. She now awaits word on her appeal to the highest military court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

In addition, take the case of Lt. Cmdr. Wes Modder, a Navy chaplain separated from his service and his flock after a complaint about how he ministered in private counseling on homosexuality and premarital sex. His ministry was wholly consistent with the positions of his endorsing church, the Assembly of God.

Chaplain Modder was banned from even attending the memorial service on base for one of his fallen flock. It was only recently and after several months that the Navy reversed course and admitted that no evidence exists that this decorated officer had done anything resembling the “gross negligence or complete disregard for duty” of which he was accused. Had the Navy persisted, Chaplain Modder would have had a similar “Scarlet Letter” on his record as Monifa Sterling currently has on hers.

There is also the case of Senior Master Sgt. Larry Gallo, who wrote a piece for the Air Force Reserve Command website about the charitable work that he and his family do over Christmas. Public Affairs thought it was an inspirational story. The command disagreed.

Larry had written about how his family traveled to Mexico and Guatemala over the Christmas holidays to provide medical care to more than 720 patients in three villages. But because he did this through an organization called T.I.M.E. for Christ Medical Ministries, his article was censored.

He did not proselytize in his writing. The mere mention of his faith was enough to elicit censorship from the military command. Col. Florencio Marquinez, medical group commander for the 180th Fighter Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard, met with similar censorship when he wrote “A Spiritual Journey as a Commander” for his newsletter—even as an analogous piece by an atheist airman was allowed to stand untouched.

Then there is the Air Force Academy cadet who wrote his favorite scripture on his door’s whiteboard, only to have it removed, and the airmen at Robins Air Base in Georgia who were gagged from greeting people with the words, “Have a blessed day.” Unfortunately, the additional anecdotes about service members, particularly Christian service members, disciplined for exercising their religious liberty are too many to list here.

We at Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty hear about these cases nearly every day. They have become more numerous—and more bitter. The Pentagon appears to be egged on by a very organized and well-funded network of outside groups that believe that no room exists in the military for religious liberty.

This bold assertion has no basis in history. Since George Washington first led our military onto the battlefields of the Revolutionary War, service to God and to country have been simultaneously possible and encouraged. Chaplains were considered so indispensable to a working military that they were even drafted during the Civil War. The assault on the religious liberty of our service members is a new phenomenon.

Nor is there any basis in law for the demand that service members leave their religious liberty at the recruiting door. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), one of the key federal statutes guaranteeing religious liberty for all Americans, has always been viewed by the courts as applying to the armed services. Indeed, the US Department of Defense removed any doubt by expressly incorporating RFRA into its regulations effective January 2010.

Congress has repeatedly admonished the Pentagon in recent years that the religious liberty rights of service members must be respected; yet, the reality of life in the armed services tells a very different story. It has become hostile territory for service members, particularly those of Christian faith, who wish to freely exercise their First Amendment right to religious liberty—the very First Amendment they fight to defend, for which they are willing to die.

Religious Freedom Report 11.01.15

Religious Freedom is getting hit hard this week. From a praying coach in Washington state to gay rights activists seeking to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT. That would mean gays would be classified as a race as they wish to force themselves into the same movement as blacks at the time.  Why earn the right yourself when you can just steal the nobility of another groups battle with history? The reason is clear, though: The LGBT community knows they are not a race and there's nothing scientific anywhere to even suggest it.

The Bremerton School District in Washington State put assistant varsity football coach Joe Kennedy on paid administrative leave this week after he failed to comply with directives to stop overt public displays of religion on the field while on duty.

 The showdown raises a key question: When does a public school district’s responsibility to follow the First Amendment’s establishment clause – barring the government from endorsing or showing preference for religions – trump a staff member’s rights under the free exercise clause, meant to prohibit government interference with religious practice.

For years, Coach Kennedy had led prayers before games in the locker room and after games at the 50-yard line, but only recently did it come to the attention of a district administrator, a statement from the school district notes. When officials asked him to stop overtly involving students, he complied, but he continued to pray himself after the game, on the field.

