bonnie Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse By Todd Starnes Published May 26, 2015 FoxNews.com Facebook12374 Twitter2424 livefyre10466 Email Print Monifa Sterling (Courtesy Liberty Institute) A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.” The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.” Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk. She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer. As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military. Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge. The Christian Marine was given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private. Both lower court and the appellate court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to her case because displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious exercise. Related Image Expand / Contract However, a religious liberty law firm and a high-powered, former U.S. solicitor general have taken up her case and have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. “If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday,” said Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry. “Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.” Click here to follow Todd on Facebook for Conservative conversation! Sterling wised up and finally got legal counsel. Now representing her are the Liberty Institute along with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, also a law professor at Georgetown University. Clement most recently won a Supreme Court victory on behalf of Hobby Lobby against the Affordable Care Act. Liberty Institute and Clement plan to argue that the appellate court should have applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Sterling’s case – protecting her right to post Bible verses as a form of religious exercise. According to the appellate court’s decision, they were not convinced “that displaying religious text at a shared government workstation would be protected even in a civilian federal workplace.” They also considered the fact that Sterling’s desk was shared by other Marines. “The implication is clear – the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace,” the court declared. “It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations.” Festooned with religious quotations? Attorney Berry points out that other Marines were allowed to decorate their desks. However, the lower courts refused to allow that evidence to be admitted. And at the time of the incident – Sterling was not sharing a desk. “This was a conflict between her and her supervisor,” he told me. “Her supervisor clearly said she did not like the tone of the Bible verses.” Berry said the supervisor cursed at Sterling and ordered her to immediately remove the verses. She refused the order. The following day, she discovered the verses had been removed and thrown in the trash. “Adding insult to injury, the government charged her with the crime of failing to obey a direct order because she did not remove the Bible verse,” Berry said. According to court documents, the military maintains the “verbiage” – “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” could “easily been seen as contrary to good order and discipline.” “Maintaining discipline and morale in the military work center could very well require that the work center remain relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc.” Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me it was outrageous “that such a small strip of paper could so frighten a drill sergeant.” “This is a very scary time when you are not allowed to have a very small printed Bible verse in your own personal workspace because it might offend other Marines,” Sasser told me. “Our Marines are trained to deal with some of the most hostile people on the planet. I don’t think they are afraid of tiny words on a tiny piece of paper.” The Bible verse incident happened in May 2013. A few months later she was accused of failing to wear an appropriate uniform because of a medical condition. Berry told me he believes the military was trumping up the charge sheet “to make it look that things were worse than they were.” As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military. Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge. Anything less could jeopardize the standing of every person of faith serving in the Armed Forces. Should that happen – God help us all. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 27, 2015 Moderators Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) The case involves Monifa J. Sterling, a Marine veteran who was convicted in a court-martial at Camp Lejeune, N.C., of failing to go to an appointed place of duty, disrespecting a superior commissioned officer and four specifications of disobeying a lawful order. She was sentenced last year to a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private and given a bad-conduct discharge, a status that will stay on her military record and prohibits her from receiving benefits as a veteran. It is more complicated than a simple refusal to remove a Bible verse. The Navy-Marine Corps appeals court noted that Sterling had never told her staff sergeant that the signs had a religious connotation, . . . The above is critical. Case law is clear: in order to claim such a protection, one must state it. IOW, she should have claimed such protection at the time she was told to remove. There is an additional factor, however: As I further look at the evidence, the Staff Sgt. may (?) (This is not 100% certain.) have been on solid legal grounds to tell her to remove due to the manner in which she had posted the Bible verse. Military regulations that apply across the services proscribe the manner in which such can be posted on one's desk. I think that she may (?") have violated those. But, I am not certain. I am also concerned about the statement that she represented herself at a Bad Conduct Discharge. Yes, I am aware of Supreme court decisions as to a person representing themselves at a trial. I have a hard time understanding how this would be allowed at a Bad Conduct Discharge Court Martial. But, maybe, I am wrong. Here is the applicable ruling: NOTE: She had to be given a defense council to be given a BCD. Art. 19, UCMJ; 10 U.S.C. §819; RCM 201(f)(2)(B). A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than s months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, may only be adjudged if a complete record of the proceeding and testimony has been made, defense counsel was appointed, and a military judge presided over the court-martial. If amilitary judge could not be appointed, a detailed written statement stating the reasons why must be submitted by the commander who convened the court-martial.[/quote] Edited May 27, 2015 by Gregory Matthews Quote Gregory
