Wednesday, April 27, 2016

What is Happening in our Nation?

Semper Fi-red?
April 27, 2016
Can a scrap of paper end your military career? It can if it has a Bible

 verse on it. Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling found that out when her
 supervisor ordered her to take down a piece of paper with Isaiah 54:17
 written on it. When she refused, the Marines court-martialed her for it.
In the tribunal, Monifa was found guilty and demoted two ranks. Now,
 a year later, she's unemployed -- and fighting for her military life.
 This morning, after appealing her punishment, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces finally heard her case. Paul Clement,
 one of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country,
 argued for Monifa on behalf of our friends at First Liberty Institute.
FRC veterans Travis Weber and Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.)
 were in the courtroom for the trial, which, Travis pointed out, should
 be a straight-forward case. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA) protects "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
by, or central to, a system of religious belief." Obviously, posting Bible
 verses is an exercise of religion. And just because Monifa is a member
 of the military doesn't mean she has to surrender those First Amendment
 rights. Under questioning from the judges, even the government admitted
 that RFRA applies to the military. While the government tried to shift
 attention away from RFRA (since, as Travis pointed out, a straightforward
 RFRA analysis is harmful to its case), it's clear the military knew religious
 exercise was at play here and substantially burdened this exercise by
 court-martialing the service member engaged in it.
In his closing argument, Clement explained that there isn't a "magic words"
 test in applying RFRA. In addition, the trial court clearly recognized the
religious nature of the postings, he said. As far as he is concerned, the
 lower court falsely applied a far too restrictive understanding of RFRA
 and must be reversed. "A win for the appellant, in this case, is a win for
both religious exercise and the readiness of our military as a whole,"
 Travis wrote, "for our armed forces can only be strengthened as their
 individual members draw upon faith to face hardship and danger in
 battle. What should happen here? As Clement noted, there should
be an obvious application of the text of RFRA. When this analysis
s conducted, the lance corporal wins. Let us hope the court sees
 this as clearly." The First Amendment -- and the Pentagon's own
 policy -- protects troops' rights to express their faith. Service
 members give up a lot of individual rights to be in the military -
- but religious freedom isn't one of them.
Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

No comments: