Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

[Ringo]

Link Removed​

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

“Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”

​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The only thing that matters to me would be if it was her computer or 'her computer' that's actually the property of the government.

 

[aacx22]

More BS. The article states at the start:

A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer

Then goes on:

Berry said the supervisor cursed at Sterling and ordered her to immediately remove the verses. She refused the order. The following day, she discovered the verses had been removed and thrown in the trash.

Since the article clearly downplays the amount of verses, and misleadingly suggests that she was court martialed for ONE quote, the whole article is suspect. She also doesn't own the computer, nor the desk, nor the office. There is definitely more to this than is presented. I also have no problem with her leadership limiting how much she could personalize a desk that she shared with others.

 

[SR9]

I think the point is, if I was Gov. property (the desk and computer), they have a legal right to restrict what it I used for. If it was her own personal property, then no. Even though most Liberal Progressive anti-theological personnel in the Gov. would like to do away with all religious thought, they never will be able to. People in the military are fighting for freedom. Freedom comes from God, not the Gov. or the POTUS. The POTUS doesn't have their respect, because he has not earned it.

 

[Quiet Observer]

There seems to be a lot of missing details.
What were the specifications of the charge of not being at her assigned place of duty?
It was a shared workspace and others were allowed to have personal things displayed.
Pictures on the internet show her holding a strip of paper with the verse displayed; but at least in those pictures there is nothing on the paper identifying it as a Bible verse. It could be interpreted as hard-ass Marine bravado. In Nam I often saw signs on Marine desks with

Yea, though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear not evil. For I am the meanest M...F... in the valley.

Then the term was not abbreviated.
L/Cpl Sterling handled it improperly. She could have obeyed the S/Sgt's order and then run a special request up the chain of command. She could have sought support or clarification from the chaplain. Another source says she got into a profanity laden argument, by both sides, with the S/Sgt in the workplace.
Granted there are a lot of unknowns here, as far as the public is concerned. It seems that reduction in rank and fine were appropriate, but a BCD may be too severe.

 

[mappow]

When ya sign your name to the dotted line there is no recourse. You will comply or be prosecuted. NO if's and's or but's. Play the game or be persecuted via US Reg's governing your active duty in that service
.-
We ain't playing tidally winks here, we're conforming to the current standard, sanctioned and directed by the CIC. We have communist inside the wire and have been over taken without one shot being fired.
-
Gear up patriots, we're in for one hellofa fight.

 

[XD40scinNC]

At your duty station, desk, or whatever in the military, the military makes the rules. Off duty you have more flexibility, freedoms of expression (but not a lot), but if that chaps your ass, then your ass should have never joined the military.

The military is not a democracy, it is a highly regimented environment, for a reason. I toed the line when I was in the Navy, and it is also why I probably insulted the guy in personnel that tried to get me to re-up near the end of my hitch.

 

[aacx22]

From the Nosreme's link:

On or about 20 May 2013, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Alexander ordered the appellant to remove the signs. The appellant refused and the SSgt removed them herself. The next day, the SSgt saw the signs had been replaced and again ordered the appellant to remove them. When the signs had not been removed by the end of the day, SSgt Alexander again removed them herself.
In August of 2013, the appellant was on limited duty for a hip injury and wore a back brace and TENS unit during working hours.3 The medical documentation (chit) included a handwritten note stating that “[w]earing charlies & TENS unit4 will be difficult, consider allowing her to not wear charlies.”5 The uniform of the day on Fridays for the appellant’s command was the service “C” uniform and when the appellant arrived at work on a Friday in her camouflage utility uniform, SSgt Morris ordered her to change into service “C” uniform. The appellant refused, claiming her medical chit exempted her from the uniform requirement. After speaking with medical, SSgt Morris again ordered the appellant to change into the service “C” uniform. The appellant again refused. SSgt Morris then brought the appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson who repeated the order. Again, the appellant refused.
On 12 September 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered the appellant to report to the Pass and Identification building at the front gate on Sunday, 15 September 2013, from 1600 until approximately 1930 to help distribute vehicle passes to family members of returning deployed service members. This was a duty the appellant had performed before. The appellant refused, showing 1stSgt Robinson a separate medical chit that she had been provided to treat a “stress reaction.” This chit recommended that the appellant be exempted from standing watch and performing guard duty.6 Additionally, on 03 September 2013, the appellant was prescribed a medication to help prevent the onset of migraine headaches.7
On 13 Sept 2013, the appellant was ordered to report to Major (Maj) Flatley. When she did so, Maj Flatley ordered the
3 TENS refers to a small machine that transmits pulses to the surface of the skin and along nerve strands.
4 “Charlies” refers to the Marine service “C” uniform.
5 Defense Exhibit B.
6 DE A.
7 Appellate Exhibit XXXIX.
4
appellant to report to Pass and Identification on 15 September 2103 to issue vehicle passes and ordered her to take the passes with her. The appellant told Maj Flatley that she would not comply with the order to report and refused to accept the passes. On 15 September 2013, the appellant did not report as ordered.

All this... and OP wants us to think that she was persecuted for a Bible quote.

 

[XD40scinNC]

From the Nosreme's link:


All this... and OP wants us to think that she was persecuted for a Bible quote.

Ringo is using the same tactics that MAD group does, take a tiny insignificant fact that has really nothing to do with the situation and blow it all out of proportion.