Administrators Naomi Posted May 27, 2015 Administrators Posted May 27, 2015 Gregory, based only on the information provided in the article I must agree with your assessment of the probability of what occurred. Whether in the Military or in private enterprise if you don't claim your religion and its involvement in your life up front, you have relinquished your rights. In the military it is even more so ... an authorized statement put on one's shared workstation could have ramifications which could endanger the safety of the entire area. Granted this was from the scriptures, but could it have been a coded message? who really knows what goes on in the minds of our fellow men and women And,furthermore, to perhaps understand how the "Bad Conduct Discharge" originated ... we have no idea how she responded to the officer, the court, etc. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
Stan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I believe you are both correct.. and I know journalist who do leave out critical parts of stories, and it causes so much agitation. My experience, and others may differ, I have seen so much of semi-trust on Fox and a couple of other all news networks. The excite the viewer into believe ridiculous things.. I view on clip part way today on how GWB started ISIS.. they quoted authorities casual and incomplete statements. This type of journalism just sickens me. AND Fox may be the leader, but they are not alone by any means. Naomi 1 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
LifeHiscost Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I believe you are both correct.. and I know journalist who do leave out critical parts of stories, and it causes so much agitation. My experience, and others may differ, I have seen so much of semi-trust on Fox and a couple of other all news networks. The excite the viewer into believe ridiculous things.. I view on clip part way today on how GWB started ISIS.. they quoted authorities casual and incomplete statements. This type of journalism just sickens me. AND Fox may be the leader, but they are not alone by any means. Having been in the Marine Corps when the draft was still in affect in the U.S. and volunteering for the Corps because I thought nothing could be worse than being in the Army, it wasn't long before I learned that the Lord's army is the only military force in which the Christian is safe, even when the Lord's chosen methods do not appear to be up to the task at hand. …28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30"Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.…Luke 6 It just depends on Whose army one trusts. 9Then from one of the prominent horns came a small horn whose power grew very great. It extended toward the south and the east and toward the glorious land of Israel. 10Its power reached to the heavens, where it attacked the heavenly army, throwing some of the heavenly beings and some of the stars to the ground and trampling them. …11It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. 12And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper. 13Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, "How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?"…Daniel 8 God is Love! Jesus saves! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Administrators Naomi Posted May 27, 2015 Administrators Posted May 27, 2015 Stan, I saw that same clip about GWB & ISIS ... disgusting!!! The news media is becoming so driven to sensationalism and Fox is the leader but as you said, certainly not alone. Actually I may watch the news once a month ... my life is just fine without all the trumped up drama. If it is real it will surface. But that is off the sugject, sorry Bonnie. Perhaps when all is said and done the whole truth will come out in the events surrounding this young girls court marshal. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
bonnie Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Stan, I saw that same clip about GWB & ISIS ... disgusting!!! The news media is becoming so driven to sensationalism and Fox is the leader but as you said, certainly not alone. Actually I may watch the news once a month ... my life is just fine without all the trumped up drama. If it is real it will surface. But that is off the sugject, sorry Bonnie. Perhaps when all is said and done the whole truth will come out in the events surrounding this young girls court marshal. No apology necessary. I actually believe the Marine was wrong. The hypersensitivity in anything that might reflect or somehow sound religious is interesting for me because of something my father said years ago.He was convinced and it appears to me he was right that God would become almost a profanity and should only be allowed to be heard in the home and church.Eventually a hypersensitive concentrated push back would occur and then our troubles would begin. He passed away before he saw what is taking place today.It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I mentioned somewhere a few days ago that a rather silly "protest" against the fabric store where I do business. A few people wanting their fifteen minutes of fame demanded certain fabrics be removed as they were offensive. One is a fabric print of dollar bills. It actually say "In God We Trust" That was enough to be hailed as pushing religious beliefs in a store frequented by atheists etc that did not believe in God. The baby angels and the wedding fabric with a bride and groom were also targeted..The store manager politely told them to go elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if that is the end of it. As for Fox,this is found many places with very similar information. Edited May 27, 2015 by bonnie Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Administrators Naomi Posted May 27, 2015 Administrators Posted May 27, 2015 Yes Bonnie, times are changing .... signs of the times are everywhere. And, I do believe that the devil uses things like this and the protest at the fabric store to make Christians look radical and just plain dumb. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
Stan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It reminds me of the big noise made about China not allowing google to their citizens. There was so much talk in North American about denying freedom and oppression, lack of freedom of speech etc etc. The real reason is the google would not block the porn, which is not considered acceptable in Chinese or communist culture. 95+ % of porn is a product of Christian Cultures. Yet none the media brought up the real reason (that I am aware of) Naomi 1 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
