Previously, a question was posed about the accuracy of an accusation against Marine Colonel “Sam” Mundy.  The background and relevant video can be seen here.

So, did the Colonel, as the accusers assert, violate military regulations?

The shortest, most accurate answer:  No, not to our knowledge.

In the initial article, it is not entirely clear what regulation the activists are claiming Colonel Mundy violated:

In violation of military regulations, Lt. Col. Mundy appeared in full uniform on the Christian television program Total Victory Today.

Is it that he appeared on a TV show?  Is it that he was in “full uniform” (is there a partial uniform?)?  Is it that the show was Christian? 

In response to an incredulous query about what, exactly, the Colonel did wrong, the organization offered this clarification:

A military member can’t appear in uniform when the media appearance is to promote a political or religious ideology.  If LTC Mundy wanted to be on a Christian TV show, he should have done it in civilian clothes. (emphasis added)

The activists reveal the nature of their offense:  His mere presence on a “Christian TV show” in uniform was sufficient for them to judge it a violation of regulations–even though they cited no regulations to support their accusation, and no military regulation says any such thing.

What do the regulations actually say?  Let’s take a look.

Did the Colonel violate regulations because the show was “Christian?”

Like the other services, the Marine Corps falls under Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5410.18 governing public affairs and community relations activities.  In paragraph 4.2.9, it says

Community relations activities shall not support, or appear to support, any event that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization, including any religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise, to include a shopping mall or motion picture promotion.

On its face, it is apparent that Colonel Mundy’s interview did not provide a “selective benefit” to “any religious” organization.  This assertion is supported by the next sentence in the regulation:

When DoD support is provided to one non-Federal entity, the DoD Component commands or organizations providing such support must be able and willing to provide similar support to comparable events sponsored by similar non-Federal entities.

Assuming one misperceived the interview as “DoD support,” the Marines would simply have to be “able and willing” to support “comparable events by similar” agencies in order for the “benefit” to be non-selective.  As the military routinely gives interviews to a wide variety of organizations, this criterion–were it required–has already been met.

In fact, other regulations specifically permit such media interaction.  For example, SECNAVINST 5720.44B 0504 specifically says that

The appearance of Navy or Marine Corps members in [educational, religious, local community-oriented talk show, etc.] programs is authorized when [normal restrictions are met].  [That is, no commercial endorsement, etc.] (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps regulations (MCO P1020.34G) repeat the Secretary of the Navy instructions on uniform wear, which are specific regarding association with religious content (11003.1b):

Members of the Navy and Marine Corps…are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while…participating in [any] activity [when its purpose] is the furtherance of personal or partisan views on political…or religious issues except…
(1) In connection with official duties or as otherwise authorized in advance by competent authority; or
(2) Incident to attendance at or participation in a bona fide religious service or observance.

Regardless of the exceptions (which do not apply), it is evident that neither the interview nor Colonel Mundy’s statements, as filmed and publicized, furthered partisan views on religious issues–even though the organization itself may espouse them.  Thus, his wear of the uniform was not prohibited by this paragraph.  This conclusion is supported by the next paragraph in the same regulation:

Authorization to wear the uniform should be granted…when…the service member’s appearance in uniform at the particular event, viewed objectively, is not for the purpose of lending substantial weight or significance to privately held convictions or interests; would not be so construed by an observer; and that the…activity does not relate to matters in public controversy. (emphasis added)

Colonel Mundy’s appearance was not for the purpose of promoting his own convictions, as is plainly evident by his own words: He never even stated what his “convictions” were.  Some people on both sides will undoubtedly be disappointed that Colonel Mundy never said the words “Jesus Christ,” “Christian,” “faith,” or anything other than “pray” or “God.”  The interview was about as generic as was grammatically possible. 

Colonel Mundy and his interviewer discussed very little other than the facts of his involvement in the Marines and Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Indeed, most of the discussion involved what being in combat was like, not anything about being particularly religious.  In addition, Colonel Mundy’s comments were restricted to his experiences; he never mentioned the organization giving the interview or a specific religious sect. 

