As citizens of the United States of
America, we are afforded a multitude of rights outlined by our constitution and
supported by judicial decision and precedence. The military however, can
sometimes be a different story. When an American joins any of the nation’s
uniformed services they face certain restrictions on many of their
constitutional rights for the duration of their military career. For example,
in order to avoid situations that could possibly be construed as a military endorsement
of anything in the political realm members of the military are prohibited from
supporting a specific political party or position while in uniform, and they are
also prohibited from participating in political gatherings or protests while in
uniform. Restrictions such as these are rather common in active duty life, but
one of the rights that remains completely uninhibited is the first amendment
right to the free exercise of religion. The military has repeatedly shown and
proven its support for the free exercise of religion through its decisions
regarding exceptions to multiple standards and duties expected of military
members. For example, in 2016 the United States Army amended its uniform and
grooming standards to allow for religious exceptions such as the growing of
beards by Sikh men as well as the wear of turbans and hijabs while in uniform. Recently
though, the military saw one of its decisions regarding the freedom of religion
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In
June of 2017 Sterling v. United States
was appealed to the Supreme Court who ultimately decided not to hear the case, effectively
standing by the decision reached under the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) which is the legal code that governs the military. The case involves
former Marine Corps Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling, who faced court martial for
multiple offenses including “one specification of failing to go to her
appointed place of duty, one specification of disrespect toward a superior
commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of
a noncommissioned officer (NCO), in violation of Articles 86, 89, and 91, Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 889, 891 (2012)”. Charges of
insubordination are taken very seriously within UCMJ, but what exactly was she
accused of doing? As it turns out, the former Lance Corporal had been violating
her duties for months by ignoring orders from superior officers, refusing to
wear the required uniform, not fulfilling duty obligations, and disregarding
direct orders to remove a sign from her desk which read “No weapon formed
against me shall prosper”, an adaptation of Isaiah 54:17. Sterling’s desk was a
shared work space and she was instructed on multiple occasions to remove the
sign by a senior NCO. Sterling was then court martialed for these listed
offences, and it was there that she asserted that she refused to remove the
sign because it held religious significance to her. She claimed that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that
she was within her rights to display such a sign as well as disobey orders to
remove the sign. Ultimately the military court found that removing the sign was
not a burden to her free exercise, finding her guilty and thereby demoting her
from E-3 to E-1 and giving Sterling a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).
Sterling’s
defense creates a few interesting questions. First, was the order to remove the
sign a violation of Sterling’s free exercise; Second, does the right to free
exercise of religion allow for the disobeying of direct orders in the military?
In regards to the first question, no her right to free exercise of religion was
not violated. In this instance the military court was correct by ruling that
since removal of the sign did not place an unnecessary burden on her religion
or prevent her from directly practicing her religion, her right to free
exercise was not violated. The second question is where things become more convoluted.
According to UCMJ it is possible to applicable to disobey direct orders if
those orders are illegal or immoral. This allows room for the disobeying of
orders based on religious conscience, however the disobeying of direct orders
disrupts military readiness and discipline meaning that and such
insubordinations would have to be taken on a contextual basis in order to
evaluate their validity through UCMJ. Despite the ability to appeal UCMJ
decisions to the Supreme Court, the fact that the military operates off of an
additional legal code, rather solely off of the legislature of the federal
government, makes it remarkably difficult to determine how certain laws and
rights are to be incorporated to service members and civilians on a relatively equivalent
basis.
11 comments:
Personally, I am not convinced that the former Lance Corporal has any legal ground to stand on. I agree that the order to remove the sign was not in violation of her rights to free exercise, as I can see no way in which her practice of religion was contingent upon the signs presence. In addition, the policy which prohibits the Lance Corporal to remove the sign, I presume, is facially neutral in the sense that it applies to all service members in the same way that no service member can take part in political discourse while in uniform. I am lead to believe, by the post, that regardless of the religious message or respective religion applicable to the sign, anyone in violation of the policy would have been asked to remove the sign. Hence, I believe the request of removal and subsequent charges were constitutional.
The military rightly restricts some of the rights afforded to non-military citizens and retired military personnel for legitimate reasons. They have a storied tradition of strict rules guidelines are meant to promote respect and create the best chance for keeping the United States safe. The sign is was asked to be removed in a non-military office would give her legitimate claim in court but the military has a very compelling interest to prevent all religious and political speech. This prevents a completely divided military and a divided military is a dangerous thing for this country.
