Troops Punished After Refusing to Attend Evangelical Concert

[Kathryn]

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.

I was using those as an illustration to drive home the point I was making. After a public apology - is there some other punishment that these two privates expect? They've stated that "the chain of command didn't work." I want to know what they mean by that.

IF their representation of the evening's events is accurate, I do think that any further punishment of the officer in question would be excessive. So yes - not only am I IMPLYING that the sentence given is probably sufficient - I'm clearly stating it. Of course, if more serious infringements are uncovered, more serious punishment is probably in order.

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.

Here's my consistent point in all this - the article stated the opinions of ONE PERCENT of the unit. The articles (in fact so far, unless another article has been posted since yesterday, there have only been two AP releases on this matter that I can find) have not stated that the assertions of the two privates have been verified by any recent investigation as yet, other than the initial one in which the chain of command investigated and an officer issued a public apology.

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.

There's a huge difference between POLICIES and PROCEDURES. An organization can have a great policy but not a good procedure in place to implement it. Procedures/training are always the challenge after a policy is put into writing. Training must be ONGOING in any organization, but especially one where people are regularly promoted into new leadership roles. I absolutely agree that if training on Army leadership policies is inconsistent, then it needs to be beefed up. And discipline of those leaders who do not follow POLICY needs to be consistent and fair.

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.

Here's where it would help to understand more about the life of a grunt soldier. For an entry level soldier in basic training or AIT (or any other number of very structured schools) ANY free or recreational time is rare. Barracks duty is regularly scheduled - usually for one or two very specific days of the week. I can assure you that barracks duty is not going to be rescheduled just because a free concert is offered for that night and a captain decides he's going to reward the troops by allowing them to go if they want. The military couldn't give a rat's *** whether or not a group of soldiers thinks something is "fair." Any drill sgt will be the first to tell you that life's not fair anywhere, but especially not in HIS unit. Now stop being a whiny jackwagon. And while you're whining, he wants to let you know that he slept with your mama - but your sister gave better $%#@.

But here's where there may have been a mistake made by a leader - and I'm very open to the possibility (born out by FACTS rather than allegations by the way), that someone used bad judgment simply BECAUSE this was a Christian concert, rather than a secular one.

Let me ask you a question. If Marilyn Manson gave a free concert, and the troops were offered a choice - either attend, or go clean the barracks - would that be OK with you? Would you consider it a PUNISHMENT that they had to go clean the barracks -even if that duty was already on the board for that evening?

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.

[QUOTE 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.]

Like I said - policy and procedure are often two different things. Perhaps the procedure needs to be reviewed. Perhaps ongoing training needs to be revamped. This would be fairly easy to implement, because throughout every soldier's military career, before each significant promotion involving leadership responsibilities, there is a training school.

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.

If this incident occurred as the two soldiers claim it did, then yes - I agree that prevention of similar incidents in the future is important - and I believe that this could be accomplished by incorporating a bit more training during leadership schools.

My position has been that I am waiting to hear the results of further investigation before I determine whether or not I believe these two guys. Disgruntled troops who hate their NCO and unit leadership are a dime a dozen. I want more information.

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?

Let's be realistic. Let's use sexual harrassment as a comparable issue. Of course there should be zero tolerance of it. And of course sometimes there still are blatant violations. And then there are some thin lines when it comes to determining whether or not it's even occurred. That's why there are investigations which put allegations into perspective. Each alleged incident is reviewed thoroughly before discipline is enforced. Those cases that are reviewed and determined to have validity are documented and discipline is administered. Those who are determined to have no validity are dismissed. That's what I want to happen here - a fair review and action based on that review.

We cannot ever stop every incident of human stupidity, no matter how great our policies and procedures are. That's why every good policy and procedure handbook also has disciplinary procedures outlined.

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?

Oh come on. Nearly every single lawsuit or disciplinary action is based on someone's infringement of someone else's constitutional rights. Our whole system of law is based on our Constitution.

