Marine Court-Martialled for Bible Verse

[john w]

"Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk.

She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer."

When she joined the marines, she swore an oath to follow orders. And in that oath, no exceptions were made for personal religious proclivities. Also, her desk and everything on it, in it, and around it belongs to the U.S. Marine Corps, and not to her. So her superior did have the right and responsibility to see that it remains free of personal propaganda, religious or otherwise.

She was wrong on every front, and she suffered the consequences.




So once again, we see Fox Phony News posting dishonest headlines just to stir up the indignation of the right-wing ignoramuses that comprise their audience.

"remains free of personal propaganda, religious or otherwise."

Of course, that sounds oh so impressive, but it means absolutely NADA.


Stuff that "filler" "personal propaganda, religious or otherwise." You tell us what is "impersonal" about having photos of your family on your desk, or philosophical books, or the US Constitution, or.................

"otherwise propaganda"

Deceit.


"Also, her desk and everything on it, in it, and around it belongs to the U.S. Marine Corps,"

Sophistry. By that "argument," it would be illegal to have a bible, or (fill in the blank) anywhere, except in your home that you owned.

I'd bet that if a copy of "Mein Kampf," or "From Here to Eternity" was on the desk, you would not here a peep.

Wicked, "devolving" "society, just as the Bible predicted.....

 

[Angel4Truth]

And posting Bible quotes in one's work space isn't exercising one's religion, as religious customs and practices don't require that Bible verses be posted in adherents' work spaces.

How is it not? God doesnt require me to wear a t shirt that says I am a Christian with John 3:16 on it either, but if someone told me i couldn't do so, they would be violating the law because under the constitution I have both a right to free speech and the open practice and expression of my religion and congress shall make no law suppressing that.

The only thing she couldn't do is maintain that her job is dictating religion, she doing it personally is something she can all she wants. So unless there is a different reason she is in trouble, they don't have the right to violate the constitution.

 

[Jonahdog]

How is it not? God doesnt require me to wear a t shirt that says I am a Christian with John 3:16 on it either, but if someone told me i couldn't do so, they would be violating the law because under the constitution I have both a right to free speech and the open practice and expression of my religion and congress shall make no law suppressing that.

The only thing she couldn't do is maintain that her job is dictating religion, she doing it personally is something she can all she wants. So unless there is a different reason she is in trouble, they don't have the right to violate the constitution.

It would appear, from reading the decision (remember that suggestion) that she disobeyed orders several times, orders to do some specific things, not just remove the Bible verse. She was in the military, you disobey orders at your peril.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It would appear, from reading the decision (remember that suggestion) that she disobeyed orders several times, orders to do some specific things, not just remove the Bible verse. She was in the military, you disobey orders at your peril.

Agreed, but if the disobedience was all because of the bible verses, then shes in the right.

What were the "other" specific things?

 

[shagster01]

Agreed, but if the disobedience was all because of the bible verses, then shes in the right.

What were the "other" specific things?

That's not all the way true though. She posted them at a shared work station. It wasn't HER desk. It was a desk used by many people.

Would you be ok with a muslim posting Koran verses at a work station you had to use at work?

 

[Angel4Truth]

That's not all the way true though. She posted them at a shared work station. It wasn't HER desk. It was a desk used by many people.

Would you be ok with a muslim posting Koran verses at a work station you had to use at work?

If it had several seats and was their desk, yes, the same as i would be ok with a picture of their wife sitting there.

You don't like the constitution do you.

 

[shagster01]

The article says it was an altered Bible verse. Do you Christians really believe altered Bible verses are still Bible verses? If so, I have some altering to do...

Posting an altered (aka not real) Bible verse that is found to be in conflict or potential conflict with orders given in a military work area is not a right in the military as far as I can tell.

 

[moparguy]

And posting Bible quotes in one's work space isn't exercising one's religion, as religious customs and practices don't require that Bible verses be posted in adherents' work spaces.

Obviously they can't be ... because you said so, and for no other reason! :doh:

This is nothing more and nothing less than the march of society towards trying to get rid of anything that reminds them of God.

There are no good and valid moral or legal arguments against bible believers being able to live as bible believers.

This squelching is nothing more than the hatred in people's hearts, being given feet and hands.

