Comments on: The Military's Policy on Proselytizing Is Not New and Is Consistent with Federal Law

By: Scotty G.

Scotty G. — Mon, 06 May 2013 20:58:33 +0000

As has already been clearly stated, soldiers are not permitted to ‘fight back’. Thus it is up to the citizenry (and for some soldiers, that would include their parents) to fight for them.
But we wouldn’t want to infringe on anyone’s self-righteous superiority complex.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Mon, 06 May 2013 18:47:40 +0000

Yours is an invalid analogy, Rich. Evangelization is part of free exercise–the Henry point is germane. Further, these Weinstein stories about isolated incidents of harassment are already in violation of regulations. That a soldier needs their parent to fight for them is indeed an infantilization.

By: Scotty G.

Scotty G. — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:58:33 +0000

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:47:40 +0000

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:31:58 +0000

Tom, the Henry incident was more about the establishment rather than free exercise clause. It wasn’t the preaching the Gospel that was at issue but rather he wasn’t licensed by the Anglican Church. The closest analogy is like evangelical Christians at the Air Force Academy forcing themselves on Jews and other religious minorities like Mikey Weinstein’s son. Here is what he said in The Hill in 2006.
“My battle against the Air Force began two years ago (2004) when I learned that my sons, the eldest an Air Force Academy graduate and the other a cadet at the Academy, were subjected to taunts and derision because of their Jewish faith and that each had faced proselytizing both from their peers and superiors. My daughter-in-law, a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a practicing non-evangelical Christian, also found herself subjected to evangelizing.
The matter was personal, but it was very clear that it was not just my sons and daughter-in-law whose constitutional rights were being violated. Air Force personnel — non-evangelical Christians, those of minority faiths and those who chose not to worship at all — were experiencing illegal proselytizing and evangelizing.”
More of this is documented concerning this and other Christian anti-Semitism in the documentary Constantine’s Sword.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 06 May 2013 10:31:58 +0000

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Mon, 06 May 2013 02:12:50 +0000

Tom,
Not trying to gang up on you with corrections, but what you quote appears not to have been written by Matthew Franck at all. Rather, it’s by David French
Aargh. My mental typo was substituting French, the lawyer, for Franck, the constitutional scholar. Both write for NRO. Sorry.
As for this whole phony issue, my main point of agreement is that evangelizing [call it what you will] is an essential component of the evangelical Christian faith. See Patrick Henry representing the Baptists jailed for “preaching without a license.” It’s part of “free exercise.”
Nothing much will come of it except lining the pockets of professional agitator Mikey Weinstein. I further agree w/French that it infantilizes our military, that the necessary regs are already in place, and that it remains an internal military matter.

By: Christian Lawyer

Christian Lawyer — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:17:17 +0000

Tom,
Not trying to gang up on you with corrections, but what you quote appears not to have been written by Matthew Franck at all. Rather, it’s by David French, writing at NRO’s The Corner. BTW, French is an attorney (J.D. Harvard Law) at the ACLJ. The link to his post is below.* I looked for Franck’s complete piece to clarify which part of your comment was Franck and which was you. I wanted to respond since this whole controversy struck me as being way overblown given the anti-discrimination rules that govern most civilian workplaces and now Warren has helpfully done all the research for me!
French is simply incorrect. He purports to quote “the relevant portion of DOD policy,” but instead he quotes the DOD policy on religious “accommodations” titled “Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services,” #1300.17.** That’s a different issue from the DOD policy on harassment that Warren quotes above, titled “Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (EO) in the Department of Defense,” #1020.02. These directives were issued within a week of each other at the start of the Obama Administration, so it’s not a matter of one replacing the other. They are two different areas of law.
“Accommodation” concerns things like requesting kosher meals, requesting light duty during pregnancy, requesting a desk built to allow wheelchair access. In contrast “harassment” falls generally into two types: (i) “quid pro quo,” something for something, a boss who says sleep with me or I’ll fire you, or unless you profess Jesus you’ll never be officer material, and (ii) “hostile environment,” repeated mocking of religious beliefs, gender, or race or repeated unwelcome sexual advances (or invites to bible study) even if nothing is demanded or threatened. In addition to the EEOC guidelines Warren cites, below is a cite to a Q&A from the EEOC on religious discrimination that explains “accommodation” and “harassment.”***
Weinstein was talking about religious harassment and so the DOD spokesperson was responding to that point, not “singling out religious speech.” Neither were discussing accommodations. Yes, the 1st A prohibits Congress from passing laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, but Congress has authority to further efficient commerce by prohibiting discrimination (including harassment) on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, etc. By citing a policy that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion, and omitting the policy the actually governs the conduct at issue, French gives the impression that the policy and the law say one thing when they really say another.
French then focuses on the word “uncomfortable” and complains that such a standard is the “language of a politically correct college speech code.” He claims that “[i]n other words, my rights would only extend so far as your sensibilities. Such a standard obliterates the First Amendment.”
IMO, the term “uncomfortable is nothing more than a layman’s shorthand reference, in a short press statement, to the two technical legal requirements for a finding of harassment. Per the EEOC, the statements or conduct must be (i) “unwelcome,” and (ii) so pervasive or repetitive that the recipient “reasonably finds” the work environment to be “hostile or abusive.” Also, the claim must be evaluated in light of “all the surrounding circumstances, which helps raises it above an “in the eye of the beholder” standard.
Now, I acknowledge that “uncomfortable” is not as precise as the EEOC explanations, and one can reasonably argue that it didn’t adequately convey the multi-part analysis required by the law, but one would have to have actually acknowledged the existence of the harassment policy in the first place. Similarly, while there is robust debate (e.g., Profs. Volokh and Oppenheimer) about whether or to what extent harassment law violates the first amendment,**** one can’t get into that debate without acknowledging the existence of the harassment law. Without speculating about knowledge or intent, French’s citation to the wrong policy directive and omission of the applicable one is just odd.
* http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347345/protecting-warriors-uncomfortable-speech
** http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf
*** http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
**** scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=facpubs

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 05 May 2013 23:32:06 +0000

Interesting. Heartland is best known as an AstroTurf organization promoting global warming denialism.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Sun, 05 May 2013 22:12:50 +0000