Air Force Cracking Down on Christians

Gay and Lesbian service members serving openly in the military and same sex marraige being recognized by the military is still very new.

While there are states that have legalized same sex marraige, the votes were not overwhelming. There are many service members that oppose same sex marraige and there will be for some time.

I don't see the military cracking down on a service members right to think one way or another. What I do see them doing is making an effort to keep these members from making their views public to other members, as it should be in my opinion.

I think Bullet put it best in his post about lines that should not be crossed.

Make an open remark about minority sevice members and the hammer comes down quickly, I don't see any difference in this case.

The person in this article can have whatever Personal Family Ethos he wants, but keep it just that, personal.

On a side note, for the past 4 years there have been at least one Gay and one Lesbian Cadet in my son's battalion. They all knew even prior to DADT being repealed. I asked him about it one time, they said nobody could care less and it was never an issue. I am sure it is not like this everywhere, hopefully it will be some day.

+1

The number of instances where issues occur is pretty low. I'm part of a junior officer group for LGB officers across the branches in every job. For every bad story, there's 20 good ones. When I visit my fiance and happen to be in his squadron or at a squadron outing, they all know me by name (spouses included) and people like his sq commander and DO will come up to me and ask how I'm doing and when I'm going to UPT, etc. This is a fighter squadron - one of the groups like infantry that people thought wouldn't accept DADT repeal.

Another personal story shows that people who feel the need to denigrate LGB people are usually shot down by straight peers rather than any official complaints from LGB personnel. When we had our DADT repeal training at RAND (12 Lts and the UCLA LtCol Det commander), one of the Lts was not shy. He was a very evangelical person and would ask me about my own religious beliefs, church, and would question why I didn't believe (I'm agnostic). This is without knowing my orientation. At the briefing he said, "I'd be allowed to tell an alcoholic that their lifestyle is harmful and they should get help, I should be able to tell a gay person the same. It's against the Constitution that I shouldn't be allowed to express my distaste for homosexuals and how sinful their lifestyle is." By this point, I'm starting to get real uncomfortable, and at the time no one else knew about me in that room. Before the LTC said anything, just about everyone else in the room was getting up to (metaphorically) smack this guy. There were some pointed remarks to him about his oath taking priority over expressing his personal beliefs professionally. The LTC very professionally explained to him why he was incorrect and used the metaphor that replacing gay with black, white, female, foreign, etc. would be just as wrong. Needless to say, this was a positive experience for me seeing the support from peers and leadership. It was one of the reasons I was comfortable being out after repeal. Little did I know at the time that our det commander was also gay (and a prior F-15 driver).

My point is that these sensational articles you see are not the norm and used most often by people who are pissed that they can't marginalize a group they dislike or find distasteful anymore. Those types are a minority. I've worked with, went to USAFA with, and had many friends who has their religious opinion on gays but I've found overwhelmingly that they either 1) reevaluated their position after finding out their friends who happen to be gay are just like anyone else and 2) they respected me and, though holding to their position on things like religious marriage, they agreed that my civil rights (as opposed to religious rites) should be equally protected and continued to value our professional relationship and didn't bring those conflicts into the workplace.

As a more general statement, while votes weren't necessarily overwhelming overall, the votes were usually overwhelming in the <35 y/o group that constitutes the majority of military members.
 
As a more general statement, while votes weren't necessarily overwhelming overall, the votes were usually overwhelming in the <35 y/o group that constitutes the majority of military members.

Good point, and a good sign.
 
Simple truth about your service responsibilities: you take an Oath to defend the Constitution, not to your personal beliefs. When you are wearing that uniform, or in any capacity representing that uniform (such as official command communication) you are responsible to that Oath. And the Constitution clearly states that there is to be a clear separation between Church and State. Specifically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"Clearly" is a little strong, given the interpretations of "separation of church and state".

U.S. ships may fly the "church pennent" (anyone know where?) during religious services. The U.S. federal government pays for chaplains. Congress prays. People take oaths on religious books (most often the Bible)...

The simple truth is the federal government doesn't frown on, or ignore religion, it just doesn't makes laws establishing religion.
 
My point is that these sensational articles you see are not the norm and used most often by people who are pissed that they can't marginalize a group they dislike or find distasteful anymore. Those types are a minority.

