Is "Religious Freedom" used as an excuse to disobey orders or refuse to conform?

2015-07-27T13:06:19-04:00

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/25/marine-vet-awaits-appeal-decision--religious-freedom-case/29926539/

In this article the Marine blatantly disobeyed orders but she is claiming her right to religious freedom was violated and now the case is still going.

Does she have a leg to stand on or is her religious freedom a separate issue than violating an order that doesn't prevent her worship/observation of her religion?

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 1:11 PM

2015-07-27T13:11:15-04:00

That one got out of hand quickly. Common sense tells me to remove the verse, but religion is not common sense and is obviously very importent in the young Devil Dogs life. But the computer is government property which the command owns. Therefore in my opinion, the verse should have been removed. I would have just told the entire section to get rid of screen savers.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 27 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-07-27T13:18:14-04:00

From my understanding, a religious accommodation can be made as long as it does not interfere with the mission.

Direct words from DoD policy states....

"It is DoD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders..." [emphasis added] To this exhortation is added, however, a critical caveat: requests for accommodation should be approved, but only "when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline."

This doesn't seem like the case.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 27 at 2015 1:19 PM

2015-07-27T13:19:22-04:00

It's like "veteran" in the media. It's sometimes an excuse to cover a plethora of sins. If I remember correctly, in this case, there was far more going on than a verse on a wall.

Also, the military is a top-down hierarchy by necessity. If someone above you says get something off of their damn wall, you take if off their damn wall.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 27 at 2015 1:19 PM

2015-07-27T13:19:30-04:00

This individual had a loooooong history of disciplinary issues and misconduct. The verses and the incident surrounding it were barely a sidenote in her proceedings, it's just the part most likely to generate headlines, so that's what the media ran with. I posted the actual transcripts of the trial a while back, I'll see if I can't dig them back up and repost them here. It's clear to see after reading them that this case had nothing to do with religious freedom.

EDIT: Found Them!

http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF

Response by SPC Joshua Heath made Jul 27 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-07-27T13:20:25-04:00

As a person leading the fight to fix another issue of religious freedom being impinged, I read this article with an interested eye to the particulars of the case. I do believe this Marines religious rights may have been violated. What harm does her displaying these religious verses in her work space cause? Do other Marines have to use that same space? If the order is nothing or any personal nature can be put up around a work space, then she violated an order. If the order is simply no religious material, was it done uniformly and fairly? The article makes me think there are other issues involved here, and that her desire to be motivated and supported by her faith while facing hardship doesn't appear to me to be a bad thing, but instead a way to perform her duties better.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 27 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-07-27T13:20:46-04:00

This specific case was brought up about a month ago. When reading the actual issue at play, you can see it was more of a "conflict of personalities" and less of a "Religious Freedom" issue. The Marine in question disobeyed multiple orders from not only her Staff NCO, but the 1st Sgt. She failed to be at her appointed place of duty. She refused to wear the uniform of the day, even after being corrected multiple times (by her SSgt & the 1stSgt).

This particular case was not about Religious Freedom. It was about two people in an antagonistic relationship, which escalated to a Special Courts Martial, after the Marine refused an NJP (after refusing to correct the deficiencies she created). The Court documents showed her command actually tried to fix the issue in multiple ways, and this was the last defense of the desperate.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-07-27T13:22:58-04:00

So we're gonna kick out a Marine for posting up religious text, which appears that it can be applied non-religiously anyways, but yet we allow people to serve with grotesque beards because it's their "religious freedom." Wha...? Am I reading this right? I mean, no, she didn't go about it properly, but I don't think it was the most lawful order anyways.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 27 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-07-27T13:28:21-04:00

I think it's worth highlighting before people start pointing out ways that the military has allowed others to stay outside of regulation based on their religious views that as SFC Michael Hasbun and Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS pointed out, there is more to the case than just the bible verse. There is some history to this service member that pushed things to the result that she got as well.

