Yesterday, the Pentagon issued another statement regarding the rumors of a crackdown on religious speech. The Hill picked up on the comments and I have the Department of Defense statement here. In response to queries from various sources, Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen sent along the following comments:
EEOC rules do not apply to military personnel.
There is no DOD wide policy that directly addresses religious proselytizing. Furthermore, there is no effort within the department to make religious proselytizing a specific offense within the UCMJ, including under Article 134.
Service members may exercise their rights under the 1st Amendment regarding the free exercise of religion unless doing so adversely affects good order, discipline, or some other aspect of the military mission; even then, the Department seeks a reasonable religious accommodation for the service member. In general, service members may share their faith with other service members, but may not forcibly attempt to convert others of any faith or no faith to their own beliefs.
Concerns about these issues are handled on a case by case basis by the leaders of the unit involved.
Again, these comments distinguish between proselytizing and simply speaking about one’s religious views. Even Rear Admiral William Lee, who has been quoted at length recently by right-of-center groups, said he opposes proselytizing (at the end of this speech). The issue and has always been about using one’s position or other means of coercion to impose beliefs or expectations of religious behavior.
Although not bound by EEOC rules, the DoD has responded to concerns about workplace conditions which create a hostile environment and to provide accommodations when necessary to allow first amendment freedoms while maintaining order and cohesion in the ranks.
Ah, this one says “Throckmorton” all over it. Gay issues, Gen. Jerry Boykin and the FRC, the US Air Force and military religious freedom. What’s not to love?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/06/Christian-Airman-Punished-by-Lesbian-Commander-Now-Charged-with-Crime-for-Talking-to-Media-Court-Martial-Possible
Ah, this one says “Throckmorton” all over it. Gay issues, Gen. Jerry Boykin and the FRC, the US Air Force and military religious freedom. What’s not to love?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/06/Christian-Airman-Punished-by-Lesbian-Commander-Now-Charged-with-Crime-for-Talking-to-Media-Court-Martial-Possible
The aims of Weinstein and the army seem not to be identical, but only overlapping.
Weinstein wisely avoids any attack on “proselytizing” and concentrates on abuse of power by superiors. (Weinstein seems to copy the succesful business idea of the SPLC at the smaller range of the army – uncovering the Great Evangelical Conspiracy To Overthrow the U.S. Army – which logically must come top-down – and finding well-to-do people who are terrified and send him money. Which explains why he speaks about “sedition” and “treason” and this way suggests the idea of “court-martialing”.)
But the army itself seems not so much interested in the activities of superiors. I bet their dark vision is that they’ll get riots between different groups of plain soldiers because of religious controversies, and they want to forecome this.
The aims of Weinstein and the army seem not to be identical, but only overlapping.
Weinstein wisely avoids any attack on “proselytizing” and concentrates on abuse of power by superiors. (Weinstein seems to copy the succesful business idea of the SPLC at the smaller range of the army – uncovering the Great Evangelical Conspiracy To Overthrow the U.S. Army – which logically must come top-down – and finding well-to-do people who are terrified and send him money. Which explains why he speaks about “sedition” and “treason” and this way suggests the idea of “court-martialing”.)
But the army itself seems not so much interested in the activities of superiors. I bet their dark vision is that they’ll get riots between different groups of plain soldiers because of religious controversies, and they want to forecome this.
JD says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:54 pm
“the military, when asked, it could provide exactly zero examples of that happening. Ever.”
Who said there were zero examples of it happening? I would also point out, not being able to provide examples is not the same as it not happening. there are other reasons someone might not be able to provide examples, ex. confidentiality, not having direct knowledge of the situation(s), not having a procedure for reporting/cataloging those specific types of complaints etc.
And despite Weinstein’s vitriol, MRFF has documented such examples.
As for why this is an issue, it is because people (ex. Starnes), have been mis-representing the air force’s stance on this issue, implying they are going to court-martial service members for being christian.
JD says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:54 pm
“the military, when asked, it could provide exactly zero examples of that happening. Ever.”
Who said there were zero examples of it happening? I would also point out, not being able to provide examples is not the same as it not happening. there are other reasons someone might not be able to provide examples, ex. confidentiality, not having direct knowledge of the situation(s), not having a procedure for reporting/cataloging those specific types of complaints etc.
And despite Weinstein’s vitriol, MRFF has documented such examples.
As for why this is an issue, it is because people (ex. Starnes), have been mis-representing the air force’s stance on this issue, implying they are going to court-martial service members for being christian.
No, actually they don’t. They distinguish between conduct that is harassment and that which is not. He clearly avoided saying “proselytizing” was restricted, likely because of criticisms the DoD was making up its own definitions of words.
Bingo. And the military, when asked, said it could provide exactly zero examples of that happening. Ever. So why are we going through such pains to articulate a rule for a non-existent problem?
No, actually they don’t. They distinguish between conduct that is harassment and that which is not. He clearly avoided saying “proselytizing” was restricted, likely because of criticisms the DoD was making up its own definitions of words.
Bingo. And the military, when asked, said it could provide exactly zero examples of that happening. Ever. So why are we going through such pains to articulate a rule for a non-existent problem?
Status quo ante. Professional agitators drum up contributions with tempest in teapot.
I really wish people would use plain and clear speech. For example, when the WCC banned “proselytizing”, it meant every organized and intentional attempt to convert members of other Christian churches, by what means of converting ever (but didn’t include the converting of Non-Christians)!
You could perhaps say that there’s some kind of “force” (or power) behind every organized and intentional attempt, and in that case the Ltd.Cmdr’s “forcible attempt” would mean rather the same like the WCC’s “proselytizing”, only w.r.t all religions.
But eventually it seems that the army and the Ltd Cmdr wants to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate means of converting (which is a completely different problem). Only he fails to make clear where he sees the red line.
He gives the impression that the army feels threatened by conversions at gun’s point or obvious extortion. But are that the real dangers the army wants to forecome???? And if not, what kind of scenario is before his eyes? Seduction (in the colonial tradition of making “bread Christians”? Bubba telling his mate Muhammad one time too often that he should repent his sins and rely on the vicarious suffering of Jesus?
Status quo ante. Professional agitators drum up contributions with tempest in teapot.
I really wish people would use plain and clear speech. For example, when the WCC banned “proselytizing”, it meant every organized and intentional attempt to convert members of other Christian churches, by what means of converting ever (but didn’t include the converting of Non-Christians)!
You could perhaps say that there’s some kind of “force” (or power) behind every organized and intentional attempt, and in that case the Ltd.Cmdr’s “forcible attempt” would mean rather the same like the WCC’s “proselytizing”, only w.r.t all religions.
But eventually it seems that the army and the Ltd Cmdr wants to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate means of converting (which is a completely different problem). Only he fails to make clear where he sees the red line.
He gives the impression that the army feels threatened by conversions at gun’s point or obvious extortion. But are that the real dangers the army wants to forecome???? And if not, what kind of scenario is before his eyes? Seduction (in the colonial tradition of making “bread Christians”? Bubba telling his mate Muhammad one time too often that he should repent his sins and rely on the vicarious suffering of Jesus?