Troops Punished After Refusing to Attend Evangelical Concert

[Shadow Wolf]

But the Associated Press stories I've read list the named soldier as PVT Smith. This is not an e-3 - this is an e-1 or e-2. An E-3 is a Private First Class - or PFC.

It's still irrelevant. It is outrageous that those troops were essentially grounded for not going. Yes in boot camp, basic, AIT, when they say jump you ask how high, but going to an event that is of a believe that you do not adhere to is not reasonable grounds for punishment. It is also a clear violation of the constitution in that the government is respecting the establishment of religion.

 

[Kathryn]

It's still irrelevant. It is outrageous that those troops were essentially grounded for not going. Yes in boot camp, basic, AIT, when they say jump you ask how high, but going to an event that is of a believe that you do not adhere to is not reasonable grounds for punishment. It is also a clear violation of the constitution in that the government is respecting the establishment of religion.

Yes, well in the next sentence of my post I said that whether he was an E-1, E-2 or E-3 was irrelevant.

We do not know if they were "grounded" for not going to the concert. Most evenings ALL troops are "grounded" during training. Based on the extremely scanty information we have, we do not know if any troops were "punished" because they did not attend the concert.

They may not have been punished at all, or they may have been punished the same evening, but for something other than not attending the concert, or they may have been punished for not attending the concert. A thorough investigation will certainly uncover the truth. My gosh, there are at least 200 witnesses. SURELY if the soldiers were actually punished for not attending a free, donated concert - more than two will step forward.

Furthermore, all branches of the military offer a very wide variety of religious services and events, which are definitely NOT limited to Christian services or events.

Not a single soldier was forced to attend this event. Furthermore, we simply do not know IF or WHY anyone was actually punished for not attending.

 

[tumbleweed41]

GASP - here are some MORE religious events/goings on/supplies that are financially supported by the US military:

Jewish Prayer Books for active duty personnel
Purim celebrations at Fort Hood
Hannukah celebrations on Scott AFB
The only functioning synagogue in Iraq (on Al Asad Airbase)
Jews in Green : Suffolk Y JCC Sponsors Military LecturesJewish WWI Soldier’s Honor May Receive UpgradeRabbi Boteach takes on DADTOne of my Jewish Nam experiencesThe President’s Decision to Avoid Arlington on Memorial DayJewish Fleet Week

Wiccan outdoor circle for worship and Sabbats Academy chapel to add outdoor circle to worship areas
Air Force Academy Gives Pagans, Druids and Wiccans Place To Worship
US ARMY CHAPLAIN'S HANDBOOK: EXCERPT ON WICCA

Muslim Chaplains conferences
Ramadan cultural awareness training for commanders
http://www.bragg.army.mil/82dv/Static Line/vol. 1, issue 2.pdf
Memorials with any sort of desired religious symbols at military cemeteries
(in military cemeteries, Muslim soldiers are buried on their sides, facing Mecca)
Ramadan celebrations
DVIDS - Images - Local Afghans, Coalition Forces Celebrate the End of Ramadan at Bagram Air Field

Buddhist Wesak celebrations
The U.S. Army’s First Buddhist Chaplain Performs Military Wesak Celebration « Rev. Danny Fisher

Remember, the Constitution does not guarantee us freedom FROM religion - it simply guarantees freedom OF religion. It is not against Department of Defense policy to provide both services and entertainment for the wide variety of faiths represented by active duty troops. However, keep in mind that since 70 percent of troops profess to be Christians, and only 6 percent profess any other religious belief system - most of the emphasis is going to go toward servicing the spiritual lives of the majority - while allowing freedom of religious expression by the others and offering additional support when possible.

The Concert was sponsored the Fort Eustis MWR (A division of the military). Not the USO (An organization independent of the military).

And none of the events and activities you mention would even come close to falling into the same category of proselytizing shown at the Concert.

 

[Smoke]

Every chaplain, every church and every place of worship, every religious ceremony or observation - Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, you name it - on a military installation is subsidized by the public.

