The Department of Defense pushed back against allegations it was planning to court-martial Christians who might share their faith, and it tried to disavow any relationship with Michael Weinstein in the process:

Internet posts are attributing a statement that superior officers who try to convert those under their command should face court-martial to Mikey Weinstein, president of the Albuquerque, N.M.-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and are identifying him as a Pentagon advisor, Christensen noted.

“Mr. Weinstein is not part of any DOD advisory group or committee, nor is he a consultant to the Defense Department regarding religious matters,” Christensen said. “Mr. Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon April 23, with the Air Force judge advocate general and others, to include the deputy chief of chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military.”

The statements still decline to answer what about Weinstein warranted a private meeting with the top legal advisor in the entire US Air Force, a perception World Magazine picked up on:

A column appeared in The Washington Post, largely sourced by Weinstein, which portrayed him as heroically taking on and lecturing the Pentagon brass…

On that topic, the Tea Party Unity Project called on the Pentagon to “sever ties” with Weinstein, the “anti-Christian consultant.”  Similarly, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins acknowledged the DoD’s efforts, but said

While we appreciate the DOD’s public assurances, they mean nothing until the Pentagon and the Air Force take specific steps to roll back the climate of religious hostility in our military – and that includes disavowing extremists like Mikey Weinstein,” Perkins wrote…

The Liberty Institute has created an “Armed Forces Religious Liberty 800 hotline” (1-800-259-9109) and promises to defend any Christians “persecuted” for sharing their faith under DoD policies.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is launching an “investigation,” trying to not only figure out why Weinstein merited a private meeting with senior military leaders, but also why the DoD is so aggressively speaking out against a “problem” for which it cannot provide a single example:

We appreciate the Pentagon’s clarification, but little or no evidence exists of coercive proselytization in the military, so we are still troubled over what motivated the original comments…

Another group reiterated those concerns:  While disavowing sensationalism and “fomenting conspiracy theories,” the Southern Baptist Convention became the largest mainstream religious group to call for the DoD to provide an explanation of the festering controversy over its statements and its meeting with Weinstein:

We reject any and all attempts to sensationalize or misrepresent situations, in this or any other context. Having said that, we are concerned…We believe there are in some of these cases elements that are indicative of a troubling lack of respect for true religious diversity in our military. Furthermore, problematic attempts in some sectors of the military to compromise the free exercise of religion have given a sense of plausibility when other such reports emerge, even when those reports are not grounded in fact…

We agree, of course, that no one should coerce religious beliefs on anyone else. As a matter of fact, if the military were to allow some sort of coercive conversion — to any religion, including ours — we would object to such as a violation of both the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of our consciences. We believe the New Birth comes by the Spirit of Christ not by the sword of Caesar.

This behavior is, of course, clearly already prohibited as harassment. What incidents have taken place, we wonder, that would call for this seemingly arbitrary distinction between ‘evangelizing’ and ‘proselytizing’? Proselytizing, after all, includes a range of meaning, encompassing a definition of ‘seeking to recruit to a cause or to a belief.’ With a subjective interpretation and adjudication of such cases, we need reassurance that such would not restrict the free exercise of religion for our chaplains and military personnel.

The SBC also asked for a clear “clarification of commitment to safeguarding religious liberty.”

A variety of groups and people had criticized the Air Force for the statement about sharing one’s faith until others were “uncomfortable.”

The Air Force acknowledged that it was going to distribute a new “Blue Book” (text of the old one is here), but not a new regulation:

The meeting came just as the Air Force was about to distribute its new pocket-sized “Blue Book,” a compilation of regulations on appearance, conduct and work environment. It includes a section that restates a 2011 servicewide memo directing leaders to balance constitutional protections on individual exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional ban on governmental establishment of religion.

It will be interesting to see that “blue book” come out, as the description fits what is already in AFI 1-1, which just came out.  Will AFI 1-1 remain, or will General Welsh send it the way of Blues Mondays?

Also at AF.mil, the Tennessean, Ecumenical News, and the Christian Post.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---