Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

Sean, the right is not being demanded. The right already exists. It was part of the founding of the country. It was along the lines of “We will agree to this new country, but only if we have certain rights.” Take away that right, the whole basis for the founding of the country goes away. Historically, courts have found that right to be pretty broad, it seems to me.

I think it’s hard to call this witnessing. At least it’s not a verse I use a lot in witnessing. It seems more like someone putting a personal thing in a personal workspace. Would this have been different had it been a picture of a child? Or a quotation from MLK Jr? Or a favorite sports team? The article says that other workspaces were decorated . So why is this different aside from the fact that it is religious (which is the very right protected; i.e., there no right to post a picture of your family, but there is a right to freedom of speech and religion). While understanding there is always more to the story, it seems that this is an issue only because it is religious. Had it not been a religious expression, it would have been allowed. And that, to me, seems to be the problem. The idea that this was a lawful order is the question. Can a officer lawfully order a soldier to do something in violation of an express constitutional right? In other words, is it valid to order someone not to express something religious?

Again, I am generally apathetic about these things and I am quite tired of the silly persecution complex that far too many Christians have.

But again I wonder, what hill do you die on if not this one? Where is the line?

It strikes me that the smart officer might have asked a chaplain in for assistance—a smart one might (a) benefit the young lady by pointing out that the verse doesn’t say what she think it means, (b) help her find religious expression that is more suitable, and (c) preserve the nerves of the workplace.

Bert, I have been called in as a Chaplain several times in issues like this; but when it has more to do with belligerence than faith, I usually am ineffective, especially when I side with the command depending on circumstances. It seems obvious to me she just had a problem with authority and like numerous other Sailors and Marines I’ve known, she ended up kicked out before her initial contract ended and the service as a whole is better without them.

[Ben Howard]

Bert, I have been called in as a Chaplain several times in issues like this; but when it has more to do with belligerence than faith, I usually am ineffective, especially when I side with the command depending on circumstances. It seems obvious to me she just had a problem with authority and like numerous other Sailors and Marines I’ve known, she ended up kicked out before her initial contract ended and the service as a whole is better without them.

Glad to see that that happens, even if you don’t “win” all the time. I would assume that occasionally you get to file a report on the matter as well? Could make the whole case very interesting, and rather uncomfortable for the plaintiff’s lawyer.

One other thing of note is that the court decision notes a hip injury and a conflict over which uniform to wear. Seems to match Ben’s and Tyler’s claims, though to be fair to her, I have to wonder where the hip injury came from. Accident, pregancy, training, what?