 

[XD40scinNC]

I think the point is, if I was Gov. property (the desk and computer), they have a legal right to restrict what it I used for. If it was her own personal property, then no. Even though most Liberal Progressive anti-theological personnel in the Gov. would like to do away with all religious thought, they never will be able to. People in the military are fighting for freedom. Freedom comes from God, not the Gov. or the POTUS. The POTUS doesn't have their respect, because he has not earned it.

Based on this I'm going to guess that you never served in the military. Where do you think the term GI comes from when referring to the troops? Yep, you are government issue/property.

 

[Oldgrunt]

The young Marine tried to make an issue where there was none to be made. By ordering her to remove the quotation from her computer, her religious rights were not being violated. Her duty station is not the place for her to push her religion in that manner. Her manner of performance should be her only goal while on duty. After all, her duty was to "render unto Caesar" and when "Caesar" spoke, she should have obeyed. She started the issue in the wrong place and, rather than it becoming a religious issue, it became an act of defiance to authority and the whole situation bit her in the rear end. I'm all for religious freedom but there is a time and place for it and, rather being a religious act, it put religion in a bad light.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Ringo, a quote from the link you provided;

“Adding insult to injury, the government charged her with the crime of failing to obey a direct order because she did not remove the Bible verse,”

This was an order from a commissioned officer.

You served, how would that have washed if you had disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer? I know damn well how it would have played out in my Navy. And since you did serve, how did you justify starting this thread?

Second question, instead of a bible verse, what if this had been a passage from the Koran? Would you have also started a thread about suppression of what you perceive as her 'rights', or are you selective based on her religion of choice?

 

[Ringo]

For those pathetic brain dead critics of mine take note...I simply posted the link to the article for viewing, period. Aside from simply posting the link I haven't added any comments or given any opinion pro or con to be guilty of anything let alone blowing something out of proportion. Grow up.

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

"I got's me a chit, I got's me a chit, y'all can't make me do ****, 'cause I got's me a chit."
Precious Babydoll, when Uncle Sugar tells you to remove your stuff from his computers and his workstations, you do it. And wearing 'Charlies' is up to your supervisor, not you. And finally, when you're told to report somewhere to work (not stand guard) you go there and you work.

@XD40inNc I served in the military, as a matter of fact in the 82nd Airborne Division (1/508th). Although certain rights are restricted, I always had the right to freedom of religion, the right to express myself outside of a military function, the right to vote, the right to petition for redress of wrongs, and a host of others. Property never has or had such rights.

 

[XD40scinNC]

For those pathetic brain dead critics of mine take note...I simply posted the link to the article for viewing, period. Aside from simply posting the link I haven't added any comments or given any opinion pro or con to be guilty of anything let alone blowing something out of proportion. Grow up.

Damage control mode?

But you posted it, just some random copy/paste of random noise, or you were trying to convey a point about how her religious rights were (in your opinion) violated when in fact she earned her BCD through repeated, deliberate and willful failure to obey the orders of a superior officer. Would you have posted it if she had been ordered to take down a passage from the koran? You (and I) know damn well you would not have.

I asked earlier, how would that have worked out when you were in uniform?

 

[aacx22]

Not to advocate for religion, but for purposes of legal and academic analysis (and maybe constitutional fundamental fairness), consider the following: (1) Does her military workplace permit posting of sports quotes, photos, announcements...? Announcements of upcoming rock concerts? Pictures of the desk occupant sitting on a motorcycle, or catching a fish, or bagging a deer, or sunning at the beach? (Answer: obviously yes). Does that raise an issue that ordering removal of the religious (even if the religious connection is more obvious to the poster than to others) slogans when other non-work-related expression is permitted at least raises a possible issue of denial of equal protection for those who post religious speech? (Stated differently, can non-work religious speech be singled out for suppression if non-workplace speech of other sorts is permitted?) (2) The court pronounces without elaboration that the slogans adversely impact good order and discipline (a statutory-UCMJ-basis for prosecution of something as an Article 134 offense). Saying that's so doesn't make it so. Anti-religion as I am, I have a hard time seeing how those posted slogans can reasonably do that.

Just speculating, but maybe because she printed it in large font to display to others instead of just for herself?



Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

For those pathetic brain dead critics of mine take note...I simply posted the link to the article for viewing, period. Aside from simply posting the link I haven't added any comments or given any opinion pro or con to be guilty of anything let alone blowing something out of proportion. Grow up.

If you post it, you own it. Unless you say that you disagree with what you've posted then people are right to assume that you are in agreement with it.
You didn't post an article on how to do needlework or crochet, did you? You posted something to do with the subject at and and no amount of backpedaling is going to explain how it was 'just a random article' you came across that meant nothing at all to you in any way, shape or form.


Maybe we need a change in the Code of Conduct to reflect this?
"No posting of articles without comment."
"If you post it, you own it."

 

[Ringo]

I asked earlier, how would that have worked out when you were in uniform?

Pertaining to the religious posting I doubt if there would have been an issue, things were totally different 55 years ago. Personally, I could care less about what someone puts on their computer, to each his own.

 

[Ringo]

Unless you say that you disagree with what you've posted then people are right to assume that you are in agreement with it.

If you have half a mind to assume something go right ahead, that's all it takes.

 

[Papasan173]

It was a sign on her desk. Property of USMC.