This seems to be true on both sides of the "gay divide" (I just made up that term, so if it catches on, attribute it to LITS).

If I gleaned what I know from every gay/lesbian related article I read, I would think all Christians hate homosexuals. I would think everyone in the military wants to beat homosexual servicemembets. I would think homosexuals make up 75% of the population. I would think that society is "holding the gay man back".

And then I find out a VERY small portion of my friends are homosexuals. I find out some of my old classmates or shipmates are homosexuals. No one beat them. No one hates them (that I know, although I'm sure we, humans, all get our share of hate), and, suprise, no one beat them. Some of them are in command of ships or other leadership positions.

The reality I see comes into direct conflict with what I should be, according to Rachel Maddow, as a middle class, straight, white, protestant male veteran. Talk about an identity crisis! :eek:
 
Wow - lots of goods posts / food for thought here. Would love to have time / opportunity to follow-up on each of the comments here, but will limit myself to a couple of responses. Starting with:

Simple truth about your service responsibilities: you take an Oath to defend the Constitution, not to your personal beliefs. When you are wearing that uniform, or in any capacity representing that uniform (such as official command communication) you are responsible to that Oath. And the Constitution clearly states that there is to be a clear separation between Church and State. Specifically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I'd argue that such a separation is not so clear if one interprets this to mean that all forms of public personal religious expression are forfeited once you put on a uniform. Such an approach may honor the Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...), but it ignores the Free Exercise Clause (...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

The examples LITS points out in his post illustrate this as well. And it's also important to note the balance that is struck within the official military oaths themselves, for both enlisted personnel and officers, which both begin with swearing to support and defend the Constitution, and end with the phrase "So help me God" (understand in practice this phrase is optional for those who might object - but point here is that the very concept of an "oath" itself is steeped in the religious tradition of appealing to a higher power).

In my view then, these concepts are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Great in theory, of course, but obviously less elegant in practice.

While I understand it is very difficult to separate personal beliefs from your daily roles in life, it simply must be done while representing the US military.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the military has made diversity a clear priority (not a mission, but a priority) in the way we do business. Not just on race, but also religious diversity. A military commander emphasizing one religion is clearly in voilation of that push for diversity.

Bottom Line on your question: how easy is it in practice for an officer to separate communications of personal religious beliefs from command oriented communications? Thed answer is: VERY easy, you simply NEVER mix the two.

Agree that in your official capacity as an officer, your job is not to advance your own agenda, but to defend the freedom of all Americans - even those you disagree with.

I wonder in practice, however, is an officer "on duty" 24/7? Is there a place/space for personal/non-command communications, even perhaps with someone who is a subordinate in your chain of command?

For example, I noticed this from hornetguy's post:

...I've worked with, went to USAFA with, and had many friends who has their religious opinion on gays but I've found overwhelmingly that they either 1) reevaluated their position after finding out their friends who happen to be gay are just like anyone else and 2) they respected me and, though holding to their position on things like religious marriage, they agreed that my civil rights (as opposed to religious rites) should be equally protected and continued to value our professional relationship and didn't bring those conflicts into the workplace.

Sounds like in some cases at least folks in the military are able to share and discuss their own personal beliefs, and that in most cases they're able to do so in a way that is civil and respectful, even if they disagree.

I wonder then how much of crossing the line is a matter of attitude and tone? Sharing your opinions in a way that's condescending and crude, vs. honest yet respectful?

Interested to hear other's thoughts and experiences.
 
I'd argue that such a separation is not so clear if one interprets this to mean that all forms of public personal religious expression are forfeited once you put on a uniform. Such an approach may honor the Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...), but it ignores the Free Exercise Clause (...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

The examples LITS points out in his post illustrate this as well. And it's also important to note the balance that is struck within the official military oaths themselves, for both enlisted personnel and officers, which both begin with swearing to support and defend the Constitution, and end with the phrase "So help me God" (understand in practice this phrase is optional for those who might object - but point here is that the very concept of an "oath" itself is steeped in the religious tradition of appealing to a higher power).

In my view then, these concepts are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Great in theory, of course, but obviously less elegant in practice.

