Two recent articles provided insight into the social treatment of Christianity in the United States.  The first, an editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette — home of the US Air Force Academy — was aptly titled “Don’t Look, there’s a Christian chapel:”

We often hear from militant atheists, who make up a small fraction of nonbelievers, about a perceived theocratic stronghold in the United States. Christians will take over government, they tell us, and must be stopped if we are to remain free from compulsory religion.

There is an appropriate acknowledgement that not all atheists are represented by the vocal — and vitriolic — minority.  There’s also a description that’s right up Michael Weinstein’s conspiracy theory alley:

If President Barack Obama says “God,” or celebrates the National Day of Prayer, he might as well have ordered every American to sign a declaration of obedience to Jesus.

In short, there is a growing perception that some critics can’t abide anything to do with religion in the public square — even basic human liberties protected by the Constitution.  Unfortunately, their ability to threaten litigation against municipalities that cannot afford it sometimes grants them a heckler’s veto — and creates an inappropriate hypersensitivity to issues of religion.

Hypersensitivity to religion, if it leads to pre-emptive censorship, could actually create an environment hostile to religion — which would be counter to the US Constitution.

On the other hand, a recent article on FoxNews entitled “The nine things that affect your car’s resale value” provided a different “teachable moment” on religion in the American culture.  After listing some things car owners could do to maximize the resale value of their car, the authors said this [emphasis added]:

A last tip? Peel off all your political stickers, honor-student announcements, college logos, Baby on Board signs, license-plate frames, and fish logos before you try to sell. Bland, inoffensive, and shiny sheetmetal panels are your best allies for a quick sale.

Why mention “fish logos” as a negative on a car?  Why not “coexist” stickers or even the Darwin version of the Ichthus?  Why mention religion at all?

They didn’t, of course.  The comment was made off-hand as a simple acknowledgement of a common cultural reference.  It’s a good bet that all of the 14 people who read that article knew what the authors meant by a “fish logo,” and its equally likely none was the least bit offended — if it registered at all.

The public perception of the military culture, by contrast, is the polar opposite.  Judging by recent events, one could be forgiven if he concluded an officer offering a “God bless you” after a subordinate’s sneeze would be open to an EO complaint for religious coercion.  Or that a chapel office that announces an upcoming Christian event, without auto-generating an off-setting atheist event, was making a governmental preference for religion.  Or that a symbol on a Bible could violate the Constitution.

In truth, the public perception of that culture is just that — perception.  A few loud complaints, and a few apparent capitulations to those complaints, makes for interesting news, but the vast majority of the US military doesn’t even care.  It goes about its business the same as it does every day — where religion, contrary to the perception, is a non-issue.

Still, there is the possibility the apparent hypersensitivity toward religion could make a measurable impact on the culture.  There’s an old military adage that lower level commanders tend to be more restrictive, not less.  The story goes that a General called for a unit formation at 0700.  The wing commander told his units to be there by 0645.  The squadron commander told his troops to be there at 0630.  Each lower commander wanted a few minutes of buffer, so when all was said and done, hundreds of Airmen were shivering in the cold at 0430 the next morning wondering why they had to stand around for hours.

In the same vein, a senior leader who “advises” his subordinates about the role of religion in the military following a public “scandal” may cause lower level commanders to take concrete action far more restrictive than (publicly) intended.

For example, after an invocation at a retirement, a unit commander counseled those involved that prayers needed to be more “inclusive.”  His guidance was based on senior leader “guidelines,” not military regulations, and the suggestion was inappropriately applied to a ceremony intended to honor an individual.  Because of the perception of pressure from above, however, this commander was under the impression the prayer offered during a retirement ceremony should have been “different.”

In short, a commander with good intentions inappropriately reacted to the religious expression of his troops — and in the process ran the risk of creating an environment within his unit that was hostile to religion.  (If offering a prayer results in counseling in the commander’s office, who will dare to do it again?)  Such a religious atmosphere actually goes against the same governing guidelines that said restrictions on religion would occur only when the mission required, and only in the least restrictive manner possible.  Even more pointedly, there had been no complaints, and there were no issues in the unit.  It was simply pre-emptive self-censorship based on nothing more than percepti0n — perception caused by hypersensitivity toward religion.

It goes without saying there will be another used car “fish logo” in the military at some point — and some atheist or critic of religious freedom will demand the military capitulate to their demands, despite the benign nature of the issue.  The US military will be drug through the mud, again, over an insignificant incident that 99.8% of the military won’t even notice.

The only remaining question is how the military will handle the incident, and whether religious hypersensitivity becomes the norm — or religious freedom prevails.