In my last unit, we had a member of the unit who tried to put a bible verse into his professional signature block. It was widely know that this service member was really spiritual and attended church more than most ministers. He even called himself "Ned Flanders" but once told to remove the verse from his signature he followed the order and did it.

The difference here is that one knew and understood the directive he was given while the other, from the reports out there, seemed to do everything and anything to get under the skin of her command.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 27 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-07-27T13:39:30-04:00

We all have the right to worship as we please. But on duty we have an obligation to follow lawful orders.

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Jul 27 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-07-27T13:53:11-04:00

This is the Marine that got got court martialed for both malingering and failure to obey a lawful order. The "religious freedom" ploy she is playing is because her SNCO told her on multiple occasion to remove a bible verse from her workspace (she works in an IPAC) as if may detract and offend other servicemembers she may have to deal with on a daily basis. The general rule of thumb is leave your religion at the door because any open display of religion is now plausible grounds for an EO case.

She got court martialed because she did not show up for duty driver because she was on light duty on multiple occasions and tried to claim that a light duty chit is a lawful order precluding someone from normal duties (it's a suggestion). She also showed up to duty out of uniform and refused to stand as she was on "light duty" again and refused when told to go and change into uniform.

The inclusion of being told to remove the bible phrase from her workspace was added into her court-martial because when a case for court martial is put together, ALL negative counselings and 6105s taken in account if they have not been previously used to validate administrative action such as a NJP. She is now using it to pad a defense appeal.

Fun fact: Court martial briefings are accessible to the public and in her case, a motion to investigate a violation of rights was put forth during her court martial and the convening authorities determined that her appeal had no merit as religious protections did not apply to the case brought forth against her.

tl;dr Shitbags will be shitbags, and people who are used to getting handouts all of their lives will try to beat a system specifically designed to hammer them into the dirt. Also, it's common knowledge that your freedoms are "reduced" upon entering Active duty service. Your religion is reserved for your domicile and you place of worship, not your workspace. Especially if that workspace is a customer service job where you deal with different people of different beliefs every hour of every day.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 27 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-07-27T13:53:22-04:00

She is in world of trouble. While I would agree that the three signs are pretty minor and need not be removed, making a case that they would be harmful to good order and discipline would be a stretch. If that were the only issues she might stand a chance. She has a few too many "I will not do it" issues and to too many people for too many things.

These signs on here desk would be much akin to someone writing something on their helmet cover that has a religious connotation to it. That was pretty standard fare back in the day. A short psalm or some other religious quote (could be secular in nature too). Would anyone have forced someone to remove the helmet cover as it might bother someone? I think not.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jul 27 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-07-27T13:54:56-04:00

I read the court martial document on this Marine. There was much more to it then just the Bible verse issue. She was disrespectful to superiors, failed to wear the proper uniform of the day citing health reasons and did not report to her duty assignment, again citing health reasons. So there clearly is pattern of misconduct with this Marine. My assumption based on experience is that she is a sub-standard Marine who is trying in part to hide behind the Bible verse issue. I would also bet money that if she had appropriately used the chain of command, she would have been able to display the verses at least during the time she was at the workstation.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Jul 27 at 2015 2:30 PM

2015-07-27T14:30:58-04:00

for what it is worth it sounds more like misconduct---should have followed the order ---reference articles 90 91 92 of the UCMJ

Response by Sgt William Biggs made Jul 27 at 2015 2:37 PM

2015-07-27T14:37:07-04:00

I love that you brought this up, but I despise the person it is centered on. This LCpl has done everything possible to piss off her command, be belligerent, and skirt regulations with the sole desire of one-upping her NCO's and SNCO's. I didn't come to this decision lightly. I read several articles, including her legal case in the Marine Corps, and she is abusing religious freedom. I find that she, and her legal team, are attempting to use her faith to portray her as a casualty of a perceived war on Christianity. Nearly every Marine that I know, that read what she did, has dealt with a terminal lance like her and they were all happy she burned.

