God and Country

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…

The blog of Operation Reveille, which says it is “Helping Service Personnel with Cross-Cultural Ministry,” has some interesting advice regarding how to handle potentially controversial situations in the current combat theatre.

For example: Can I give a Bible when asked?  Read more…

The US military has been accused of allowing its members to illegally use its official government email system to distribute messages with religious content (see background here).  These actions have been called “unConstitutional” and “a violation of military regulations.”

This e-mail distribution has violated the separation of church and state [and] violates well established [military regulations].

In one specific incident, a base Chaplain asked the staff to forward a Bible study announcement.  Did that message violate regulations, or any other policy or standard?

The shortest, most accurate answer: Read more…

This week’s question is a summary of a frequent critique that takes many forms.  In varying degrees, the US military has been accused of illegal activity for allowing personnel to use their official government email system for the distribution of email with religious content.

To narrow the controversy, one specific example occurred at Creech Air Force Base, as noted by Jason Leopold, a journalist with a colored history who often advocates for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  In the incident, Read more…

Previously, a question was posed about the propriety of a photo that showed Maj. Gen. Vincent Brooks and a flag with a Christian cross.  The photo and initial post can be seen here.  The accusation said that a regulation had been violated because it was

a photo of an Army officer giving a briefing while standing in front of a Christian flag.

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

The shortest, most accurate answer: Read more…

Like last week’s question and answer, this military religious question also comes from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The MRFF frequently trumpets a “[photo] of a military regulation being violated by a service member or at a military event” in its “Captured on Camera.”  The extent of the MRFF’s most recent accusation was this:

a photo of an Army officer giving a briefing while standing in front of a Christian flag.

Maj. Gen. Vince Brooks is shown giving a briefing with a Christian flag in the background (photo below the fold): Read more…

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:  Read more…

There have been two interesting cases of soldiers refusing to deploy.  Both were court-martialed and convicted, both share the same lawyer, and both are from Fort Hood–but the details of how they handled themselves (and the punishments they received) are in stark contrast. 

The first, Sgt. David Travis Bishop, 26, was found guilty by special court martial and sentenced to a year in jail and a bad conduct discharge, as well as a reduction in grade and fine.  Bishop reportedly began studying his Bible after a tour in Iraq and Read more…

The Washington Post writes that a Quaker has sued the Selective Service, with the assistance of the ACLU, because there is no way for him to record his status as a conscientious objector on the Selective Service registration forms.  Because of that omission and Tobin D. Jacobrown’s refusal, he will be in violation of the law requiring registration and may be unable to obtain certain federal benefits.  (As he is now 21, he has technically already violated the law, which requires him to register within 30 days of his 18th birthday.)

A Selective Service representative accurately pointed out that the system does not currently record objector status; instead, should the draft be instated, the application for such status would Read more…