God and Country

The Department of Defense put out an unusually rapid (and blunt) assessment of US Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen’s stint at the Ron Paul rally a few days ago.  In an article that covered the general restrictions of military service and political activities, the DoD said

A combat engineer assigned to the 416th Theater Engineer Company potentially violated these rules Jan. 3 when he stepped onto a stage at Ron Paul’s headquarters in Ankeny, Iowa, during the Iowa Caucus to offer a personal endorsement.

However, it also specifically noted Thorsen was not on active duty at the time, contrary to the CNN reports at the time:  Read more…

Update: US Rep Mike Hoffman (R-CO) has said troops need to be reminded of the rules involving political participation.  As noted below, there were already some official military articles on the subject.

US Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen made a name for himself Tuesday night, for better or worse.  He appeared on CNN and onstage endorsing the political candidacy of Ron Paul while he was wearing his Army fatigues.

Unlike the mystical machinations of Chris Rodda, in which she says military officers violate regulations when they express their faith on the internet, there is actually an explicit Department of Defense Directive on this type of conduct (barring an unknown mitigating factor on the Corporal’s part).  From DoDD 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, found here), an active duty military member “shall not”  Read more…

Recently, an email from an officer announcing a Bible study at Kirtland AFB was the subject of a complaint from Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, leading to the question here, “Can a military officer advertise a Bible study?”

Some relevant quotes from the original complaint, as sent to (and publicized by) the MRFF by an enlisted Airman:

During the past 6-7 months a unit commander, who is now the Deputy Group Commander decided to send mass e-mails to the wing regarding bible study sessions. These are sessions that were led by the individual sending the e-mails…a person in a command position, clearly a conflict of interest. A lot of us expressed concern about the perception that leadership is endorsing what should clearly be a chaplain endorsed and led activity.
 
Just imagine the following scenario… if you were a young Airman wanting to look good for a Below the Zone package, the Deputy Group Commander is leading a bible study, a young impressionable person might Read more…

The following email recently took a turn around the “religious complaint” circuit:

From: [ ] LtCol USAF AETC 58 OG/CD
To: 58 SOW All Personnel

Subject: 58 SOW Bible Study: Every Wed, 1200-1300 in the TRS Auditorium

You are invited to a weekly 58 SOW Bible Study on Wednesdays, from 1200-1300, in the 58 TRS Auditorium-a Chaplain-sponsored event. If you are interested, read below for more details:  Read more…

It was bound to happen.  While some have claimed the US military should not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, they’ve been unable to explain why the US military still discriminates on the basis of gender.  A new report from a Congressional panel now recommends removing those very policies.

The Defense Department should eliminate restrictions on women serving in combat units and end all “gender restrictive policies,” according to a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress.

The logic of the report is astounding:  Read more…

Recently, the Colorado Springs Gazette highlighted the “leaked” results of the USAFA climate survey, which Academy superintendent Lt Gen Michael Gould had clearly said he was not going to release.  As expected (and as the Academy likely expected), much ado was made of numbers indicating cadets had been subject to “unwanted proselytizing” or had been “approached” about their faith.

More disturbing, however, is the internal reaction and external response that seems to be becoming increasingly common:  Read more…

While there seems to remain a percentage of the American population that believes the military cannot enforce rules on moral conduct, continuing cases demonstrate that is not the case.

In the Army, a Sergeant Major was recently charged with raping a lower ranking Soldier.  Additional charges included abuse of rank, disobeying Army regulations, and adultery.

In the Air Force, a Chief Master Sergeant is facing court martial over charges of misuse of government position, failure to obey orders, indecent conduct, and adultery, among other charges.

Adultery?

Within the United States, the military remains one of the few places, if not the only, where one can still be charged with the crime of being unfaithful to one’s spouse.  Read more…

Many debates about restrictions on personal choices in the military often devolve to what the military is allowed to do with regard to “victimless” crimes or things that are legal outside the military.

The Air Force — notably, not the Department of Defense — recently changed a regulation to expand the prohibition on “mood altering substances.”

The revised language makes punitive the prohibition in the current Air Force Instruction regarding the ingestion of any substance, other than alcohol or tobacco, for the purpose of altering mood or function…

The guidance cited the designer drug “spice,” salvia divinorum, inhalants, household chemicals, solvents and prescription drug abuse.

