God and Country

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…

In May 2009, al Jazeera broadcast a show that included film from a military chapel in Afghanistan.  In the sermon, US Army Chaplain (LtCol) Gary Hensley told his congregation they had a responsibility to be a ‘witness for Jesus.’  He said:

The special forces guys—they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down.… Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That’s what we do, that’s our business.

As a result, some organizations have accused the Chaplain of violating Read more…

As previously discussed, a civilian author recently criticized a military Chaplain for “expressing contempt” for the Constitution when he made “derogatory remarks about Islam:”

When a uniformed officer of the US military makes derogatory remarks about Islam, he’s violating [his] oath and expressing contempt of the First Amendment.

The comment was made by Jeff Sharlet, posting under the moniker Ishmael, on the Daily Kos website.  Sharlet is also the author of The Family, a book that purports to be an expose on a secretive and conspiratorial religious organization (the “Christian Mafia”) attempting to influence the US government.

The comment was in defense of Chris Rodda, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation researcher, when she criticized Camp David Chaplain (LtCdr) Carey Cash for his religious views.  Sharlet’s use of the word “derogatory” notwithstanding, is he right?  Can a religious leader of one faith in the military say nothing negative about another–even if such statements are consistent with the tenets of their faith?

The core question: Can a Chaplain (or any other military officer) espouse specific, even exclusive, religious ideology?

The shortest, most accurate answer: Read more…

Update: A letter to the editor of the Stars and Stripes calls this a “bad decision,” saying other officers will have to “pick up the slack” when the Sikh soldier cannot be deployed due to his religious gear being incompatible with the chemical defense ensemble.

Earlier this year two Sikh medical students who had joined the US Army appealed the Army regulation that prevents them from wearing their articles of faith, including their beard, turban, and kirpan.  As discussed previously, a US appeals court had upheld the Army regulation.

The Sikh Coalition now reports that one of the physicians has been granted an exception to the uniform policy.  Notably, this is not the change in policy Read more…

Understandably, it is sometimes difficult to accurately convey the complicated relationships that military members have with the government and religion.  Sometimes, people with the best intentions misstate the proper role of military members; sometimes, people do so authoritatively–and ignorantly.

Recently, a well-publicized civilian author said this:

When a uniformed officer of the US military makes derogatory remarks about Islam, he’s violating [his] oath and expressing contempt of the First Amendment.

(For context, the ”uniformed officer” (who wasn’t actually in uniform at the time) was a Chaplain.)

Do you agree?

More to follow.

Update: See the discussion on this question here.

The sensitivities of religion, military uniforms, and weapons have frequently made for controversial accusations.  A few months ago, al Jazeera used creative cuts in a video of a Chaplain to imply that he was wearing a sidearm. (Though he wasn’t, others in the congregation may very well have been.)  When Christian basic trainees were photographed with their weapons during religious services, they were decried as morally equivalent to Islamic suicide bombers.

The apparent accusation is that American servicemembers should not be permitted to intermingle their uniforms, weapons, and religion.  Notably, that accusation has been applied only to Christians.  Other ideological adherents have been photographed in uniform with their weapons without complaint.

The military requirements, however,  Read more…