If you get in a bar fight with a guy who makes a pass at your girlfriend, and you hit him in the nose, you've possibly violated his Constitutional rights.

The punishment should fit the crime, period. Of course I believe that military leaders should protect and defend the Constitution, but I also am realistic enough to know that this duty doesn't suddenly make them incapable of misjudgment from time to time. That's where good policies and procedures come into play.

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.

That's right - and that's why I believe the right decisions will be reached regarding this case.

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.

Amen. And perhaps they already HAVE. The ongoing investigation will uncover the facts and I'm looking forward to hearing more on this case. I certainly do not want military leadership imposing religious events on anyone.

 

[Duck]

Yes, I read the story. Christian concert on base, entry level soldiers in training marched to event (which probably wasn't a long march - it is common practice for platoons in training to march in unison to most events on base during their training). Told upon arrival that they could either stay or go back and clean the barracks. 80 to 100 opted to return to the barracks, where they were made to clean the barracks and not allowed to use their cell phones or play video games or get on their personal computers, till the others returned (two soldiers called this "lockdown," and considered it punitive, but cleaning the barracks in lieu of personal time is pretty common during entry level training, and not necessarily even a punishment).

So in other words, they were not forced to attend the concert. They may or may not have been MILDLY discomforted if they chose not to - and some may consider this a form of punishment - though as far as punishments go, it certainly seems very tame and non abusive.

Was it good judgment to make the guys who didn't go to the concert clean the barracks? Maybe not - but then we also don't know yet if they were made to clean it because they didn't attend the concert, or if it was a regularly scheduled weekly thing, or if some of them got mouthy about something and in response the group was mildly punished. We don't really know WHY they had to clean the barracks.

You're forming opinions based on the word of two soldiers, one of which is anonymous. I am waiting to hear from other soldiers who were there before I get lambastic.

You keep referencing cleaning the barracks as opposed to the "lockdown", where did you get this information? I can't find that referenced in the article. Assuming that it was barracks cleanup vice 'restriction' to the barracks (restriction being the Navy term, I guess "lockdown" is the Army equivalent) then I can see both sides, the Company Commander not feeling it a punishment, as that is something needed to be done, and the Soldiers point of 'I am being unfairly punished for not following my CC's religious affiliation by not attending the General's tent meeting. Because I and those others not attending the show are cleaning instead of relaxing/enjoying ourselves like the others are.'

However, a number of things caught my eye in the article in particular these paragraphs:

"So, Smith and another anonymous soldier decided to take action. They filed an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint against their commanding officers, but Smith said the complaint fell on deaf ears.

Smith said the first EO officer they spoke with told them that nothing was wrong, and their complaint would simply become another "statistic." Smith and the anonymous solider sought out other EO officers and took their case up the chain of command.


"We were wasting our breath," he said."


While the EO system is not always clearly understood by the junior ranks, I think that this was probably an accurate statement on the part of Smith. I think that the soldier who remained anonymous knew that, and while outraged enough to complain, wasn't outraged enough to be willing to attach his name and face retribution over the complaint.


How much you want to bet that Smith is considered to be a trouble maker in his new unit?

 

[Duck]

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.

You keep pointing this out. Are you familiar with the Tailhook scandal from the early 90's? Where about 87 women were sexually assaulted? There were 4000 attendees at the event. 87/4000 ~ 2% of the attendees. Should we have dismissed out of hand, until more people came forward, the violation of rights experienced by those 2% of attendees? Granted that 2% is over twice the percentage of the people whose rights were potentially violated in this case, so perhaps that is the threshold needed.

I will grant that there are conflicting articles regarding this event and that there is some level of investigation on going.

Personally, I think that the guy has a case. Having been called a 'devil worshipper' by my Leading Petty Officer while I was enlisted, simply because I was friends with the sole open Wiccan in our watch section (and probably on the ship, I was closeted about my Heathenry -- on the advice of an Air Force Vet - my godhi at the time), I feel this guy's pain.