I can see why this case has not made it to the supreme court. Removing the sign does place a significant burden on Sterling, nor does it inhibit her ability to practice her religion, it is not like, they are restricting her from silent prayer in the workplace, or restricting her ability to go to mass, it is simply a sign. It seems pretty trivial and should not be something distracting other officers from helping to ensure the safety of our country. This is an interesting case because of how the military operates on different guidelines and policies from a non-military citizen with the reasoning being from what Harrison said, how the military has a compelling interest to avoid a divided military to ensure they are able to protect this country, as best as, possible. It is also important to note she was refusing to wear her military uniform and not fulfilling her duty obligations which are both important aspects of this. I am not sure if that was her way of spiting other officers repeatedly asking her to remove the sign from her desk, but that alone should be enough to demote her.
I do not think the removal of a sign from her desk has any correlation to her practice or for a better word exercise or religion. The question of was it religious discrimination or targeting is also questionable because it was a shared work space. The other issue of when does religion give someone a right in the military to disregard a direct order is a question that is vital to the function of the military.
I think it is important to note that the military is a secular organization, so asking her to remove the sign is well in the realm of their responsibilities to stay unified. The compelling interest of the military is greater than the burden placed on Sterling by having her remove the sign. I do not see her removing the sign from her desk being a violation of her free exercise; no one is stopping her from practicing her religion.
I agree with the previous comments stating that the request of removal of the sign is constitutional. Asking her to remove the sign does not inhibit her free exercise of religion, especially due to the fact that it is not a doctrine of her religion to have this sign. The military is a secular organization and there are rules in place to keep it this way. These rules are agreed to when one joins the military, and they are expected to adhere to these rules throughout there service. It is in the military's interest (and in this case I would argue that the military represents the state) to have her remove the sign, and the burden on Sterling is not significant enough to justify her refusal to remove the sign. As Will said, this law seems to be equal to all religions, and as a result asking her to take down the sign is not inhibiting her specific religion.
I, like others, agree that asking her to remove the sign is not in violation of her free exercise rights. I do believe, however, that had this not been a shared work space there should not have been a problem with her sticker. This reminds me, to some extent, of the case in which a school student was asked to remove her sticker supporting Planned Parenthood. In that case, a thought it was acceptable as her laptop was her property and others did not have to use it. However, in this case, without removal of the sign, workers who's beliefs may go against the message posted on the sign may not feel comfortable. In regards to the second question, I do not believe she should be able to disobey direct orders because of her religion because this will likely disrupt the work of the military. Unlike in the flu shot case discussed in class, this case is more neutral in the fact that no one is allowed to disobey direct orders unless "illegal or immoral" and the policy remains the same whether religious or non-religious.
I agree with Dan and all of the previous comments. Although the quote that she displayed may have held some sort of religious value to Sterling, I can't see how the removal of the sign was a significant burden on her part. It certainly isn't enough of a burden, in my opinion, to outweigh the compelling state interest of discipline and cooperation within the armed services. Additionally, Sterlings argument that she may disobey orders on the grounds of morality simply doesn't stand in my opinion. The provision was added into the armed services code of conduct to make individual soldiers accountable for war crimes, not to allow them to put up signs with bible quotes. The fact is, Sterling isn't a member of "The Church of Bible Quotes." It's silly to give her a special exemption for a "burden" so apparently inconsequential.
I agree with the prior comments stating that the removal of the sign from the Lance Corporal’s desk did not place a significant burden upon her and the acting officers requesting the removal of the sign were well within their constitutional rights to do so. As outlined in your original post Dan, you mentioned the important aspect that the military does not have the same guidelines that regular citizens have for the military also has the task of creating a unifying force regardless of belief. Finally, there must be consideration given to the fact that the sign was not contingent on the religious beliefs of the Lance Corporal and thus should not be held as a significant factor that it was a foundation for her religious practices.
I do not agree with Lance Corporal Sterling in this case. The military was within its rights to ask her to remove the sign on her desk, and in doing so they did not obstruct her ability to practice her religion. If it was a Bible on her desk rather than a sign, and the military asked her to put the Bible in a drawer, but not through it away, that would not be prohibiting her freedom to practice religion. I think in all workplaces, and especially in the military, it is important to monitor what signs or messages people put out in the open. In the case of the military, a message should not be put out that they are serving one God, when in fact they are serving their country. While the military allows each member to practice their own religion, the military itself is a secular organization and must remain so. I think the military is well within its rights in this case
If the Sherbert test is applied to this case, I think it becomes clear Lance Corporal Sterling was not truly obstructed in her ability to practice her religion. As a result I agree with those arguing there was no obstruction. While I agree Sterling genuinely believed in the displaying of the sign to celebrate her religion, she was acting as an agent/extension of the state while in uniform and had an obligation to reflect the philosophical and religious neutrality the Government has adopted since our country was founded. The state has a compelling interest to ensure all of its citizens feel welcome despite their race, creed, class, religion, ect. If the army of the state were allowed to endorse one religion, religious minorities would certainly feel discriminated and concerned for their safety. The orders to the remove the sign from the desk do not constitute a substantial burden on Sterling's ability to practice her religion.
Post a Comment