There was a cross on the stage (though some have had to watch the video more than once to see it), and the show’s logo on the screen had an integrated cross.  On the show, the interviewer is identified by name only (Greg Coppock is listed as a pastoral assistant at a Southern California church), and no organization is mentioned by name other than Total Victory Today (it appears to be an independent organization).

While the Colonel evidently had a personal relationship with the interviewer, the execution of the interview was on par with those given to a variety of other organizations.  The Marine regulation says that approval for his appearance should have been the default position.  Approval should have been granted if, objectively viewed, the event did not lend (or appear to lend) “substantial weight” to a private interest.

Thus, the Colonel was in compliance with regulations regarding his association, in uniform, with religious references.

Colonel Mundy’s interview did not endorse or benefit a sect or movement.  He did not endorse or support a non-Federal entity.  By regulation, Colonel Mundy was specifically authorized to appear on the show.  Because his participation did not further a partisan view on religious issues, the wear of his uniform was not prohibited; in fact, by regulation, the expectation is that he would be approved to wear the uniform.

The only fact not in the public domain is whether or not Colonel Mundy formally received permission to wear his uniform.  With due respect to those who demand government transparency, there is no regulation under which Colonel Mundy or the Marines are currently obligated to provide that information.  Regardless, no one has raised the question of permission.

The accusation that the purpose of Colonel Mundy’s “media appearance [was] to promote a…religious ideology” (emphasis added) is patently false.  The conclusory allegation that “if [he] wanted to be on a Christian TV show, he should have done it in civilian clothes,” is unsubstantiated and demonstrably wrong.

Thus, the perfunctory indictment that Colonel Mundy was in “violation of military regulations”–particularly without any reference to said regulations–is inflammatory and irresponsible.  It is evidence of a “pattern and practice” of publicly promoting unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing when military members associate themselves with the Christian faith.  The goals are to officially ostracize public expressions of faith, and unofficially stigmatize them to the point that they are self-censored.

As expected, these allegations are being accepted at face value, despite the fact that they are unsubstantiated (and ultimately wrong).  From a commenter to the article containing the accusations:

So when do we Athiests [sic], secularists and humanists finally put our power together politically?  I for one will stand proud and admit by [sic] bias for reason and logic over fear and groveling before the invisible tyrant we call “god”.  If we don’t stand up and knock this BS out of our political/military structure than [sic] it will only be a matter of time before their power takes over and we get persecuted.  It will happen.

Religion will KILL this country.  It’s truly terrifying and must be investigated. Thank you, thank you, thank you MFRR [sic] and Jeff Sharlet; I hope you guys are well protected against these so-called “Christian” zealots.  God, I hate religion (sorry for the unintended pun).

Notably, however, the carelessness of the accusations has also been brought up by at least one commenter:

And just how sure are you that LTC Mundy…broke regulations?  [H]ave you documented…whether or not he had permission to speak on the show?  If he did then he did nothing wrong and you are simply tarnishing the name of a man that is a fine Marine officer.

The commenter received no reply to what is, as has been pointed out, a very legitimate question.  Another commenter asked what regulation was violated; in response, he was provided links to the UCMJ.  The UCMJ is not relevant to the regulations in question, but it does show the ignorance that some have about the workings of the military command and control system.

As clearly explained above and demonstrated by the unambiguous video, the evident and objective purpose of the media appearance was not to promote a “religious ideology,” nor did either the Colonel or the organization use the interview to that end.  Activists are free to object to the mere (and abstract) association of a military uniform with religion.  However, they act irresponsibly when they “tarnish the good name” of a Marine by publicly and falsely accusing him of wrongdoing, when they know that not to be true.

Regrettably, this is a common technique:  display what superficially appears to be offensive and call it illegal, unconstitutional, or a violation of regulations–but provide no facts to support that claim.  Instead, they lead the readers to draw their “own,” though incorrect, conclusion.  The nature of the offense is shocking enough to some that it won’t matter that the accusation is later proven incorrect, inflammatory, and irresponsible.  The damage to the image of the Christian faith in the US military is done.

And that is the point.