I know they are. They shouldn't be.

 

[Smoke]

OH, the TYRANNY! OH, the HORROR! Listen, this sort of evening activity is perfectly normal and not even necessarily a form of punishment in the military - we have no way of knowing, based on these flimsy reports, whether or not this was a punishment, or WHY this particular group may have been being punished.

That's exactly the kind of thing I mean. You keep claiming that even if everything happened as described, it's all perfectly in order and no violation of the rights of the soldiers. Your posts drip with sarcasm and contempt for any non-Christian soldier who might wish to exercise his freedom of religion.

And yet they say they're investigating. Why, I wonder? Is it possible that even the army isn't quite as eager to toss out the rights of non-Christian soldiers are you are?

 

[Kathryn]

That's exactly the kind of thing I mean. You keep claiming that even if everything happened as described, it's all perfectly in order and no violation of the rights of the soldiers. Your posts drip with sarcasm and contempt for any non-Christian soldier who might wish to exercise his freedom of religion.

And yet they say they're investigating. Why, I wonder? Is it possible that even the army isn't quite as eager to toss out the rights of non-Christian soldiers are you are?

I'm sorry, Smoke - I've grown up and lived around active duty military personnel my entire life. I have very little patience with whining, regardless of the reason. Cleaning a barracks being called "banished to the barracks" and "lockdown" as if it was some sort of torture by the Spanish Inquisition is a bit over the top in my opinion. In the total scheme of military actions, it's about as benign as it gets.

And quit misquoting my position. I have stated repeatedly that IF the barracks cleaning assignment WAS actually punitive, and meant to punish soldiers ONLY for refusing to go to the concert -then this was clearly a breach of military policy and the officer in charge should be disciplined.

I support the religious freedoms of all Americans, and find it quite touching that the military so earnestly tries to recruit chaplains from a wide variety of religions - though it's a very daunting task on their part. I absolutely support the soldiers' rights in this case to forego the concert.

Heck, I don't like the Barlow Girls myself - I would RATHER clean a barracks than go to a Barlow Girl concert!

 

[Kathryn]

The Concert was sponsored the Fort Eustis MWR (A division of the military). Not the USO (An organization independent of the military).

And none of the events and activities you mention would even come close to falling into the same category of proselytizing shown at the Concert.

None of the events in my post that you commented on were sponsored by the USO. They were all sponsored by the Department of Defense.

And your opinion about the "proselytizing" at the concert (a free concert that no one was forced to attend, and aimed at an audience who WANTED to be there and was almost certainly predominately Christian to begin with) is just that - your opinion, based on, as far as I can tell, one article.

 

[Smoke]

I'm sorry, Smoke - I've grown up and lived around active duty military personnel my entire life.

I know you have. I suspect that anybody who's ever spent five minutes with you knows it. That's why it's so surprising that you have no respect for non-Christian soldiers.

I have very little patience with whining, regardless of the reason.

Standing up for the constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion is not "whining."

 

[Kathryn]

Sigh. The smoke sure is thick in here this morning.

Smoke - I wonder how many times I have to repeat my opinion that IF the soldiers WERE actually punished for refusing to attend this concert, then whichever officer is responsible for that decision should be disciplined, since this would obviously be a violation of military policy.

I am waiting to hear testimony from more than two soldiers out of two hundred who were involved in this incident before I make an uninformed judgment on the case. So far we've only heard one side - from one percent of the unit.

Are you truly unable to understand that?

And by the way, regarding your sarcastic comment regarding the common knowledge that I'm from a military family - do we really want to go there? I'm being extremely gracious at this moment - if you get my drift.

 

[Smoke]

I am waiting to hear testimony from more than two soldiers out of two hundred who were involved in this incident before I make an uninformed judgment on the case. So far we've only heard one side - from one percent of the unit.

Are you truly unable to understand that?

I would understand it and respect it -- if that's what you were doing. But it's not. Come on, Kathryn, your posts are there for everybody to read; there's no point in being disingenuous about it.

