{"id":19410,"date":"2012-11-16T02:24:50","date_gmt":"2012-11-16T05:24:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=19410"},"modified":"2015-06-27T19:12:53","modified_gmt":"2015-06-27T22:12:53","slug":"military-professors-debate-religion-in-the-military-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2012\/11\/16\/military-professors-debate-religion-in-the-military-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Military Professors Debate Religion in the Military, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Don Snider (Col, US Army, Retired), a Political Science instructor at the US Military Academy at West Point,\u00a0responded to USAFA law instructor<\/a> David Fitzkee’s (Maj, US Army, Retired) prior Parameters <\/em>article<\/a> on religious freedom with a commentary criticizing the analysis of command involvement.\u00a0 Regarding the memorandum on religious neutrality<\/a> issued last year, Snider said<\/p>\n

It seems fair to say that the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force does not trust some of his Commanders to correctly fulfill their responsibilities to \u201csupport individual Airman\u2019s needs and provide opportunities for the free exercise of religion.\u201d So, he has withdrawn autonomy from all of his Commanders to do so, turning it over to their Chaplains.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Snider accurately notes that this singles out issues of religion for separation from command guidance:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Commanders can notify their subordinates about all sorts of voluntary programs, but now must be silent about any \u201cvital\u201d programs of a religious nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Snider then, again accurately, analyzes the reason <\/em>the Air Force took this “drastic measure:”<\/p>\n

Fitzkee…gives specific insight when he notes that, \u201cfailure to understand the rights and limits concerning religious speech can adversely affect the mission…in internal investigations into allegations of violations or even lawsuits against the military, both of which entail substantial time, effort, and distraction from the mission.\u201d<\/p>\n

I interpret this to mean that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force succumbed to years of harassment by self-appointed, watchdog legalists seeking to redefine what the free exercise of religion is to be within entities of the federal government. In the process, he was willing to restrict the autonomy of commanders as if they were mere bureaucrats…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Given the recent public confessions of Michael Weinstein<\/a>, in which he admitted his unique access to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, it would seem he is the “legalist” to which Snider may have been referring.\u00a0 Snider basically says the Air Force passed a wide-reaching regulation on a focused topic to silence a critic — and then contrasts that with the Army approach:<\/p>\n

Effective mission accomplishment results from subordinate leaders at all echelons exercising disciplined initiative within the commander\u2019s intent. This requires an environment of trust and mutual understanding, a professional institutional culture rather than a highly centralized, micromanaging bureaucratic environment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, Soldiers are trusted by their leaders to command appropriately; centralized command, decentralized execution, as it were.\u00a0 Snider then makes a rather interesting suggestion on the “next” article on the topic:<\/p>\n

I suggest that the next article in Parameters <\/em>on the vital topic of the leader\u2019s role in the moral development of his or her troops, including how to support their free exercise of religion, be authored by an Army commander.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Touch\u00e9.<\/p>\n

Given a chance to respond<\/a>, Fitzkee appears to have unintentionally dug a deeper hole for himself.<\/p>\n

First, he said “we must be careful” in having military leaders guide their subordinates’ moral development — apparently ignoring the fact military leaders are ultimately responsible for their subordinates’ moral conduct.\u00a0 He then cites the “prohibited blending” of religion and the military, using the example of LtGen Ronnie Hawkins<\/a>.\u00a0 For a lawyer, it is disconcerting to see Fitzkee — again <\/em>— cite something as substantiated fact when it is not<\/em>.\u00a0 While LtGen Hawkins made the statements attributed to him, there has been no statement by the military that his statements were prohibited.\u00a0 In other words, Fitzkee is insinuating something is impermissible\u00a0when the\u00a0military <\/em>has not even said that.<\/p>\n

Then, responding to Snider’s comment the Air Force seemed to be responding to a “few” instances (one guy [craps]\u00a0his pants, everybody\u00a0wears a diaper<\/a>), Fitzkee again cites the same source\u00a0for his original paper — a collection of\u00a0commentary<\/em>, biased, at that\u00a0— as evidence of a widespread problem.\u00a0 As noted in the original discussion, it is inappropriate to cite opinions <\/em>as though they were adjudicated facts<\/em>, and it is surprising that a college professor would find such a citation acceptable.<\/p>\n

Finally, Fitzkee ends with this, addressing Snider’s proposal that an Army commander pen the next piece:<\/p>\n

This, too, presents a danger that the commander…may be perceived as using his or her official position impermissibly to advance religion. Chaplains have special training and expertise in how to minister to servicemembers\u2019 free exercise rights. Moreover, because chaplains are outside the chain of command, they are less likely than commanders to be perceived as coercively advancing religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, that fails to acknowledge chaplains have neither authority nor responsibility.\u00a0 Their duty is simply to advise the commander.\u00a0 The commander bears the responsibility — and the authority — to ensure the conduct of his unit guarantees subordinates’ religious freedom.\u00a0 Again, Fitzkee suggests\u00a0preemptive <\/em>restrictions\u00a0to avoid the possibility of a perception<\/em>\u00a0— a hypersensitive course of action nowhere required by policy, law, or regulation.\u00a0 That Fitzkee thinks it virtually impossible a commander could address the topic without being “perceived as…advanc[ing] religion” goes more to the hypersensitive culture than the commanders’ potential conduct.\u00a0 Ceasing to advocate preemptive self-censorship might help reverse the problem — which is the overly sensitive attitude toward religion, not attempts at conversion from the desk of the commander.<\/p>\n

Fitzkee seems to think military leaders should avoid religion like the plague, despite the fact that is a self-imposed restriction nowhere required.\u00a0 While that overly sensitive approach might “solve” one set of problems, it potentially creates a plethora of new ones.\u00a0 It would be far better to support the right<\/em> answer, in which the chain of command appropriately uses its authority to carry out its responsibility to its subordinates, the mission, and the American people.<\/p>\n

Might some people get offended, or someone step over a line?\u00a0 Possibly.\u00a0 But it is far better to practice <\/em>freedom and educate those who do not understand it than it is to restrict <\/em>freedom to avoid all risk.<\/p>\n

In short, Fitzkee’s response to Snider’s critique is<\/p>\n