Kennedy had recently requested a religious accommodation, which employers are required to offer, when reasonable, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“I am devastated that the school district is denying me an opportunity to privately and silently pray for my players at the 50,” Kennedy said in a statement released by the Liberty Institute, a legal organization in Plano, Texas, that advocates for religious freedom. It plans to support legal actions on behalf of Kennedy.

The school district says it has repeatedly offered Kennedy the option of using a private location for prayer at athletic facilities or the stadium.

The Liberty Institute, in a statement, says the school’s actions amount to an “unconstitutional ban on visible religious expression.”

 Houston Ballot Measure on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Threatens Privacy, Religious Freedom and Businesses

On Tuesday, citizens of Houston, Texas, will go to the polls to vote on a controversial “sexual orientation and gender identity” (dubbed SOGI) measure.
Rather than protecting equality before the law, the SOGI ordinance, euphemistically named the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), creates special legal protections based on “sexual orientation and gender identity.”
HERO, like all sexual orientation and gender identity laws, is bad public policy.
HERO does not clearly define what actions count as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Indeed, HERO leaves entirely unclear what actions could be accused of being discriminatory.
 As a result, HERO would impose new, and potentially ruinous liability on innocent citizens for alleged “discrimination” based not on objective traits, but on subjective and unverifiable identities. HERO would further increase government interference in markets, potentially discouraging economic growth and job creation.


 Bible-Citing Marine Raises Religious Freedom Questions in Appeal
  A North Carolina-based Marine will now get to challenge a court-martial conviction that raises tricky questions about military discipline and religious freedom.
Reinforced by members of Congress and some leading conservative lawyers, former Lance Cpl. Monifa F. Sterling this week convinced the nation's highest military appeals court to hear a case that started with a biblical quote and led to a demotion and orders for a bad-conduct discharge.
Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will weigh whether the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act should shield Sterling's defiance of a command that she remove the biblical quotes from her Camp Lejeune workplace.

 Huffington Post posted an article by Dale Hanson titled "Christians Still Fail to Understand Religious Freedom." It's the usual diatribe in which a left wing blogger says that when ever a Christian or conservative (from his examples), it's just because they don't understand it. Left wing blogger always set themselves on an intelligence pedestal and like to condescendingly suggest that the reason you don't get it is because you're not as smart as they are.. Ho hum.

Texas case pits religious freedom claim against whether home-school students must be educated
Laura McIntyre began educating her nine children more than a decade ago inside a vacant office at an El Paso motorcycle dealership she ran with her husband and other relatives.
Now the family is embroiled in a legal battle the Texas Supreme Court hears next week that could have broad implications on the nation's booming home-school ranks. The McIntyres are accused of failing to teach their children educational basics because they were waiting to be transported to heaven with the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Which could be written off as something one family did, but, instead  some bright light might want to use it as something to set a precedent which would go against home schooling freedom.

At issue: Where do religious liberty and parental rights to educate one's own children stop and obligations to ensure home-schooled students ever actually learn something begin?
"Parents should be allowed to decide how to educate their children, not whether to educate their children," said Rachel Coleman, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Coalition for Responsible Home Education.
Like other Texas home-school families, Laura and her husband Michael McIntyre weren't required to register with state or local educational officials. They also didn't have to teach state-approved curriculums or give standardized tests.


After the US Supreme Court legalised gay marriage in June, a new bill in Congress now seeks to provide more rights to members of the LGBT community.
The proposed Equality Act aims to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "to include sex, sexual orientation and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation," WND reported.
The proposed law would change public school desegregation standards "to provide for the assignment of students without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity."

A Human Rights Campaign (HRC) event in Chicago recently discussed how they would work to pass the Equality Act.

ADVERTISEMENT

HRC President Chad Griffing said it would be "the biggest legislative battle in the history of our movement," adding that the movement has 10 million voters "to decide elections."

---------------------------------

MEME REPORT:
MISSISSIPPI COMMON CORE MATH