Much happened while I was at YearlyKos, including this story hitting the media. I was only checking one email address while I was at the conference, so I missed the chance to break the story sooner (Chris Rodda had emailed me the full Pentagon report, but I didn't see it until I got back home on Sunday). The story is about the Pentagon's Inspector General concluding that several high-ranking officers had violated military rules by appearing in a fundraising video for a group called Christian Embassy while in uniform in their offices at the Pentagon.
This is an issue that has been pursued by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). Weinstein is an interesting guy. He's an attorney and a former Air Force Judge Advocate officer who also spent three years working in the White House under Reagan. But when he found out that his sons were being relentlessly proselytized and harassed by their superior officers at the Air Force Academy for being Jewish rather than Christian, he decided to take a stand and work to get the military out of the religion business.
He filed suit against the Air Force to put a stop to it. His foundation is now investigating untold numbers of complaints from active duty officers, including prayer meetings with Nazi regalia on military bases. This issue of the Christian Embassy video was one that Weinstein's foundation raised and the Pentagon has now agreed with them that the officers who appeared in that video in uniform at the Pentagon violated regulations, just like James Klingenschmitt did when he appeared in unifrom at a protest rally on behalf of Roy Moore at the White House. Here's the story on the latest findings:
The inspector general last week recommended that Air Force and Army leaders take unspecified "corrective action" against the seven military officers who took part in the Christian Embassy video.Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter U. Sutton and Jack J. Catton Jr., and Army Brig. Gens. Vincent K. Brooks and Robert L. Caslen Jr. were singled out for failing to seek appropriate approval to participate in the video and for violating ethical rules by appearing in uniform while praising the religious group. Retired Army Col. Ralph G. Benson, a former Pentagon chaplain, was also criticized for allowing Christian Embassy unescorted access to the building to film the video and for misrepresenting the purpose of the effort as a promotion of the Pentagon chaplain's office.
And as the article notes, this is only the latest in a long line of controversies:
The military's connection to religious expression has come under scrutiny in recent years, highlighted by complaints of religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy in 2004 and 2005, when officers were promoting evangelical Christian views. In 2003, Army Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin was faulted for criticizing Muslims while appearing in uniform before church groups, actions that the inspector general did not consider violations of ethics rules. Last year, a Navy chaplain was court-martialed for appearing in uniform at a political protest in front of the White House, though he maintained that all he did was lead a prayer.
Weinstein's group is extremely important and has already forced the Pentagon to back down on several issues, including official sponsorship of fundamentalist rallies and events. Weinstein himself sums up why such issues are important and why, contrary to the inevitable persecution claims of the religious right, they are about religious establishment rather than religious freedom:
Military and civilian personnel are undoubtedly entitled to their own religious beliefs. It is, however, clearly against military regulations and Constitutional guarantees to promote these beliefs during mandatory military meetings and events, while in uniform and on duty. My son and daughter-in-law (both of whom are United States Air Force Academy graduates) found this out when their request to appear in uniform in a documentary film about religion in the military was denied, in writing, by the Pentagon, for fear of government endorsement of their views.We are not asking for the cessation of bible studies, prayer groups, sermonizing or religious functions before or after military duties have been completed. We are only asking that these religious events not be made mandatory or be thrust by those in the chain-of-command, in the face of subordinates who actively choose not to engage in them. Of equal importance, we are asking military members to not use their official government positions as a platform to preach about their particular biblical worldview.
As a United States Air Force Academy graduate, with a long family history of military combat service, I consider myself a true patriot and a loyal supporter of this country and her values. I have never sought to placate our enemies and did not choose to engage in this fight with that objective in mind. Rather, I took up this cause after hearing innumerable examples of specific Constitutional infractions and of blatant religious bias, from U.S. armed forces and civilian personnel stationed at the 702 U.S. military installations in 132 countries throughout the world.
I firmly believe that the encroachment of religious fundamentalism on our armed forces destroys their ability to successfully serve the American people. Servicemen and women, cadets, midshipmen and civilian personnel are crying out that constant coercive evangelizing and the pressure to adhere to a religion that is not their own, negatively impacts their ability to study, serve and stand together as a cohesive fighting unit in the war we are currently waging.
Well said.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 

Comments
"We are not asking for the cessation of bible studies, prayer groups, sermonizing or religious functions before or after military duties have been completed. We are only asking that these religious events not be made mandatory or be thrust by those in the chain-of-command"
Call me naive, but are Bible studies, prayer groups, and sermons mandated by the chain-of-command?
Posted by: Royale | August 6, 2007 9:13 AM
Royale writes:
In many cases, yes. Not mandated in any written regulation, of course, but de facto mandated by high-pressure tactics used by those who control the careers of those below them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 6, 2007 12:04 PM
FYI.
In 1997 - significantly, under a Democratic administration - the President issued Guidelines On Religious Exercise in The Federal Workplace
These guidelines were both reasonable and respectful of all belief systems and of non-beliefs as well.
Unfortunately, the guidelines specifically exempted uniformed military personnel. In retrospect, as a blanket exemption, this was probably an unwise limitation. It relied too much on the individual 'good will' of military personnel, who as human beings are subject to the same pressures as civilans are. At least, that had been my observation.
But being that civilians did have these guidelines, military personnel were at least aware of potential issues.
As a sop to its religious-right supporters, however, the Bush Administration never saw fit to renew the guidelines even with that limited application. So while the Bush crew didn't specifically rescind them - and theoretically they still apply to Federal civilian employees - their purposeful inaction amounted to almost a rescission. It certainly signaled to uniformed personnel that they no longer had to even pay attenion to the guidelines.
In my opinion, this policy (or non-policy) has only exacerbated what was already a significant problem involving uniformed military personnel.
Posted by: Poly | August 6, 2007 1:13 PM
Royale asks:
Please don't ask unnecessary complex questions. People will think you have a hidden agenda.
(1) Bible studies: I personally know of none that were "mandated", even as a suggestion.
(2) Prayer groups: Yes - definitely.
(3) "Sermons"????. As I understand it, a "sermon" is a speech given by a member of the clergy - in the military, a chaplain - in his or her capacity as such. I have no problem with that and such expressions are covered by military regulations - it is part of their job.
On the other hand, if you are meaning a speech with explicit religious themes and references given by a non-clergyperson, or a speech given in violation of military regulations, or if you are asking if attendance at a particular sermon was mandated, please be more clear.
Posted by: Poly | August 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Mikey Weinstein is going to be on CNN at 5:00 EST and 8:00 EST today talking about this.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | August 6, 2007 3:29 PM
As I was referencing the article, I thought it was obvious I was incorporating whatever definition was used there.
As I understand it, a sermon is a more formal Bible study. Or, that's my experience with both.
Posted by: Royale | August 6, 2007 3:43 PM
a more formal bible study? That's not how sermon's I've heard have worked. Sermons I have heard have read two passages of scripture and half the time they've riffed off of them for 20 minutes, trying to make their point more relevant to today's audience. The other half of the time the scriptures are totally ignored as the preacher tries to explain his/her brand of morality and why it should be followed as the 'correct' path in life. And I grew up in a mainline protestant church that finds fundie evangelicals abhorent... so I'm betting that the first 50% gets tossed right out the window by fundie preachers, letting them focus on dictating morality and the only way to save souls... and I bet that's the real problem with "preaching sermons"
Posted by: kate | August 7, 2007 8:29 AM