The Air Force Academy is currently embroiled in religious freedom argument that some have taken to calling "Whiteboardgate." My Academy friends are undoubtedly aware of this issue by now, but for those of you who are not from the Academy, let me provide a bit of background. A few days ago, a story broke on the opinion pages of Fox News about a cadet that posted a Bible verse (Galatians 2:20) on the whiteboard outside of his/her room at the Academy. According to the Academy, these whiteboards are for "personal and professional use" and, according to the article, up to 29 cadets and
faculty members felt strongly enough about the verse to contact the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and ask that they intervene to get the cadet to remove the verse. The Military Religious Freedom foundation is an organization founded and run by Academy graduate Mikey Weinstein with the self-proclaimed mission statement of "ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." The MRFF has, in the past, fought against proselytizing in the military and the Service Academies, nativity scenes on military property, military leaders making religious promotional material in uniform or in their workplaces, the engraving of Bible verses on the rifle scopes that American forces were using overseas, and within the last year removing "so help me God" from the honor oath that all incoming cadets at the Air Force Academy take. I have agreed with some of their campaigns and have disagreed with other, but there is something about this case that has frustrated me in particular and so I wanted to take this time to talk about it.
On the issue itself, the argument made by Mr. Weinstein was that the posting of the Bible verse in a "public place" violated AFI 1-1, the regulation that talks about religious freedom and establishment in the Air Force. He 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." AFI 1-1 regulation states:
"Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual's free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to
promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion. Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectivity. Airmen, especially commanders and supervisors, must ensure that
in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade
morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force or degrade the trust and confidence that the public has in the United States Air Force."
I have a hard time seeing how, in this instance, the posting of a Bible verse violates this regulation. A whiteboard that is intended for personal use fails to constitute an official endorsement or establishment of a religion. Nobody is forced to read the verse, in fact the way that the hallways are arranged at the Academy you are actually required to physically turn your body to see the whiteboard as you walk down the hall because it is in a recessed alcove. The Bible verse is one that speaks of a personal conviction: "I have been crucified in Christ and it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives in me." This verse speaks of a personal relationship with God and doesn't implore others to believe it it. There is no pressure for those who read it to also believe it to be true. It in no way implies that
anyone who feels otherwise is wrong or flawed or condemned. Had the verse been something about how all non-believers will be thrown into the fiery pits of hell, then I would agree it should be taken down. There are limits to free speech and limits to free expression and I am willing to admit that there is line to be drawn. Furthermore, I don't see how someone, even a person under the command of the individual who posted the verse, could take from it the implication that if they didn't feel the same
way, they would be harshly or negatively treated, or that those who agreed would be given preferential treatment.
The Academy ultimately agreed with Weinstein and asked the cadet to remove the verse, which he did. However, the Academy stated that they didn't believe any regulations were broken and chose not to punish the cadet and instead use it as a "teachable moment." Mr. Weinstein had a problem with this
and wanted the cadet, as well as all members of his cadet and Officer chain of command, to be punished. I am glad the cadet was not punished because I see this as a grey area in which the cadet did was he/she believed was within his/her rights, and had no intention of willfully or knowingly violating Air Force policy. I think Mr. Weinstein should not be screaming for punishment in an issue that is as up for discussion as I think this one is.
As justification for the removal of the verse, in a statement regarding this issue, Superintendent Lt General Michelle Johnson stated "A religious scripture was displayed outside a dormitory room belonging to a cadet who held a leadership position in the squadron. Another cadet prompted a discussion of appropriateness, according to policies that leaders will avoid actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to subordinates. The scripture was below the cadet's name on a white board and could cause subordinates to doubt the leader's religious impartiality." So was the problem one of "establishment" or of "command influence?" Is it truly a question of "time and place" like Mr. Weinstein said, or is it more the issue of the position of the person making the comment? Does this mean that as soon as someone enters a position of leadership, their rights to religious expression are immediately and significantly curbed? Where does this cadet's right to religious expression cross over into establishment? This is a fundamental question that must be answered.