And by the way, regarding your sarcastic comment regarding the common knowledge that I'm from a military family - do we really want to go there? I'm being extremely gracious at this moment - if you get my drift.

If you've got something to say, Kathryn, go on and say it. And if you find me making specious and silly arguments and then claiming I'm above criticism for it because of my personal background, you go ahead and point that out.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would understand it and respect it -- if that's what you were doing. But it's not. Come on, Kathryn, your posts are there for everybody to read; there's no point in being disingenuous about it.

She did post that earlier. Why belabor the point rather than simply take her word for it? What agenda are you pushing here?

 

[tumbleweed41]

None of the events in my post that you commented on were sponsored by the USO. They were all sponsored by the Department of Defense.

And your opinion about the "proselytizing" at the concert (a free concert that no one was forced to attend, and aimed at an audience who WANTED to be there and was almost certainly predominately Christian to begin with) is just that - your opinion, based on, as far as I can tell, one article.

You are correct. I was commenting on your previous post listing all the other events available for the military and their families.

And that opinion is based on the article in The Warrior. The Official Base newspaper of Ft. Eustis.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, guys. This.

[youtube]xWhr2xevNKY[/youtube]
YouTube - GEICO Commercial - Does a former drill sergeant make a terrible therapist?

Quitcher *****in'. The truth will come out about this Barlow Girl concert and the rigors of barracks life. I'm waiting to hear from more than one percent of the unit before I decide whether or not someone's constitutional rights were abused. I keep checking the news, every day, on this matter. Nothing new yet, as far as I can tell.

And Smoke - let's put something in perspective. If a thread involves something about the military lifestyle, I've got a lot of credibility when discussing that. If a thread involves gay rights or abuses, you've got a lot of credibility when discussing that. If I wanted to stoop to your level of sarcasm, next time you're discussing gay rights, I would interject something along these lines:

"Right, Smoke, you're gay. Like you could ever let anyone forget that for a second."

Lighten up, you jackwagon.

 

[Kathryn]

You are correct. I was commenting on your previous post listing all the other events available for the military and their families.

And that opinion is based on the article in The Warrior. The Official Base newspaper of Ft. Eustis.

Ah, I was confused, because my post that you quoted had nothing to do with any USO sponsored events. They were all services offered by the Department of Defense.

And I quoted from the Fort Eustis newspaper because I thought it was interesting to get the information directly from the post in question. I have seen nothing to indicate that this event was anything other than a free concert donated by the Barlow Girls for the voluntary enjoyment of local troops and their families. If you've got information that suggests otherwise, please share.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why it's so surprising that you have no respect for non-Christian soldiers.

I've always had the impression that Kathryn treats us heathens respectfully.

 

[tumbleweed41]

According to USASpending.gov, the Department of Defense (DoD) paid the BarlowGirl's talent agency, Greg Oliver Agency, $23,000 to perform. Vince Barlow, the band's manager and father, confirmed his daughters were paid that amount for two shows, one at Fort Eustis and the other at nearby Fort Lee.
So no, they did not volunteer, they were paid by the US Government

 

[Guitar's Cry]

First of all, consider that 70 percent of active duty military and their families classify themselves as Christians. So naturally, there are more Christian based programs and events - since there are more military members and family members with those particular faith needs, interests, and wants.

Other religions only make up 6% of the military. 23% either claim to be atheist or agnostic, and 1% don't specify.

I can understand this. One of the hard (or fun, I forget which) parts of being part of a minority worldview is that we can't expect as many events and resources to conform to us. While it'd be nice for everyone to get the attention, it's just not possible.

That being said, the military DOES try. My family has been stationed on posts with Wiccan chaplains, Hindu and Buddhist chaplains, and a wide variety of religious services being offered, including Satanist services. My daughter is currently living on base at the Air Force Academy, where they not only have Wiccan services, but they even have a Wiccan religious park used specifically and only for Wiccan religious events.