 

[Kathryn]

You keep pointing this out. Are you familiar with the Tailhook scandal from the early 90's? Where about 87 women were sexually assaulted? There were 4000 attendees at the event. 87/4000 ~ 2% of the attendees. Should we have dismissed out of hand, until more people came forward, the violation of rights experienced by those 2% of attendees? Granted that 2% is over twice the percentage of the people whose rights were potentially violated in this case, so perhaps that is the threshold needed.

I keep pointing this out because according to this 1 percent, nearly HALF of the unit was "punished." This does not compare with the Tailhook scandal well, because in that scandal, only 2 percent of the attendees had their rights violated, not HALF of the attendees. And of course, I agree that the toleration level of the violation of rights should be zero percent. My point is that if half the unit was violated, one would think that more than 1 percent of them would be complaining. I am waiting to hear from more of the 80 or so guys who supposedly were punished before I make up my mind about the situation.

Personally, I think that the guy has a case. Having been called a 'devil worshipper' by my Leading Petty Officer while I was enlisted, simply because I was friends with the sole open Wiccan in our watch section (and probably on the ship, I was closeted about my Heathenry -- on the advice of an Air Force Vet - my godhi at the time), I feel this guy's pain.

Hey, the guy may have a case. If he does, the ongoing investigation should bring more witnesses to the table, and if there was a violation of rights, I hope the perpetrators are disciplined.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hey, the guy may have a case. If he does, the ongoing investigation should bring more witnesses to the table, and if there was a violation of rights, I hope the perpetrators are disciplined.

Would that include whoever was in charge of approving the concert and paying for a overtly evangelical Christian band with government funds?

 

[Kathryn]

Would that include whoever was in charge of approving the concert and paying for a overtly evangelical Christian band with government funds?

If military policy was violated by this expenditure, then those who approved it should be disciplined.

I do not know if existing military policy was violated, however. There is a budget for all sorts of entertainment, and for religious/chaplain based activities as well. Considering that 70 percent of military personnel claim to be Christian, it would stand to reason that a large chunk of such a budget might be justified in addressing the needs of 70 percent of personnel. Only 6 percent of military personnel claim a religion other than Christianity. So - maybe 6 percent of the budget should go toward other events to meet their needs.

But I'm just pontificating. I have no idea whether or not any part of the military budget for either entertainment or meeting spiritual needs was misused in this case. If it was, let heads roll.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If military policy was violated by this expenditure, then those who approved it should be disciplined.

I do not know if existing military policy was violated, however. There is a budget for all sorts of entertainment, and for religious/chaplain based activities as well. Considering that 70 percent of military personnel claim to be Christian, it would stand to reason that a large chunk of such a budget might be justified in addressing the needs of 70 percent of personnel. Only 6 percent of military personnel claim a religion other than Christianity. So - maybe 6 percent of the budget should go toward other events to meet their needs.

But I'm just pontificating. I have no idea whether or not any part of the military budget for either entertainment or meeting spiritual needs was misused in this case. If it was, let heads roll.

The only time the percentage of religious practitioners should be of an concern is when considering the commissioning of chaplains. Military or Government endorsement of any religion is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The only exception being the commission of Chaplains to serve the spiritual needs of solders.

Official Military stance...

• Military officials must fully accommodate the rights of service members to believe or not to believe in any particular religious doctrine (or even a Deity).
• Military officials must ensure that service members are neither punished for their beliefs nor subjected to unwanted proselytizing or evangelizing from military chaplains or senior officers and noncommissioned officers, even if the proselytizing or evangelizing is intended as a good-faith effort to salvage the spiritual health of the service members.
• Military officials may not subject members of the armed forces to involuntary worship or prayers, particularly when the full power of the government backed by punitive action under the UCMJ* is employed to command their presence and participation.
• Except when good order and military discipline are threatened, military officials may not discriminate against any particular religious sect or denomination, especially based upon the belief system of the sect or denomination.