Religious Freedom in the Military

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler, for putting this together. I appreciate your important work on this. This is such an important subject for us to be talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight troubled by what appears to be growing attacks on the religious freedom of those serving in our military. Our great Nation, as you all know, was founded on the principle that all men and women have a natural right to freely practice their respective faiths. These rights extend equally to the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. Our founding documents were written with the express purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of American citizens, including that of religious liberties. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In 1785, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, said:

The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction of conscience of every man, and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

He recognized that one's faith contains dictates that, barring harm to others, demand obedience from adherents. And obedience not only in thought and behavior, but also by speech and action as well. An individual's faith is inseparable from the way in which he or she lives and acts.

If the Federal Government would curtail the religious speech and action of military members, they would be clearly overstepping the bounds of the Constitution. Unfortunately, over the past several years, a string of aggressive government actions has chilled the religious practice of members of our Armed Forces. These soldiers defend our freedoms abroad but did not expect to lose those freedoms at home.

Earlier this year, an officer in the Air Force was asked to remove the Bible he kept on his desk. He was told his displaying his Bible made others uncomfortable and that he could, as a superior, be seen as forcing his religion on others.

Does this mean that President Obama has forced his religion on others when he put his hand on President Lincoln's Bible as he swore the oath of office on inauguration day? When did freedom for religion become conflated with freedom from religion?

While attempting to avoid elevating one faith above the rest--an admirable goal--the government has stifled all religion. The so-called ``protection'' from religious expression extends further into servicemembers' personal lives.

An Army chaplain's assistant was reprimanded for expressing her views informed by her faith regarding human sexuality on her own private Facebook profile. Her post was created in her free time and was only visible to her friends and family. Yet, once the post was discovered, a superior demanded she remove it or potentially face disciplinary action, including loss of rank and pay. She eventually was forced to acquiesce and remove the post.

These are not isolated incidents, but reflect an institutionwide problem.

Take, for example, a memo released September 14, 2011, to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Here is an excerpt from a section regarding visits by religious leaders:

No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.

So the memo prevented a priest visiting an ailing parishioner from bringing his Bible--or imam, his Koran--with him to the hospital. This sparked a national outcry and the memo was quickly rescinded under the claim that it was an ``accident.'' So the memo was ``accidental.''

But what about military briefings? Are they ``accidental'' as well?

Last month, several dozen U.S. Army Active and Reserve troops were advised to treat the American Family Association as a hate group. Apparently, the Christian ministry's support for traditional marriage was enough for the instructor to slap on the ``hate group'' label. Fortunately, again under public pressure, the Pentagon later retracted the label.

Similarly, a West Point think tank released a report at the beginning of the year labeling ``far right'' conservative groups, specifically those holding pro-life values, as extremists and domestic terrorists. Because a few radical and disturbed activists have used violence to further their cause, the report lumped in everyone who believed in the sanctity of all life as terrorists. It is dangerous and disingenuous to paint with such broad strokes, blaming entire groups for the terrible actions of a few individuals.

These stories are just a few examples of rising sentiment that attacks the expression of religion in our military first and then asks questions later. Taken individually, these incidents are cause for concern. Taken together, we must wonder whether this widespread activity is more than just coincidence.

We must also wonder why a distinguished institution has taken a political position in opposition and opposing those who have long championed the very values the military purports to uphold. Soldiers are being told with more frequency that religion has no place in the military. If they hope to rise in the ranks or escape punishment, they must leave their faith at the door.

The military is unique in its power to make broad demands over individual servicemembers, demands that can't be made over civilians. No one should be forced to choose between service to country and his or her faith. We must ensure that men and women in uniform have the ability to practice that faith without fear of reprimand.

The First Amendment secures the freedom of religious expression for all Americans, including those who protect our freedoms. How could we allow this liberty to be stripped away from our soldiers, our sailors, our pilots? Our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in the Armed Forces all deserve the same rights and liberties that we enjoy--the very ones that they fought to protect. Let's defend them at home as they defend us abroad.

Again, thank you Congresswoman Hartzler for doing this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source