The examples LITS points out are all areas where the military has recognized that they need to provide for the individual servicemembers NEEDS. Providing religious services (btw, the military will also provides (and pays for) rabbis, islamic immans, and heck, even a Wican high priest or two) for the individual service member? Nothing wrong with that, and highly encouraged by the military. Invocations / opening prayers? Yeah, we do those as well (but mostly out of tradition, and frankly these are getting more frowned upon / less prevelant as the military population diversifies. And check to see just how many leaders of different faiths are invited to open a Session of Congress). Taking Oaths? People have been swaring allegiance to their leaders, kings, and pharoahs long before this became a religious practice.

But these ar all actions to support the individual member's needs. How would it look if that church pennent was permanently flown on board ship as it sailed into battle, all because the CO wanted it there?

No. There is a distinct difference between serving the individuals needs, and having to serve under a commander who is espousing his/her beliefs to you in areas that should be mission-focused, not personal belief focused.

Agree that in your official capacity as an officer, your job is not to advance your own agenda, but to defend the freedom of all Americans - even those you disagree with.

I wonder in practice, however, is an officer "on duty" 24/7? Is there a place/space for personal/non-command communications, even perhaps with someone who is a subordinate in your chain of command?

Here is the tricky part, knowing when you're acting in an official capacity versus when you are "on you own time". The official line is "you're on duty 24/7". If the boss calls at 1000 on a Sunday Morning and tells you to report to work to support a mission, well, sorry, your plans to attend Church that morning have to be put on hold. I strongly feel you understand and support this.

This is where that proverbial "line" I used is kind of fuzzy. You mention Hornet's conversations with his fiance's commanders and squadron mates. I believe all these interactions were in a "social atmosphere" (and I've been to many parties "at the boss's house" where this kind of interaction occurs). Perfectly legit to discuss personal beliefs then (CC to one of his Lts: "Hey, Giants' fan, huh? How 'bout dem Cowboys last week!!! BTW, Eli is no Peyton!"). But remember, that Lt is ALWAYS going to see that commander as THE BOSS, and THE BOSS to him is ALWAYS representing the HIGHER-UPS in his service.

But what about when the boss is sending out an e-mail to his unit? Is this EVER seen as not being official? Frankly, these messages are coming from "ON HIGH", and are always seen as official. Sending a joke to your deputy (and your deputy only)? Well, I guess that can be seen as personal. Sending it to the entire unit? Official words from the boss.

Look, I totally understand the desire to communicate personal beliefs in a manner that is honest and respectful. I simply will remind you of an old saying in the military: "The loneliest man in the Unit? The Commander. He has no "friends" or "personal relationships". Only those he leads, and only the mission to keep him company."

my personal advise to the younbg men and women who are reading this and will one day lead troops of their own? Keep your personal beliefs just that: personal.
 
my personal advise to the younbg men and women who are reading this and will one day lead troops of their own? Keep your personal beliefs just that: personal.
Very good advice in the civilian world as well.
 
Look, I totally understand the desire to communicate personal beliefs in a manner that is honest and respectful. I simply will remind you of an old saying in the military: "The loneliest man in the Unit? The Commander. He has no "friends" or "personal relationships". Only those he leads, and only the mission to keep him company."

my personal advise to the younbg men and women who are reading this and will one day lead troops of their own? Keep your personal beliefs just that: personal.

Thanks Bullet - really appreciate your insights. Generally agree with the sentiment expressed by Packer and others as well, in the sense that whatever job it is you're being paid to do, you should honor that and not abuse your authority by using it to advance your own personal agenda, religious or otherwise.

Concern I have is when folks translate this into meaning that faith is solely a personal issue, and has no place in public life. In practice, for me there is no way practically to separate my faith from the manner in which I perform my work. In fact, when I actually live and practice the values of honesty, integrity, humility, forgiveness, respect, etc., it makes me a better employee, and I imagine it would make me a better officer in the sense of the oath's "So help me God."

Such an attitude doesn't honor the Constitution either, which protects an individual's right to free expression. So I'm concerned if the message young officers of faith (and not just my own faith, mind you) would hear is they need to hide who they are or be afraid of living a life of conviction. Don't believe that's what anyone is really advocating here, but just wanted to throw that out there for perspective.