Response by MSG Scott Swank made Jul 27 at 2015 2:47 PM

2015-07-27T14:47:24-04:00

There should be no religious concessions given to anyone in the military. You can go to church and worship how you want but everyone should wear the same uniform and conform to the military standard. NO MATTER WHAT GOD/GODS you worship! If you don't want to do that than you should get out!!!

Response by Sgt William Biggs made Jul 27 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-07-27T14:50:33-04:00

My favorite part is "In May of 2013, the appellant’s duties included sitting at
a desk and utilizing a computer to assist Marines experiencing
issues with their Common Access Cards. The appellant printed
three copies of the biblical quote “no weapon formed against me
shall prosper” on paper in 28 point font or smaller. The
appellant then cut the quotes to size and taped one along the
top of the computer tower, one above the computer monitor on the
desk, and one above the in-box. The appellant testified that
she is a Christian and that she posted the quotation in three
places to represent the Christian trinity."

The quote she used was a not-so subtle jab at the command stating that they can't hurt her. She basically no-ballsed the command and she burned for it. They were even reasonable about all the crap she pulled. They attempted everything from having a SSgt, 1st Sgt, Sgt Maj, and a Major tell her to wear her service uniform when she insisted the MO said she didn't have to.

Another quote "She testified
that the three signs represented the trinity and were a
“personal . . . mental reminder to me when I come to work, okay.
You don’t know why these people are picking on you.”

I am so glad she wasn't mine.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 27 at 2015 2:51 PM

2015-07-27T14:51:12-04:00

This is going to end badly.
Regardless of how it turns out, it is going to end badly.

For the former marine
1)If the case is not heard, she still has a bad conduct discharge which reflects negatively on her personally
2) If the case is heard, and is not over turned, She still has a bad conduct discharge, and additionally has made it worse for herself because she tried to drag the USMC through the mud on her way down
3) If the case is heard, and overturned, she gets her bad conduct discharge removed, but the other disciplinary items still exist, will come out in the trial, and makes her look like she is not only undisciplined, but litigious as well.

For the Military
1) if the case is not heard, it will become about how the military and justice system trampled an individuals rights, and then swept it under the rug.
2) If the case is heard, and rules in her favor anybody with a cause will slap a religious symbol on it, and call it exercising their freedom of religion no matter how offensive.
3) If the case is heard, and rules against her, it will be seen as the military putting rules over the needs of their people.

For Me a citizen of the United States

1) if the case is heard, regardless of outcome, our tax dollars are wasted cleaning up the mess
2) Already resources are being put into play for and against that would be better used ANYWHERE else.

If I ran a company, I would not hire this person simply because they are a toxic human being with potential to destroy everything I have built. No thank you.

Religion and spirituality are very personal journeys and beliefs. Even among people of the same faith, you will find that no two people believe exactly the same. I personally think that it can lead to a hostile work environment. "Why does have to keep reminding the entire work center." I don't care. Your faith is just that YOURS. Keep it between you, god, gods, goddesses, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever other higher power you believe in. You want to truly exercise religious freedom, don't post it in the work center. Pull your work center supervisor aside, and ask for the time you need and a quiet corner so you can worship in the manner you choose. Don't be a dick and say Nope not gonna remove that, and you can't make me. That leads to things like a court martial. A court martial that is going to end badly for everyone.

Response by SGT Christopher Churilla made Jul 27 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-07-27T15:04:40-04:00

I think this is just one part of the situation. According to the linked article, this Marine refused orders in three other incidents, but no further details are given about them. While this could be a religious freedom issue, it could also be a pattern of misconduct. Without more information on those other incdients, any discussion is pointless.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:13 PM

2015-07-27T16:13:28-04:00

Was anyone else forced to go to the religious preference service of tier choice on Sunday in basic? We were, and I had no problem with it. As a matter of fact, being a Catholic, went to confession in the pool hall. As I knelt, the Chaplain said "What's your F...n problem. My first taste of military life.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jul 27 at 2015 5:01 PM

