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.

Assaults on the religious liberty of our service members needs to be stopped

Summary of an article by Ron Crews at Georgetown University:

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.

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

MEME REPORT:
#FEELTHEBERN

 

Religious Freedom Report 10.02.15 #religiousfreedom #christianlivesmatter

 A consistent theme amongst the people who oppose religious freedom is that they generally go after a person in his job or vocation. This is most notable if you are government employee, as was the case of Kim Davis and the numerous attacks by the "gay mafia" on the issue of religious conviction vs gay marriage.  The message seems to be this: You can have religious freedom, you just can't be employed at the same time. 

Bethany Blankley, Senior Editor for Constitution.com, writes:
 

The Bible is most often used when courts require oaths of office for U.S. Presidents and elected officials. The Judeo-Christian God is mentioned in all 50 state constitutions. The Supreme Court opens each session verbally declaring, “God save the United States of America.” The founders did not seek to create a theocracy understanding Biblical Christianity to be non-coercive. They understood that only through Biblical principles freedom and liberty exist (Gal. 5:1). As Dostoevsky and others from atheist countries assert, “if there is no God, everything is permitted.” 
The founders knew that in every human spirit lies an innate desire to be free. That spirit of freedom became the personification of American character. As Ronald Reagan said in 1952, “America is less of a place than an idea, and if it is an idea, and I believe that to be true, it is an idea that has been deep in the souls of Man.” As the soul informs the mind, heart, and body, it also informs every area of life in which people live—including politics The founders knew that in every human spirit lies an innate desire to be free. That spirit of freedom became the personification of American character. As Ronald Reagan said in 1952, “America is less of a place than an idea, and if it is an idea, and I believe that to be true, it is an idea that has been deep in the souls of Man.” As the soul informs the mind, heart, and body, it also informs every area of life in which people live—including politics


Mikey Weinstein continues his attacks on religious freedom and the military.  Chris D'Angelo Associate Editor, HuffPost Hawaii wrote:

A large sign was erected on a Hawaii military base in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with the message, "God bless the military, their families and the civilians who work with them."
Now, 14 years later, a nonprofit religious rights group is demanding it be removed, claiming it violates the Constitution.
In a Sept. 24 message to Col. Sean C. Killeen, commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii on Oahu, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said the sign is a "brazen violation" of the Constitution's Establishment Clause and "sends the clear message that your installation gives preference to those who hold religious beliefs over those who do not, and those who prefer a monotheistic, intervening god over other deities or theologies."

Ron Crews, executive director of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty issues the following statement:
 "Only someone with a great misunderstanding of the First Amendment or an axe to grind against religion would claim that such a slogan poses a threat or is in any way unconstitutional. The real threat is posed by those who want to whitewash any reference to God from public discourse -- even ones as innocuous and uplifting as this one."

 From the Alaska Dispatch News:
 Twenty-one states have enacted legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality, and Alaska has been grappling with the same question since 2008 when similar legislation failed.
On Tuesday night, the Anchorage Assembly expanded anti­discrimination protections in the city.
A broad social question exists about how to balance equality with religious freedom. Should we allow individuals or businesses the right to refuse services to members of the LGBT community on the grounds of religious freedom?
A public debate on just that issue took place at the Bear Tooth Theatrepub in Anchorage Wednesday evening, co-sponsored by the UAA Seawolf Debate Team and Alaska Dispatch News.   Video of that debate is HERE

 Bill Piatt, professor at the St. Mary’s University School of Law and president of the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild of San Antonio, wrote in a recent Op/ed:

Our constitutional system recognizes the delicate balance between the First Amendment’s requirements that we neither establish a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. We have long recognized, for example, the right of conscientious objectors to refrain from combat. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a religious right to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance or saluting the flag. Parents have been allowed a religious exemption from sending their children to public schools.
Similarly, employers may refrain from providing birth control to employees when they otherwise would be required to do so under the Affordable Care Act. Inmates have been allowed to exercise dietary and grooming choices in the name of religion. Employers have been required to accommodate the religious holidays of their employees.

These accommodations are sometimes controversial because of the conflicting values at issue. However, they represent a better approach than having the government attempt to force compliance in the face of a freedom of religion objection. Such coercion is counterproductive; it inflames resistance while, at the same time, it denies basic constitutional rights. Accommodating Kim Davis’ religious beliefs by allowing her to refrain from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with her deputies acting in her stead, strikes a balance.
As other matters arise involving free exercise of religion issues, we should strive for accommodation, not compulsion.


 Adventist review:

More than 17,000 people rallied at a Seventh-day Adventist-organized event in Madagascar to pledge their support for religious liberty.
The daylong “Festival of Religious Freedom,” held in a sports arena in the capital, Antananarivo, was the first such event to be held in the Indian Ocean island nation.
The festival drew community and national leaders, including Interior and Decentralization Minister Olivier Mahafaly.
The event was jointly sponsored by the Adventist Church’s Southern Indian Ocean Union and the Adventist-affiliated International Religious Liberty Association, or IRLA.
Its purpose, said organizers, was to focus national attention on an often-overlooked yet fundamental human right and to express gratitude to the government for continuing to protect the ability of all Malagasy citizens to worship in peace and security.
“It’s a civil liberty that, too often, we take for granted,” said IRLA secretary-general Ganoune Diop.
“Yet recent reports show that more than two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries where religious freedom restrictions are rated ‘high’ or ‘very high,’” Diop said. “If we cherish religious freedom, it’s good to express our gratitude, as well as call attention to the challenges others face in places where freedom is restricted by laws or by social hostility.”