“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then, I said, Here am I; Send me.”  – Isaiah 6:8

From a recent article by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s researcher:

[This] Bible verse…was the theme of Secretary of the Army Pete Geren’s commencement address at West Point last year. Geren opened and closed his speech by quoting the verse, and, throughout his speech, painted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a religious struggle.

The entire text of Geren’s commencement speech, given to the US Military Academy in 2008, is available online. He mentions a religious topic four times, none as conspiratorial as the MRFF asserts.  Each citation follows:

First, he cited the verse above as an epigraph, with no expounding commentary.

Second, he spoke of religious freedom, citing Jefferson’s quotes against compelled religion:

Perhaps as no other Founding Father, Jefferson would understand the threat we face today–tyranny in the name of religion… Jefferson considered his contributions to the cause of religious freedom among his greatest achievements…The [Virginia] statute for religious freedom is known to few, but speaks powerfully to us today. Let me read from it:

“No man shall he be compelled to support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be…molested or burdened…nor shall suffer on account of his religious beliefs…All men shall be free to profess…their opinions in the matter of religion.”

Jefferson’s ideal of religious freedom and individual liberty stands in stark contrast to the malignant vision of religious oppression and the murderous practices of the Taliban and Al Qaida — to the hatred that murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 and continues its butchery today.

Two hundred years after Jefferson penned these words, your sons and daughters are fighting to protect our citizens and people around the world from zealots who would “restrain”, “molest”, “burden” and cause to “suffer” those who do not share their religious beliefs, deny us whom they call “infidels” our unalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Third, he quoted a letter from World War II that spoke of selfless officers and NCOs, that closed “Surely they must be God’s people…I’m sure they swore and drank and did a lot of other things – but I am sure God got them when they went away…”

Finally, fourth he mentioned God in his closing:

We salute you and your families for your collective courage and commitment, and we wish you Godspeed in your journey–for duty, honor and country.

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And you said, “Here am I. Send me.” Thank you. God Bless you.

The MRFF went on to say about Geren:

Because of that speech and others like it, as well as Geren’s participation in the infamous Pentagon Christian Embassy video, MRFF called last December for the incoming Obama administration to replace him.

Contrary to the MRFF’s assertions, Geren’s role in the “infamous” video was determined by the Pentagon Inspector General to be entirely appropriate, as previously noted; he followed every applicable rule regarding the relationship between government representatives and non-federal entities. Still, the MRFF continues to raise the canard that military superiors are prohibited from any form of religious expression (contrary to the Jefferson quote above: “All men shall be free to profess…their opinions in the matter of religion”).

They claim that because of the commencement speech, which does little more than cite Biblical verses, the Secretary of the Army (a civilian appointee) should be fired.  Their logic indicates that even if a government (or military) member totally disassociates himself from his official position, he still can’t speak on a religious topic. 

Second, while it is clear from the full text of the commencement that Geren did not “[paint] the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a religious struggle,” it is unclear what basis the MRFF is using to complain about Geren use of Bible quotes (other than personal offense). There is no prohibition against a government or military representative citing religious texts (as was very evidently the case in President Obama’s address in Egypt).

The fact is that Geren did nothing wrong in this case, just as he did nothing wrong in the filming for the Christian Embassy video; again, he didn’t even approach the perception of violating any applicable rule. In his words that reflected religious content, he met even the strictest interpretations of those who feel that superiors in the military should not show favoritism or endorse a religion.

To assert anything else is to say that military superiors must totally secularize their public expressions. While an increasingly popular canard by those that oppose public religious expression, the demand is inconsistent with both military regulations and the Constitution.

And yet, Weinstein’s MRFF continues to call for the unConstitutional restriction of the expression of religious words, ideas, and ideals. A pattern emerges.