2015-07-27T17:01:42-04:00

As a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel in a civilian supervisor for 23 years I understand the issue. There have to be some restrictions on what people can and can't do with their personal workspace otherwise like one secretary I had it will become totally cluttered with a variety of things including 20 or 30 different religious symbols. This isn't interfering with the free exercise of religion. Individuals need to request an accommodation for their religious practices if they believe it's necessary. This individual didn't.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 27 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-07-27T17:16:47-04:00

I believe that if you are in the Military, you must adhere to Military laws, rules and regulations and if you are given an order or command to do or not to do something you should comply.

When she was asked to remove the Religious content, she should have removed it. It was not her personal belongings or space or property on which she was displaying her religious words.

Her reasoning of putting them up helps her get through a stressful day....she could have taped them to the inside of her desk drawer....open the drawer and read it....or maybe tape it to the top of her desk....and or keep a book or something on top of it so it's not always visible and she can take a peek at it...

What if she disagreed with the superior...could she not go to his boss or somewhere else to discuss it or ask for permission to post it up?

If this was at her home or apartment or in her vehicle or anything she personally owned, then go for it....Even if this was a civilian job at a civilian company and she was asked to remove it, she should remove it. She should remove it because she doesn't own the company or the building or pay the bills...she is an employee and should do what is asked of her .....within reason, of course..

I believe in freedom of speech...and freedom of religion....however on Military base/Military property during Military time a person in the Military or even a civilian employee working on a Military installation should adhere to and abide by Military law/rules/regulations.

However! I do not feel that she should have been striped of her rank and court martialed. I do not see in the article that she was ever written up...or reprimanded....I do not see any where in the article that her superior sat her down and disgusted anything with her....for all I know, he did...and she may have written reprimand..and if this is the case then she should be disciplined....but a dishonorable discharge? I think it's a bit much.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 5:28 PM

2015-07-27T17:28:23-04:00

This particular case, the religious aspect is just gripping at straws. The Marine had several times refused to be where ordered in the correct uniform. But the article only mentions where she decorates her working space with text from the bible. You have no right to decorate your space you share with others, just as I have no right to paint my issued weapon. Whatever religion I may or may not subscribe to.

If you don't want to conform to the military lifestyle, then don't sign up. Because signing up is a sacrifice, not a right.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 27 at 2015 5:31 PM

2015-07-27T17:31:51-04:00

Sterling's superior, a Marine staff sergeant with whom she had a "contentious relationship" prior to the issue, ordered her to take the signs down, according to court records.

It seems to be there was great tension between these two even before this happened...like oil and water and sooner or later it was going to get ugly.

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Jul 28 at 2015 11:34 AM

2015-07-28T11:34:22-04:00

Orders are orders, we are a secular nation.

Response by Cpl Mischa Brady made Jul 28 at 2015 1:08 PM

2015-07-28T13:08:59-04:00

I read this article and others on this. She was repeat offender when it came to attitude issues and disobeying higher ranking individuals of her unit. She was purposely trying to anger and disobey orders given to her through her chain of command. This was not the first incident of her doing so, there had been multiple incidents documented prior to this incident. She should be charged and dealt with accordingly her command did what they were supposed to do.

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made Jul 29 at 2015 2:14 AM

2015-07-29T02:14:51-04:00

As a Marine I find her attempted abuse of "Religious Freedom" is Offensive and unbecoming of a Marine! Being given a Lawful Order to remove non approved signage / postings and refusing to Follow the Order was unsatisfactory. If given a lawful order you disagree with follow the order then request to speak with your O.I.C. of your Section and plead your case with Him/Her. Follow the Cain of Command That way you can not be charged with disobeying a direct order. Freedom of Religion is not applicable here she has the freedom to be a Christian there's no question about that but posting her Beliefs in her work place is against regulations and it is also in the Civilian world too. Your work area is not your personal space it belongs to the employer. (most businesses will let it go till someone complains about it) Hell I'm a person of Faith (I believe in Jesus and God) and I have my religious things that give me hope and strength in my Car or my Wallet, those are things I own so I can put whatever I want in them. Hell back in 91' when I was going through Boot Camp they told us we had to choose a faith and then they Made you go to the Church of your Faith on Sunday lol. Those of different Faiths went to their places of worship. no one was infringing on her Freedom of Religion plan and simple. Sorry Devil Dog but that is a fact.

