Displays of religion by cadets at the Air Force Academy have recently sparked debate over whether the Constitution’s protection of free speech and freedom of religion extends into the ranks of the military. A cadet wrote the Scripture passage Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me,” on a small whiteboard outside his dorm room.
An anonymous cadet filed a complaint about the Scripture, and within a matter of hours the cadet who had posted it voluntarily took it down. This since-you-asked, “voluntary” removal of the verse is the root of the conflict, as many cadets are expressing feeling pressured to conceal their beliefs and thus are inhibited in expressing their faith. The culmination of this environment is one where the boundaries of constitutional protection are blurred.
Let’s begin with asking, is free speech enjoyed in the military by the same standards as it is in civilian life? Yes and no. Within certain contexts, yes; however, we can all agree that in boot camp free speech is not abounding. A psychology that is crucial to the success of the armed forces is the removal of individualism. An army can’t have soldiers acting for themselves versus the rest of the members of their unit; when engaging enemies each soldier must consider himself as a part of something greater and act accordingly.
A large part of the reasoning behind standards of treatment, haircuts, uniforms and other appearance regulation is to create a united front, a sense of solidarity and a collective identity. This is seen in the second of three core values espoused by the U.S. Air Force: “Service before Self.” It can be established that while soldiers have the freedom of speech, it is limited within a context of respecting superiority and following orders, wherein the first problem with posting Scriptures arises.
The orders of superiors are to be followed without question in the military, which raises the level of responsibility those with authority have over those in their command. The Air Force Academy, where this debate is taking place, operates with a hierarchy ranking the oldest students as those with the most respect and power (notwithstanding instructors and administrators) and freshmen at the bottom of the power stratus.
Thus, an older cadet displaying a Scripture outside his or her room has the potential to threaten those in his or her command who are of a different ideology. That is a simple fact, however frustrating it may be and however mild and well-meaning the action may be. I am certain the cadet who was asked to take the Scripture off of his front door was asked before to remove a bracelet, cut his hair or alter himself in some manner to adhere to regulation. This is an uncomfortable-for-many extension of that same standard of regulation.
The junction between freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a vital one, as the two often go hand in hand. In this case, cadets are arguing if they do not have unabated freedom to speak on or express their religion they do not have the capacity to practice it. The limits imposed here on faith expression are on public faith expression, not private.
As Mikey Weinstein, the director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation stated, “Had it been in his room — not a problem. It’s not about the belief. It’s about the time, the place and the manner.” I would like to reiterate this — specifically that it is not about Christianity. It’s not about the cadet with the Scripture. It’s about the focus and the environment of the academy as a whole. Should a passage from the Quran have been posted, or a satanic image depicted on the whiteboard, other cadets would have been offended and depending on their station intimated.
The military has a large number of Christian members; however, what if it was the opposite? Would those supporting the public expression of religion still be on board for flashing Scriptures? Let the cadets have and read Bibles, pray, get tattoos of Scripture and crosses, post Scriptures and the like inside their rooms and talk about it in the hall as they freely and commonly do now. A secular society can exist as separate from advocating a religion but not quashing those who choose to exist within it.
The minute that cadets are asked to keep entirely silent about their faith, they would be be treated differently than homosexual cadets who are now able to claim their sexuality, which would be biased not secular. There is a difference between a secular society and one groveling to minorities for their stamp of “politically correct” regardless of whom they have to silence and to what extent.
The world is a place of many religions, orientations and peoples. For the U.S. military as an institution to require certain levels of uniformity across the board and extend those to religion is reasonable so long as it does not become oppressive or biased. So long as every religion and belief is held to the same standard of private versus public expression then that is the nature of the institution and part of the deal. When it begins to change, then ring the alarm.
Whitney Greer is a sophomore English major from Medford, Oregon.
— Whitney Greer
whitneygreere@go.olemiss.edu