I think that AFI 1-1 does a reasonably good job of defining the line that military members must not cross. However, because we live in a world of greys as opposed to whites and blacks, this line becomes muddled when it comes to situational application. This instance has led me to consider other scenarios and what the appropriate response would be. Is it acceptable for a cadet to, in their free time when civilian clothing is authorized, wear a shirt with a Bible verse on it? Your clothing is your own personal property, but because it is worn in public places would that be acceptable? (The academy has rules about civilian wear preventing you from wearing anything obscene or anything that advocates violence, but I can't recall any mention in the rules about religious material.) Would Mr. Weinstein or the Academy consider this a violation of AFI 1-1? If this cadet were a 4 degree (lowest ranking cadet) would he have been allowed to post the verse because he has no subordinates and
therefore nobody to doubt his impartiality? Is it simply a matter of command influence that makes this posting unacceptable? If the verse was posted on the inside of the room, but where it could been seen with the door open, would that have been allowed? There are many times throughout the day where cadets are required to leave their doors open and therefore the verse could be seen
even if it were inside the room. While I could go on and on about this particular issue and all the shades of grey that surround it, I think that what it really boils down to is that this is a small issue that has exposed a much larger problem: the way that we deal with controversial topics that evoke emotional responses.
There are few issues in our country that get us more fired up than those of faith. Whether it be the "war on Christmas" or the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, these issues are constantly coming up and the discourse is continually being overwhelmed with emotional, and often
irrational, rhetoric. Let us take this particular instance as an example. In reference to the placement of the Bible verse, Mr. Weinstein said this: ""It clearly elevated one religious faith [fundamentalist Christianity] over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution. It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA." Can we take a minute to process this? Apparently, the fact that an 20-24 year old (I'm guessing based on the rank of the Cadet) posted a personally resonant verse outside of his door is "fundamentalist Christian gasoline" that is being poured on an "already raging out of control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalist, and supremacy?" Wow! When our discourse is full of vitriolic language like that, how can we ever expect to have a rational conversation? If we are so concerned with shouting down other people's views, how are we supposed to actually listen and make any progress? Emotional statements like that only succeed in evoking emotional responses in return, and there is little place for pure emotion if we truly want to fix problems and allow our nation to grow and improve. Mr. Weinstein took this a step further by comparing this issue to racism, stating "You cannot put a picture in front of your room of a white person whipping a black person. You can't put a picture of anything that's denigrating outside your room." This reminds me of the all-too-prevalent "Hitler" argument we see today in political and social discourse. You don't like someone or what they believe in? Well the solution is to compare them to Hitler to prove your point. It is a lazy argument, it is a harmful argument, and it truly has no place in honest, positive discourse.
I think there was a time, not too long ago, when our military was extremely Christian-centric and when there were real problems with non-Christian
military members feeling pressured or persecuted against. This is undoubtedly a problem, and I think that Mr Weinstein started his fight against religious persecution in the military at a time when the only way you were going to be heard was to shout obscenities from the rooftop while tearing your clothes and gnashing your teeth. At that time, language like the language he used may have been appropriate and perhaps even necessary. However, that time has passed. The fact that, as he proudly stated as a victory on his website, it took 2 hours and 9 minutes between when he lodged his complaint and when the verse was removed, this is no longer that time. People are listening and people want to make positive changes. We are at a point where we can actually have a cool, collected conversation rather than scream and spout vitriolic rhetoric. I'm afraid, however, that Mr. Weinstein is no longer able to do this. It could be perhaps
because he's been screaming so long, he has forgotten how to do anything else. However I'm more inclined to think that because of his history of inflammatory language, he has made too many enemies of himself and of his causes. I think most of his successes come out of fear of his influence. He no longer has many allies in the general public and, for too many people (many of whom I known personally and professionally), when they hear the name Mikey Weinstein they immediately shut off to everything he says and stands for. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Weinstein to step aside and pass the baton. There is still a long way to go in order to ensure religious (and political and social) freedoms to the members of our military and Mr. Weinstein has undoubtedly been instrumental in this fight. But I think it could be time for a more nuanced voice in the fight for religious freedom. Its time for someone who can build bridges from the ashes of the bridges that I fear Mr. Weinstein has burned.
As usual, my attempt to just write out some thoughts turned into quite a lengthy sermon. If you've actually made it this far, it means you either care about the issue, or you are my mother. So, if you actually care, I would really appreciate your thoughts and perspectives. If you wouldn't mind shooting me an email or leaving me a comment about it, I would greatly appreciate it.
All of that being said I am a convicted Christian of Jewish heritage who believes in everyone's right to worship and believe what they please. I am a proud military officer who is honored by the chance to serve my country alongside my fellow incredible Airmen. And finally, despite her flaws and foibles, I am incredibly proud of the Air Force Academy and honored to be a member of the Long Blue Line.