Do understand, however, how sensitive such matters can be. Which is why I found the case that started this thread to be interesting. For if SM Sgt. Monk's claims are accurate (not a given, of course), and he was ordered to express his beliefs, and then effectively punished for expressing them honestly, then I hope everyone would agree that this is crossing a line. I'd agree as well that the original Staff Sgt's actions, of expressing his beliefs on a controversial subject to trainees under his/her authority very likely crossed a line as well.

Key to defusing the situation in each case is realizing others may not share your opinions, and respecting their right to do so. Don't think that means we should be afraid to have or express our own beliefs or opinions. But it's always wise to know whether your opinions are welcome before shoving them down someone else's throat :smile:
 
Thanks Bullet - really appreciate your insights. Generally agree with the sentiment expressed by Packer and others as well, in the sense that whatever job it is you're being paid to do, you should honor that and not abuse your authority by using it to advance your own personal agenda, religious or otherwise.

Concern I have is when folks translate this into meaning that faith is solely a personal issue, and has no place in public life. In practice, for me there is no way practically to separate my faith from the manner in which I perform my work. In fact, when I actually live and practice the values of honesty, integrity, humility, forgiveness, respect, etc., it makes me a better employee, and I imagine it would make me a better officer in the sense of the oath's "So help me God."

Such an attitude doesn't honor the Constitution either, which protects an individual's right to free expression. So I'm concerned if the message young officers of faith (and not just my own faith, mind you) would hear is they need to hide who they are or be afraid of living a life of conviction. Don't believe that's what anyone is really advocating here, but just wanted to throw that out there for perspective.

Do understand, however, how sensitive such matters can be. Which is why I found the case that started this thread to be interesting. For if SM Sgt. Monk's claims are accurate (not a given, of course), and he was ordered to express his beliefs, and then effectively punished for expressing them honestly, then I hope everyone would agree that this is crossing a line. I'd agree as well that the original Staff Sgt's actions, of expressing his beliefs on a controversial subject to trainees under his/her authority very likely crossed a line as well.

Key to defusing the situation in each case is realizing others may not share your opinions, and respecting their right to do so. Don't think that means we should be afraid to have or express our own beliefs or opinions. But it's always wise to know whether your opinions are welcome before shoving them down someone else's throat :smile:

Just as a hypothetical, what if we replace gay marriage with inter-racial marriage. Or if the question is whether women should be allowed in the military. Or other races. AND (AND is required for this to be equivalent), it is based on religious interpretation/belief. It would be treated just the same, but perhaps with less outrage. Granted, Bravo, I don't think we conflict in our messages at all, I'm just adding to perspectives in general.

My understanding since I started following this story is that he was the 1st Sgt, on his way out soon anyway, and was assigned to a job commiserate with his rank. It's one thing to reassign for a disagreement if the SM is just another person in the chain of command, but because he was the 1st Sgt, it's 10x more important that he can uphold and throw his weight behind his commander's position as well as policy. Since we don't know what the actual conversation was, she may have very well felt that he would not be supportive in that capacity for her command and so reassigned him in such a way that does not punish him and allows her to seek a Shirt in line with her vision for the command. I can see it happening on a host of issues, not just gay marriage. The only thing gay marriage may add to this is that, as such a new policy, it is important to get it done right and as smooth as possible and perhaps that required a different person to make sure the process becomes normal.

Just my two cents.
 
My understanding since I started following this story is that he was the 1st Sgt, on his way out soon anyway, and was assigned to a job commiserate with his rank. It's one thing to reassign for a disagreement if the SM is just another person in the chain of command, but because he was the 1st Sgt, it's 10x more important that he can uphold and throw his weight behind his commander's position as well as policy. Since we don't know what the actual conversation was, she may have very well felt that he would not be supportive in that capacity for her command and so reassigned him in such a way that does not punish him and allows her to seek a Shirt in line with her vision for the command. I can see it happening on a host of issues, not just gay marriage. The only thing gay marriage may add to this is that, as such a new policy, it is important to get it done right and as smooth as possible and perhaps that required a different person to make sure the process becomes normal.

Just my two cents.

Thanks hornetguy - this helps add some context for those of us who are less familiar with the inner workings of military life.

Wonder what folks thoughts are about someone going to the press the way SM Sgt. Monk did? How common or appropriate is this? Courageous whistle blower? Insubordinate whiner?
 
Back
Top