As noted earlier, the Air Force has already discharged Airmen over use of “spice,” something which is legal in most jurisdictions in the United States.

To remind those who quickly forget, the US military can — and does — regulate personal conduct, even if that conduct is legal outside of the military and even if that “private choice” is believed not to affect any other person.

The last Military Religion Question of the Day asked if a military Chaplain’s article about God’s provision was correctly characterized by a critic:

The…Chaplain writes about why women were created (as an afterthought to keep men from being lonely), marriage as a Christian institution, and segues to a blatant Jesus salvation pitch.

The critic did not directly accuse the Chaplain of wrongdoing.  Instead, he appears to be holding the Chaplain’s beliefs up for ridicule.  Is the mockery justified?

The critic’s interpretation of the Chaplain’s description of “why women were created” Read more…

As the debate about the possible changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” occurs in the public, there seems to be some confusion about what the military can control and discipline among its troops.  For example, some (primarily those not in the military) who want to see DADT repealed seem to think the military cannot dictate personal conduct when those actions aren’t “wrong.”

Ignoring for a moment the moral judgment required to make such an assertion, the statements display a certain ignorance about military standards Read more…

On the same day someone complained in a Facebook post that a military Chaplain was “blatantly proselytizing” (in fact, just 6 minutes after the post), another Facebook post made a similar complaint about a different Chaplain:

Fans, check out this, written by a government-[employed] Chaplain in an official government publication:

Writing for the Chaplain’s Corner at Marine Corps Base Quantico, The Marine Corps Recruiting Command Chaplain writes about why women were created (as an afterthought to keep men from being lonely), marriage as a Christian institution, and segues to a blatant Jesus salvation pitch.

The article referenced is that by Chaplain Read more…

The recent Military Religion Question of the Day involved accusations that an Air National Guard Chaplain, LtCol Dan Hornok, was “blatantly proselytizing” in a commentary he published on an Air Force website.  The article and initial commentary can be seen here.

The basic questions were:

• Was the Chaplain “blatantly proselytizing?”
• What if the writer had not been a Chaplain?
• What do the Chaplain’s words—and the critic’s—say about the spiritual environment in the military?

Was the Chaplain “blatantly proselytizing?”

The shortest, most accurate answer: Read more…

A US Air Force Air National Guard Chaplain recently wrote what became a surprisingly controversial commentary:

Although I haven’t written any books in my time, I often refer to a book that speaks to the subject of happiness. It’s called the Bible. The Bible tells us that 2,000 years ago, God sent his son Jesus into the world so that through his death on our behalf, we could have a personal relationship with him. Lest we forget, Christmas speaks of that birth and the happiness that came from that. Whether you share this belief or not, my wish for all of us is that no matter what religion you identify with, that we genuinely recognize that there is hope for happiness. It is important to remember that we are never alone, and that life eventually, and ultimately, will get better.

It was part of a commentary published by Chaplain (LtCol) Daniel Hornok in anticipation of the upcoming holiday season, which is traditionally an emotional one for military members and their families.  This is true of deployed servicemembers, certainly, but also for young troops who may be experiencing their first major holidays at a new base away from home.  The Chaplain emphasized hope and the need to ‘look out for each other,’ an act that “may save a life.”

While the commentary of a Utah ANG Chaplain is probably not terribly widely read (with no offense intended to the Chaplain), and the topic (hope and support during the holidays) was one that is important to the military, it still managed to attract some negative Read more…

A recent Military Religion Question of the Day involved a sermon delivered in Afghanistan by Chaplain (LtCol) Gary Hensley.  The question and subsequent answer have already been discussed.  The discussion noted that groups used Hensley’s sermon as proof of religious impropriety in the military, though their accusations were demonstrably false.

The relationship of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to this incident, however, requires further illumination.  Read more…

Last week, a question was posed about whether a Chaplain’s sermon in Afghanistan was a violation of military rules.  The background, and links to the video, can be seen here.

So, did the Chaplain, as the accusers imply, violate military regulations due to the content of his sermon?

The shortest, most accurate answer: Read more…