General Boykin, FRC to Attend Court Martial Appeal

UPDATE: Various media outlets published coverage of the hearing, which generally appeared to go well for Sterling.  Noted at the Religion Clause, FoxNews, Washington Post, Stars and Stripes, ChristianPost, Bretibart, the Daily Caller, and NC Register, among others.  The ACLJ discussed it here.

The Family Research Council announced retired US Army LtGen Jerry Boykin would attend the oral arguments today for the appeal of US v Sterling, in which former Marine Monifa Sterling is attempting to defend the public display of Bible verses on her desk.

In this case, the court will decide whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects a Marine…lance corporal [who] desired to post the verses to give her inspiration and strength, but military superiors ordered her to remove the verses she posted.

A lower court refused to protect her religious expression, interpreting RFRA in a constrained manner to protect only certain types of religious exercise. FRC and numerous other religious freedom advocates are urging the court to overturn this harmful decision.

In point of fact, a lot of people — including 10 US states — filed briefs in support of Sterling. (Michael “Mikey” Weinstein tried to file a brief opposing her appeal but was rebuffed.)

Said Travis Weber, the FRC’s Director of Religious Liberty and former Naval pilot [emphasis added]:

While the military is certainly different from civilian society in many ways, the suppression of constitutional rights is not one of them. Service members retain their freedom of religion in the military, and indeed, are often strengthened by its exercise. Whether we all individually agree with the religious exercise at issue is not the point; what matters is the principle that all Americans have the freedom to believe and live out those beliefs.

You’d think that principled would draw self-declared advocates for military religious freedom to Sterling’s cause — though some are more concerned with stifling public displays of religion than defending religious liberty.