Troops Punished After Refusing to Attend Evangelical Concert

[tumbleweed41]

Furthermore, it is a myth that active duty military do not have legal recourse to lodge formal complaints. They absolutely DO and their commanders ALSO fall under a chain of command.
.

That myth is not advocated in this story. The solder plainly says he went through the chain of command, and when no satisfactory action resulted, contacted an outside resource.

 

[Kathryn]

So - one or two soldiers out of how many - three hundred? - claim that they were either forced to go to the concert or be in "lockdown." That's less than 1 percent. I'd like to see their story verified by some other soldiers in the unit, and if indeed they were forced to attend or be punished, then certainly out of three hundred soldiers, we can can some substantiating testimony - and discipline those officers in charge of this evening's events. No soldier should be forced to attend any sort of religious event.

As for my statement "There are no atheists in the foxhole" when I was discussing the importance of faith to so many soldiers when they are deployed to a war zone - of COURSE I was being facetious. I thought people on this forum would be intelligent enough to grasp that (since it's so obviously a n over the top statement) but I see that I was far too generous in my estimation of some.

To clarify - my point was that 70 percent of the military is Christian, and these free concerts and events mean a lot to many, many of them. Many of them are very stressed out and appreciate some focus on their spiritual needs.

It was very enlightening to read how horror stricken some of you were at the description of the Sonic Flood concert (an event that was totally, TOTALLY voluntary to attend). Sonic Flood is actually a pretty good band - though I'm sure the very thought of attending one of their concerts sickens some people (just as the thought of attending some other types of concerts sickens me).

Those who wanted to be there went - and by all accounts had a great time, and in many cases were spiritually refreshed. I'm sure they are very grateful for the opportunity to attend a free concert by an internationally recognized, award winning Christian rock band. THEY are who the concert was for - so relax. I doubt anyone was forced to attend either this concert or the Barlow Girl concert.

It would be nice if more bands and artists in general donated their time to the troops.

 

[Kathryn]

That myth is not advocated in this story. The solder plainly says he went through the chain of command, and when no satisfactory action resulted, contacted an outside resource.

And just what would be a "satisfactory action" to you? And why do you assume that no disciplinary action resulted? These soldiers are most likely done with that particular school and moved on to their permanent assignments. The military doesn't owe them an update on disciplinary actions directed at others. It doesn't work that way.

This horrible, traumatic, scarring event supposedly happened three months ago and the military is in the midst of determining the validity of the claims of two soldiers out of three hundred. Time will tell regarding the truth of the allegations. With all the media hype and hysterics, I'm sure that if the allegations are true, more traumatized,distraught soldiers will come forward.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe the rest of them just don't give a rat's *** about the night in question.

 

[Smoke]

That would be great, but he's given no sign so far that he opposes the dominionist movement even in principle, let alone in deed.

How can he oppose anything in principle when he doesn't have any principles?

 

[Smoke]

Time will tell regarding the truth of the allegations. With all the media hype and hysterics, I'm sure that if the allegations are true, more traumatized,distraught soldiers will come forward.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe the rest of them just don't give a rat's *** about the night in question.

Maybe not. And it's perfectly fine to subject a soldier to unconstitutional and illegal abuse as long as nobody else gives a rat's ***, right? Certainly, nice Christian ladies who are proud of their families' military heritage don't give a rat's about a soldier who has the bad taste not to be a Christian. Instead, they use events like this to mock a soldier lodging a legitimate complaint as "traumatized" and "distraught."

I just hope no such nice Christian ladies have a "Support Our Troops" sticker.

 

[javajo]

That would be great, but he's given no sign so far that he opposes the dominionist movement even in principle, let alone in deed.

Yeah, but I hope/think he's probably cooler than that.

 

[kiwimac]

How can he oppose anything in principle when he doesn't have any principles?

See, once again this is an attack without even the concern to provide some measure of independent proof of the statement. Either provide the proof or don't make the comment please.

 

[Revoltingest]

No doubt the current administration and all former administrations feel they have bigger fish to fry than going through every existing piece of regulation enacted by every government in US history looking for policies that have had a deleterious impact on civil liberties.

We needn't make excuses for leaders who tolerate religious thuggery, which, btw, was there long before Reagan.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, but I hope/think he's probably cooler than that.

Except that he appointed Gen. Petraeus - a man who wrote that a book arguing non-religious soldiers are deficient and cause missions to fail "should be in every soldier's rucksack" - to manage the whole Afghanistan debacle.

Chris Rodda: Petraeus Endorses "Spiritual Handbook," Betrays 21% of Our Troops

He also provided a personal endorsement for the the meathead who put this little gem together:
http://www.youtube.com/v/tTXXHO2Hq0s?fs=1&hl=en_GB

 

[Shadow Wolf]

CHRISTIAN MOSH PIT!!!!!!
But no, that is seriously wrong. Punishing troops for not wanting to go to a concert that promotes believes that are not of their own, and thus probably aren't going to really enjoy being there, is probably the dumbest thing the military has done since they confiscated a box of porn that was sent to Iraq for the troops enjoyment. I hope that whoever put them on lockdown has to answer for his unconstitutional actions.

 

[Alceste]

CHRISTIAN MOSH PIT!!!!!!
But no, that is seriously wrong. Punishing troops for not wanting to go to a concert that promotes believes that are not of their own, and thus probably aren't going to really enjoy being there, is probably the dumbest thing the military has done since they confiscated a box of porn that was sent to Iraq for the troops enjoyment. I hope that whoever put them on lockdown has to answer for his unconstitutional actions.