Response by SSgt David Nace made Jul 29 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-07-29T13:49:10-04:00

The work space is not her personal space. The military does allow for some customization, same as civilian live, but you can't have whatever you want up. If a commander says that it has to come down, then that is the rule. A LCpl has zero say so, unless they can appeal to the commander to change their mind.

The problem is that if you are given a lawful command, you have to follow it.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jul 29 at 2015 10:00 PM

2015-07-29T22:00:28-04:00

It's a double edged sword. Constitution allows for religious views, but military contract decrees what the employee must do. Does the marine in this case voluntarily give up some freedoms for the job? Traditionaly this has been yes, they do give up freedoms for the contract with the military BUT, the wind is changing direction.

Response by MSgt Darum Danford made Jul 29 at 2015 10:08 PM

2015-07-29T22:08:43-04:00

While I think it's obvious her defense team is grasping at straws here but I'm interested if she ever applied for conscientious objector status. Although CO status doesn't exempt you from following orders it would certainly strengthen her religious freedom argument. Just food for thought. Personally, think this is/was a marine with discipline problems who had not fully committed to serving her Country. She needed to go.

Response by Sgt Mitchell Sporar made Jul 30 at 2015 6:13 PM

2015-07-30T18:13:22-04:00

After reading all 17 pages of the appellate Judge's review of the case .. she had NO LEG to stand on. This 'denial of religious freedom's' and 'violation of her 1st amendment rights' was a clear diversionary tactic to whip up public opinion and get the media to put heat / pressure onto the military in order to influence the ruling of the Courts. She was a shirt-bird through and through, and the worst representation of the good order and discipline that is the backbone of the Marine Corps.

I mean:
- UA (multiple counts of failure to be at her appointed place of duty),
- Out of Uniform (several times instructed to wear the proper uniform of the day and flatly refused),
- Disobedience of lawful orders (from Senior Enlisted personnel on several occasions)

Her biggest problem was clearly issues with authority figures. Likely bc she's been used to getting her way her whole life and never been in a position of being told what to do. She's likely always been able to challenge EVERY authority figure she's ever had placed in front of her as a civilian and fall back on a "race" or "gender" card as a means to diffuse any type of repercussion.

Welcome to the Marine Corps shit-bird. Or should I say, GTFOH...!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 31 at 2015 9:08 AM

2015-07-31T09:08:06-04:00

This is an older story. I've read it before and she did everything wrong. She has absolutely nothing to stand on in my opinion.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 28 at 2016 6:53 PM

2016-04-28T18:53:23-04:00

LCDR. SIR I say no, you do your duty when you sign on the line. A person can still be religious and serve in the military.

Response by MSgt Darum Danford made May 5 at 2016 1:27 PM

2016-05-05T13:27:55-04:00

It is absolutely not a reason to disobey orders. You can invoke a conscientious objector status but until that gets approved (which, like anything there is a process for) you still have to follow orders. If CO status is approved, which isn't easy, you will most likely be discharged under honorable conditions. As a member of the military you can't pick and choose what orders your going to follow, UNLESS they are not lawful orders. This case isn't about religious discrimination, as she never claimed the signs were there to support her religious beliefs. They were there to take another dig at her superiors with whom she had a contentious relationship. This "religious freedom" the media is reporting is a small portion of the misconduct... She didn't ebb get any jail time. Reduced to E-1 mad a bcd

Response by PVT Ted Rodosovich made Dec 4 at 2022 8:50 AM

2022-12-04T08:50:08-05:00

[login to see]