An article at the Stars and Stripes, making a reference to the congressional testimony a couple of months ago, notes that “both sides agree” that there continues to be confusion over the US military’s policy on religious liberty. The article led with the story of US Army Chaplain (Capt) Joe Lawhorn — who was punished for mentioning his faith during a briefing and who was cited again recently in the Washington Times — as an example.

Nearly a year after the Department of Defense issued a heavily revised religious expression policy that advocates said would bring a new level of religious freedom, the dispute at Fort Benning, Ga., is evidence that the new wording hasn’t done away with old disputes. The fight over what constitutes free exercise and what qualifies as government-imposed religion remains as heated as ever.

Liberty Institute lawyer and former Marine Mike Berry made an astute observation:

Other controversial policy changes have been accompanied by guidance on implementation, Berry said.

“When ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in the military was repealed, they didn’t just tell folks, ‘OK, it’s been repealed, carry on with your lives,’ ” Berry said. “Instead, there was a program of training to ensure it was adequately understood. I think that is a pretty wise approach to take, and I think something similar should be implemented here.”

No leader wants his troops to “accidentally” run afoul of policy while acting in good faith, nor does any troop want to do so. In truth, orders are traditionally supposed to be understood to be considered a legitimate, lawful order.

Incidents can only be prevented if the policy is better explicated — something on which both critics and defenders of religious liberty in the US military agree.

Repeated at Military.com.  Also at the Religion Clause and Western Journalism.

ADVERTISEMENT