The War On Religion--In Our Own Military

[Don]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...freedom-claims-rejected-by-appeals-court.html

Granted, the young Marine was discharged for several other violations -- but they all basically stemmed from her posting that bible verse around her desk.

Me, I had typed up, printed, and posted a page at my desk that said something along the lines of "If you're at my desk, be aware that I may mention God, Jesus, or the Bible, or make biblical references. If that offends you, please walk away and send me an email or leave a phone message." Somehow, I got away with it.

I don't think we have the full story on this young lady; if anyone has additional information, please share so we can comment intelligently on what looks, at face value, like an infringement on free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[Smyth]

Marines can post pretty much anything in their personal work space, except something Christian. Homosexuality in, Christianity out.

 

[rsr]

The appeals court's decision is available online. It makes for interesting reading.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2015SepTerm/150510And160223.pdf

 

[Smyth]

The appeals court's decision is available online. It makes for interesting reading.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2015SepTerm/150510And160223.pdf

The majority opinion sounds really dishonest. For example, the opinion insists that the superior didn't know the signs were Bible verses and that the religious argument wasn't raised until the trial. I don't find that credible. I think the verse,"No weapon formed against me shall prosper”, is recognizable to anyone as a Bible verse. It's also hard for me to imagine this woman and her superior in prolonged dispute without it coming up that it's a Bible verse. There's also nothing objectionable about it unless one has an objection to the Bible. I think the government lied to distance itself from charges of religious discrimination, and the majority bought the lie.

I agree with Judge Ohlson's dissent:

I conclude that the majority’s disposition of the instant
case is not consistent with these rights under RFRA.
Moreover, I conclude that the majority’s analysis of the
underlying legal issue raises the prospect that other
servicemembers in the future may be subjected to conviction
at court-martial for merely engaging in religious exercise
that is entitled to protection under the statute. Therefore, I
must respectfully dissent.

 

[SolaSaint]

I was in the USAF and I was questioned for having tracts on my desk. I never pushed them on people, but they were there for the taking. I was never punished for it. I was well liked by the command section and that probably saved me.