That's great! Especially considering it wasn't so long ago that George W. Bush suggested that since he believes witchcraft isn't a religion, VA headstones shouldn't sport pentacles.

Not sure what the religious or spiritual needs of atheists or agnostics are - can you give me any insight into that?

I think that most atheists and agnostics are more interested in the intellectual pursuit of religion and spirituality if there is any interest. Some may be seekers. They may have more secular or psychological humanistic leanings. They may be more interested in having learning resources and talks available.

But I also don't understand military life as well as others, so I'm actually not sure what kind of freedoms folks have outside of their free time or what kind of events they may attend. Whatever it is, I think they should be secular in nature, or diverse.

And that's what bothers me about this issue. The soldiers were free to opt out of the event, but were--as the article put it--"punished."

Smith and the others were sent back to their barracks on "lockdown," a punishment that Smith said withholds even basic freedoms like using their own electronics.

Now you've stated that this isn't so much a punishment (biased article?), but is fairly normal. My problem with this is that if they are going to have "attend or go to lockdown" events, they should be secular or based on military training, not religion. Otherwise, make it a real "Spiritual Fitness" event where they are free to participate in whatever worldview they wish to explore or make it during free time. By saying either "attend or lockdown," they are in a sense forcing a particular worldview.

And I know you agree, Kathryn. You've made it clear that the commanding officer should be reprimanded.

But I'm glad this stuff is getting out there to educate folks on the religious freedoms in the military.

And, that the Christian band agrees:

Barlow Girl band member Lauren Barlow said if she and the other members of the group knew soldiers were being forced to attend the concert and were then punished for refusing to attend "we would have said something."
"That's horrible," Barlow tweeted in response to the revelations first published Thursday by MRFF's head researcher, Chris Rodda. "We never knew that. We thought they had a choice. If we would have known we would have said something."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is already against military policy to force anyone to attend religious services or events.

If events happened as the two soldiers claim they did, then EXISTING military policy was violated. Apparently, the chain of command thought that there was enough evidence, or at least ambiguity of circumstances, to force the commanding officer to issue an apology to the unit, which he did.

Like I said, apparently this wasn't enough vindication for two soldiers, who then claimed that their chain of command didn't work (even though an officer was forced, by this chain of command, to publically apologize).

I'm just wondering what they would have considered to be an appropriate response. The officer was already publically humiliated, and most likely written up formally. He has a big black mark in his personnel file. What else did they want done to him - an hour in the stocks on the town square? The Iron Maiden? What?

What makes you think they want vengeance? Why not allow for the possibility that they want an effective policy that safeguards the Constitution?

As you point out, the military already has an official policy against this sort of thing. However, the event happened anyway. This says to me that the official policy, as it was in place at the time of the incident is ineffective. I don't know what the proper way to fix it would be... my gut feeling is that better preventive oversight and guidance in the first place would be better than more punitive redress after the fact, but regardless, when story after story comes out in the press of violations of soldiers First Amendment rights, this suggests that there's a systemic problem in the military that needs to be dealt with.

But as an aside, I really don't understand why you're apparently minimizing the actions of the officers involved in this, especially as someone who is happy to point out how familiar she is with the military. Duty and honour is central to the military ethos. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the officer here violated the most fundamental oath and duty of his service - one he has sworn to die defending, if necessary. Why wouldn't this be a big deal? Or, in your experience with the US Army, do they no longer value honour and duty?

 

[Kathryn]

Good post - it's such a relief to discuss this calmly and intelligently.

What makes you think they want vengeance? Why not allow for the possibility that they want an effective policy that safeguards the Constitution?

I'm not so sure they want vengeance, though perhaps they do - that's why I asked the question. My question was "What, other than a public apology by the officer in charge, do they want?" Like I said, what needs to be determined first is if military policy was violated (and apparently that's an IF - because we don't really know if or why some of the troops were punished, since barracks cleaning duty is at least a weekly event in a training school, and it is not at all uncommon for troops' access to personal electronics to be limited even when no punishment is in place).

