Protecting Warriors from ‘Uncomfortable’ Speech

[Valin]

National Review/The Corner:

David French

May 3, 2013

 

Though it’s appalling that U.S. Army generals are meeting with an anti-Christian extemist while considering the issue of religious liberty in the military, I’ve been quite skeptical of the more alarmist reports about actual Pentagon policy. So far, reports of actual suppression of religious liberty have been isolated and infrequent, and the military’s existing protections are strong and commonsense. When I’m on active duty, I do not feel as if my religious liberty is suppressed, yet — at the same time — I know that my rights do not trump the need to accomplish my unit’s mission, and if my religious speech caused actual disruption to the mission, I can and should be disciplined.

 

The Air Force, however, may be sending mixed messages. In a statement to Fox News, a spokesperson said the following:

 

When on duty or in an official capacity, Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable. Proselytizing (inducing someone to convert to one’s faith) goes over that line.

 

Yet here is the relevant portion of official DOD policy:

 

(Snip)

 

It also infantilizes warriors. Are we to believe that our men and women in uniform can face the Taliban in battle but can’t withstand an “uncomfortable” conversation? In reality, most soldiers have thick skins, and the ones who don’t need to acquire them. Conversations within the military are wide-ranging, free-wheeling, and often conducted at rather high volume. (The one time I actually had to pull two young soldiers apart, they were about to come to blows over whether Chris Paul was the best point guard in the NBA — perhaps it is time for a strident basketball critic to be invited to the Pentagon.)

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

The Pentagon's Problem With Proselytizing

Evangelicals lately have detected worrying signals from the military.

MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY

 

In early April, Army Reserve soldiers in Pennsylvania were told in a redeployment briefing that evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics were "extremists," the same category as al Qaeda. Later that month, the Southern Baptist Convention's website was blocked on Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps bases due to what the military's software filter told Web users was "hostile content." And in early May, news reports said that an anti-Christian crusader had proposed new rules for the Pentagon so that military-service members could be court-martialed for sharing their faith.

 

But the initial reports on these matters were exaggerated, taken out of context or simply false......(Snip)

 

So is the case about Pentagon policy closed? Not at all, say some religious-liberty advocates.

 

For one thing, the Pentagon statement clarifying that military personnel would not be court-martialed if they "evangelize" also said that "proselytization" is considered a Uniform Code of Military Justice offense. Yet the definitions of those two words are almost identical: Merriam-Webster defines proselytization as "to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause" and evangelize as "to preach the gospel to or to convert to Christianity."

 

In response to the Pentagon statement, two Southern Baptist leaders issued their own statement on May 6 voicing concern about religious freedom, even while cautioning Christians to refrain from jumping to conclusions......(Snip)