This isn't a one-off event. I think the systemic erosion of religious freedom in the US military calls for more than the punishment of a few bad apples

 

[tumbleweed41]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;....

(Beginning of Enlistment Oath.)

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

(First amendment to said Constitution.)

In 1994, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

It is now time for the Government military establishment to promote the Constitution it swears to defend.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe not. And it's perfectly fine to subject a soldier to unconstitutional and illegal abuse as long as nobody else gives a rat's ***, right? Certainly, nice Christian ladies who are proud of their families' military heritage don't give a rat's about a soldier who has the bad taste not to be a Christian. Instead, they use events like this to mock a soldier lodging a legitimate complaint as "traumatized" and "distraught."

I just hope no such nice Christian ladies have a "Support Our Troops" sticker.

No, Smoke, I don't have a Support Our Troops sticker anywhere. And I ain't so nice, either.

Look, I have said from the get go that if anyone was forced to either attend this concert OR be punished, this is wrong and someone should AT LEAST reprimanded. In fact I've stated that several times in my posts. But I know it's more convenient for you and others to overlook a pesky fact like that.

Speaking of facts, that's what I'm seeking about this case. Not hysterics, not a political agenda - facts.

One of my life mottos is "Seek First To Understand." Unlike some others - who rush to judgment based on their limited news sources (exactly as they accuse others of doing) - I am withholding my moral outrage UNTIL I hear more about this case.

Because the facts as I can find them are this:

Two soldiers - one named and one anonymous - filed a complaint with a military board that is set up SPECIFICALLY to handle claims of this sort. Imagine that - these guys DO have legal recourse and a legal system in place - provided BY the MILITARY - to ascertain that their right to protest, complain, and live their religious freedoms unfettered by the beliefs of others is intact.

The incident was investigated and the army officer who was in charge of the evening's activities formally apologized to the soldiers who opted not to attend the event.

What else do you expect to happen? Do you expect this officer to be tarred and feathered? Do you want his head on a platter so you can dance in front of it? Do you realize how humiliating it is for an officer to publically apologize to 80 soldiers under his command?

So this officer issues a public apology, but apparently that's not enough for PVT Smith and his anonymous friend. Even though they got their public mea culpa - THRU their chain of command - they still determined that their complaints had fallen on deaf ears and that they were still apparently so damaged by being confined to the barracks and not allowed to use their cell phones for two hours (common for trainees by the way) that they had to have more validation of their position.

Sorry - I don't get it. I don't get how their "chain of command didn't work." It DID work. If events happened as they claim, the officer was NOT abiding by military policy. He apologized to his troops. His career is probably shot to hell. That's not enough?

And this is what I mean by the rest of the guys apparently not giving a rat's *** about the evening's events. They've most likely moved forward undamaged and unfazed - though I'm sure at the time they found the entire ruckus to be pretty entertaining. Hell, they got to listen to an officer apologize to a bunch of grunts. Huuu-WAHHHHH! Power to the people!

 

[Kathryn]

That myth is not advocated in this story. The solder plainly says he went through the chain of command, and when no satisfactory action resulted, contacted an outside resource.

Before the soldier contacted an outside resource, the chain of command had forced the officer who orchestrated the evening's events to publically apologize to the troops in the unit. His career is likely severely damaged by this. His troops received their commanding officer's apology and I'm sure they all got a big kick out of that.

That's not enough?

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's not enough?

Perhaps he expects a policy change more in line with the Constitution he is sworn to protect.

 

[Smoke]

See, once again this is an attack without even the concern to provide some measure of independent proof of the statement. Either provide the proof or don't make the comment please.

If you'd like to defend the President's character, maybe you could explain how principled it was of him to drop his friend and mentor Jeremiah Wright like a hot potato as soon as FakeNews starting criticizing Wright. Maybe you could explain how noble it is of him to lie like a rug about his support for LGBT equality. Maybe you could explain the deeply-held convictions behind his contempt for the Fourth Amendment. Maybe you could explain the principle behind his inability to stand up to the slightest breeze that blows from the lunatic fringe of the right wing. But do actually say something. If all you have to offer is a prissy scolding for my making a remark you don't care for, don't make the comment. Please.

 

[Kathryn]

Perhaps he expects a policy change more in line with the Constitution he is sworn to protect.

It is already against military policy to force anyone to attend religious services or events.

If events happened as the two soldiers claim they did, then EXISTING military policy was violated. Apparently, the chain of command thought that there was enough evidence, or at least ambiguity of circumstances, to force the commanding officer to issue an apology to the unit, which he did.

Like I said, apparently this wasn't enough vindication for two soldiers, who then claimed that their chain of command didn't work (even though an officer was forced, by this chain of command, to publically apologize).

I'm just wondering what they would have considered to be an appropriate response. The officer was already publically humiliated, and most likely written up formally. He has a big black mark in his personnel file. What else did they want done to him - an hour in the stocks on the town square? The Iron Maiden? What?

 

[Smoke]

His career is likely severely damaged by this.

In what way is his career likely to have been severely damaged?

 

[Smoke]

I'm just wondering what they would have considered to be an appropriate response.

There's no need to wonder. Just imagine how you would have reacted had it been a Muslim event.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is already against military policy to force anyone to attend religious services or events.

I was speaking of the policy of having Military sponsored "revivals".

(Read the official base newspapers review.)