If so, then it seems to me that a public apology, from a captain to a group of privates, might be an appropriate reprimand and action.

However, we don't yet know the particulars of the barracks duty. We don't know if it was already scheduled, we don't know if it was a punishment for not attending the concert, or a punishment for a couple of troops mouthing off (remember, this is the military where the actions of one or two can easily result in an entire group being punished) or what - we just don't know yet, when all we're going off of is the testimony of 1 percent of the troops involved.

As you point out, the military already has an official policy against this sort of thing. However, the event happened anyway. This says to me that the official policy, as it was in place at the time of the incident is ineffective.

You know what - all sorts of policies are in place in the workplace - not just the Department of Defense but everywhere. Sexual harrassment is against the law - yet it still happens. Wage and hour laws are in place, and yet people are sometimes not paid overtime. I could go on but you get my drift. Not only the POLICY, but also the APPLICATION of the policy, has to happen. When the policy is not applied, then there must be recourse.

That's why there's a legal process to filing a complaint. PVT Smith filed a complaint with his chain of command, which resulted in a public apology from a captain to the troops.

The punishment should fit the crime, right? No one was hurt in this - they were just ****** off. Which, by the way, is a pretty constant state of mind for new recruits.

I don't know what the proper way to fix it would be... my gut feeling is that better preventive oversight and guidance in the first place would be better than more punitive redress after the fact, but regardless, when story after story comes out in the press of violations of soldiers First Amendment rights, this suggests that there's a systemic problem in the military that needs to be dealt with.

Wow, story after story? I don't recall many actual cases of First Amendment rights violations that actually were determined to have legal merit. Keep in mind the vast numbers of military personnel world wide. I wonder if you have any sources that could give us some percentages and actual data of documented first amendment rights violations in our military. Do you?

But as an aside, I really don't understand why you're apparently minimizing the actions of the officers involved in this, especially as someone who is happy to point out how familiar she is with the military. Duty and honour is central to the military ethos. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the officer here violated the most fundamental oath and duty of his service - one he has sworn to die defending, if necessary. Why wouldn't this be a big deal? Or, in your experience with the US Army, do they no longer value honour and duty?

I'm not MINIMIZING the actions - I am withholding JUDGMENT till I get more facts from more than 1 percent of the unit involved. That being said, if in fact the officer or officers WERE violating military policy, then I think they should be punished. How? Well, like issuing a public apology for starters. Then a formal reprimand in their personnel file sounds fair. Beyond that I believe would be excessive.

Officers are flawed humans too. They are going to make misjudgments and stupid mistakes on occasion. If any officer or NCO forced anyone to either attend a religious concert or be punished, then they are guilty of a violation of policy. It should perhaps be a black mark on their file, but I don't think one event like this should be a career killer. In the military, these black marks come back to haunt you. It's pretty serious, especially for an officer. I think that may be an appropriate response, and I'm looking forward to hearing what the ongoing investigation uncovers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not so sure they want vengeance, though perhaps they do - that's why I asked the question. My question was "What, other than a public apology by the officer in charge, do they want?"

You didn't just ask that. You asked very leading questions about things like stocks and torture. You portrayed further punishment as unreasonable. These sorts of rhetorical devices send a very clear message that you're trying to imply that the sentence already given is sufficient.

Like I said, what needs to be determined first is if military policy was violated (and apparently that's an IF - because we don't really know if or why some of the troops were punished, since barracks cleaning duty is at least a weekly event in a training school, and it is not at all uncommon for troops' access to personal electronics to be limited even when no punishment is in place).

Never mind that the article already stated that at this base, for this unit, it was normal for soldiers to have this time to themselves.

If so, then it seems to me that a public apology, from a captain to a group of privates, might be an appropriate reprimand and action.

... as a punishment for this specific incident. But beyond that is the question of how procedures and policies should be changed to stop similar incidents from happening in future. As you pointed out, the military has policies against this sort of thing; despite this, the incident occurred anyway. This suggests to me that the existing policy may not be doing its job.