 

[musterion]

I want to see what would happen if a Marine put a photo of two sodomites or lesbians getting married on the desktop. But I think we all already know the answer to that.

 

[musterion]

You don't like the constitution do you.

Only the part where it says pot is okay.

 

[The Barbarian]

They also considered the fact that Sterling’s desk was shared by other Marines.

From the link:
“The implication is clear – the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace,” the court declared. “It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations.”

If other people had to use it, she was out of line. If not, then I don't see a problem. Using government equipment to promote one's religious ideas is unacceptable, but if others weren't required to be exposed to it, then it should be legal.

I wonder if everyone complaining about it, would have been O.K. with Islamic or Wiccan material.

Actually, no I don't. It's the usual, isn't it?

 

[rexlunae]

You're making an argument not based on facts. Where did you get that from, some left-wing military hate-filled website? Or maybe you're predjudiced against her because she's Black and a Christian. You left-wingers sure show you true colors when any situation like this comes up.

...
Don't respond to me anymore. I'm adding you to my Ignore list. Life is too short to put up with your nonsense.

Wow, talk about an overreaction. Seriously, he used the Fox News article's own source, and you accused him of some sort of anti-military prejudice as well as sexism, religious discrimination, and racism.

Here's the story from the Military Times (a publication for service members): http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...ifa-sterling-bible-verse-court-case/28010365/

It makes clear that the charge wasn't directly about the content of the verses, but rather several counts of insubordination and failing to obey lawful orders. Which is pretty basic to military functioning. It sounds like she is trying to make a claim under the federal RFRA, but I can't see how that would excuse how she handled the case even if she were in the right about placing the verses, and additionally, it seems like placing Bible verses on a government computer in a public area is probably going to be hard to justify anyway. And the objection to the content seems to have been that it could be read as a threat, not that it was from the Bible.

I guess I'm not sure why you think she should have been entitled to place a religious message in public on a government computer in the first place.

 

[musterion]

Wow, talk about an overreaction. . .Here's the story from the Military Times (a publication for service members). . .It makes clear that the charge wasn't directly about the content of the verses, but rather several counts of insubordination and failing to obey lawful orders.

No. The article, as written, presents her repeated verse displays as the main reason for her Big Chicken Dinner (something I wouldn't necessarily disagree with, depending on stated policies which all must abide, agree with them or not). It doesnt define any such policies--only that a sergeant and the courts FELT the signs MIGHT offend or be seen as "combative." Yeah, right. Lesbians, fags, atheists or Muslims complained.

It does add,

along with other low-level misconduct

but doesn't bother to specify what that was beyond her dispute about medical exemptions from duty. If she'd really been officially exempt from something, that issue would never have come up or it alone would be grounds for appeal. That part of the case makes me wonder more than the signs do.

 

[Jonahdog]

No. The article, as written, makes her repeated verse displays the main reason for her RIR (something I wouldn't necessarily disagree with, depending on stated policy which she must abide, agree or not). It does add,



but doesn't bother to specify what that was.

Again, read the decision. there was a link posted earlier.

 

[Jonahdog]

Agreed, but if the disobedience was all because of the bible verses, then shes in the right.

What were the "other" specific things?

Read the decision.

 

[Jonahdog]

The article says it was an altered Bible verse. Do you Christians really believe altered Bible verses are still Bible verses? If so, I have some altering to do...

Posting an altered (aka not real) Bible verse that is found to be in conflict or potential conflict with orders given in a military work area is not a right in the military as far as I can tell.

Did you read the decision?

 

[musterion]

Again, read the decision. there was a link posted earlier.

I'm responding to a specific post. Mind your biz.

 

[Jonahdog]

I'm responding to a specific post. Mind your biz.

If you had bothered to read the decision rather than a right wing nut job article you would not have needed to respond to the post and wonder what other violations she was accused of. But that would have been the rational thing to do.

 

[The Barbarian]

There certainly are cases where religious beliefs conflict with military service. It's why we have laws protecting conscientious objectors. That doesn't mean they get to serve anyway and ignore the regs they don't like; it just means we can't force them to be in military service.

This lady needs to decide what she believes and then act consistently with it.

 

[musterion]

If you had bothered to read the decision rather than a right wing nut job article you would not have needed to respond to the post and wonder what other violations she was accused of. But that would have been the rational thing to do.

I said mind your biz.