However, we don't yet know the particulars of the barracks duty. We don't know if it was already scheduled, we don't know if it was a punishment for not attending the concert, or a punishment for a couple of troops mouthing off (remember, this is the military where the actions of one or two can easily result in an entire group being punished) or what - we just don't know yet, when all we're going off of is the testimony of 1 percent of the troops involved.

Should it matter if barracks duty was pre-scheduled? I don't think it should. It still creates a situation where the soldiers are offered a choice between an unpleasant duty and a special event specifically geared to Christians. It'd still be a First Amendment violation.

I'm not sure your idea of the group being punished for the actions of a few works, because the group wasn't punished: all the soldiers in the unit who wanted to go to the concert apparently went.

You know what - all sorts of policies are in place in the workplace - not just the Department of Defense but everywhere. Sexual harrassment is against the law - yet it still happens. Wage and hour laws are in place, and yet people are sometimes not paid overtime. I could go on but you get my drift. Not only the POLICY, but also the APPLICATION of the policy, has to happen. When the policy is not applied, then there must be recourse.

I agree with you that all sorts of undesireable things do happen even when policies are in place that are intended to stop them. However, all such policies need to be reviewed periodically, and if they aren't effective, then they need to be changed. If you've got a health and safety procedure in place but employees keep getting injured, then there's something wrong with the procedure.

That's why there's a legal process to filing a complaint. PVT Smith filed a complaint with his chain of command, which resulted in a public apology from a captain to the troops.

The punishment should fit the crime, right? No one was hurt in this - they were just ****** off. Which, by the way, is a pretty constant state of mind for new recruits.

As I've been trying to tell you, it's not just a matter of punishment. The larger issue in my mind is prevention of similar incidents in future. Deterrence through punishment is one way to deal with this, yes, but it's not the only way. It probably isn't the most effective way.

Wow, story after story? I don't recall many actual cases of First Amendment rights violations that actually were determined to have legal merit. Keep in mind the vast numbers of military personnel world wide. I wonder if you have any sources that could give us some percentages and actual data of documented first amendment rights violations in our military. Do you?

I can try to dig some stats up. Just so I know what I'm shooting for, though, could you tell me what an acceptable rate of First Amendment violations would be?

I'm not MINIMIZING the actions - I am withholding JUDGMENT till I get more facts from more than 1 percent of the unit involved. That being said, if in fact the officer or officers WERE violating military policy, then I think they should be punished. How? Well, like issuing a public apology for starters. Then a formal reprimand in their personnel file sounds fair. Beyond that I believe would be excessive.

Hmm. You seem to be arguing your position awfully forcefully for someone who claims to not have taken a position.

However, like I asked before: why would you consider it excessive to have a strong response to an officer's action that basically amounts to a violation of his most fundamental oath as a member of the United States armed forces? Frankly, if a general is willing to abandon his duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when it slightly benefits his preferred religion, how can he be trusted to protect and defend the Constitution when it comes to more vital matters?

Officers are flawed humans too. They are going to make misjudgments and stupid mistakes on occasion. If any officer or NCO forced anyone to either attend a religious concert or be punished, then they are guilty of a violation of policy. It should perhaps be a black mark on their file, but I don't think one event like this should be a career killer. In the military, these black marks come back to haunt you. It's pretty serious, especially for an officer. I think that may be an appropriate response, and I'm looking forward to hearing what the ongoing investigation uncovers.

I don't know why you keep bringing the discussion back to punishment.

I agree with you that officers are flawed human beings just like everyone else. I also recognize that the military especially acknowledges this fact: in most situations, they are very good at spelling out exactly what a positive outcome is, detailing all the steps needed to acheive it, and coming up with a way to provide oversight to ensure that the steps and the desired outcome actually happen.

In my volunteer work, we use structure and procedures that have been adopted from the military. They're very good at providing certainty and positive guidance in situations ranging from the routine and mundane to the most complex and difficult. It's not unreasonable to think that the military can figure out how to provide certainty and positive guidance in this sort of situation as well.