bonnie Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 I would just as soon that porn disappear but would you be in favor of the government telling you what you can watch? While it won't be porn soon the government will be telling us a few things we can't do Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 27, 2015 Moderators Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) The issue of what is placed on the desk one uses is complicated in the military. One of the factors considered is whether or not the placement of that item is intended for the personal and private use of the person who is associated with the desk as opposed to being placed there to send a message to people doing business with the person at that desk. If it is thought to be placed there to send a message to people doing business at that desk, it will often be prohibited.. One element that may have played into this is that the woman placed the written verse of Scripture in three (3) positions probably in the view of people doing business with her. To me this looks like she had another motive other than for her own personal benefit. The VA hospital where I worked had a physician who was a Hindu. She was high up on the clinical ladder, supervised many people and she and I got along quite well (I often had to conduct VA business with her.). As a Hindu she would not have been allowed (She would not have wanted to do so..) place at the entry to her office a statute of a Hindu god/goddess with incense burning before it. That would have been clearly beyond what was allowed. Yet she was allowed, without question, to have on her body the openly visible marks of a person dedicated to a Hindu god/goddess. Any person talking to her would have seen that identification with the Hindu religion. Edited May 27, 2015 by Gregory Matthews Naomi 1 Quote Gregory
Bill Cork Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 Here is the documentation from the appellate court. Lots more going on here. And that's generally true with the stories that Todd Starnes writes about supposed violations of religious liberty in the military.http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF Quote
bonnie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Interesting the first article noted pretty much the same as the article you posted "She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer." " KING, Judge: A special court-martial consisting of officer and enlisted members convicted the appellant, contrary to her pleas, of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO), http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF" Neither of the above quotes are difficult to understand Edited May 30, 2015 by bonnie Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 30, 2015 Moderators Posted May 30, 2015 I have read the entire document. Yes, there was a lot more going on, most of which I will not comment on at this time. However, I find the closing statement of her attorney to be interesting. She had just gotten married and wanted out as quickly as possible. IOW, she asked for a BCD! Quote Gregory
bonnie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Posted May 30, 2015 Obviously this young woman was pushing the envelop to get whatever she was after. While I would be surprised if she wins it will be interesting to see how it actually ends I ecpect we will see a lot more lawsuits in the current climate in the military and civilian. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 30, 2015 Moderators Posted May 30, 2015 I do not expect to see a lot more litigation overt the issues that she raised. Naomi 1 Quote Gregory
bonnie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Posted May 30, 2015 I was surprised at the win of Hobby Lobby to. I am glad they won but didnt expect them to I understand the military is a different ball game but most law firms dont jump into a very expensive litigation because they are bored and are looking for something to do. I am pretty sure they are not relying on a news article to come to the decision to represent this woman They probably have more information than anyone here has Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Stan Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) This story reminds me of several situations in the past. Being called upon to protect someone who was terminated over her or his views of the Sabbath, and not being working Friday evenings. Turns out that had little to do with it. They were terminated for not showing up, and when they did show up they were not productive, one was showing up intoxicated... Edited May 30, 2015 by Stan phkrause and Naomi 2 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 30, 2015 Moderators Posted May 30, 2015 . . . most law firms dont jump into a very expensive litigation because they are bored and are looking for something to do. . . True, but? There are law firms that litigate issues that they believe have moral values (or other issues) that they believe need to be addressed by the courts. They will do this even when they believe that it is a long shot. As I understand it, the Liberty Institute is a law firm that litigates such issues that have moral values. Such law firm have supporters who finance the litigation so that the law firm is still earning their fees. NOTE: I once was part of a group that financed a lawsuit against the Federal government on an issues that we who financed it knew was along shot, but we wanted it decided by the courts. We did not win by litigation. So, in a sense we lost our money. However, Congress eventually passed a law that provided some relief. (Actually, I have been a part of a group that financed such Federal cases twice. In this second case, we came to the place where we decided that litigation had little chance of success.) In my review of the ruling that Bill Cork posted I believe that some judicial error exists. I think that that error might be worth litigation and judicial review by another court. When this exists the questions become: 1) Is this error important enough to reverse the decision. Case law is clear. Judicial errors occur and some are not important enough to cause a decision to be changed. 2) Is this the case that one would want to use to litigate an issue. As I read the total decision, I decided that in this case the judge explained the rational for the decision to such an extent that a determination of error would not reverse it. Due to the multiple other factors evident in the conviction, to include the closing statement of the attorney who represented her, I believe that this is not the case to litigate the potential error that I believe occurred. On can never predict with 100% certainty how a judge will rule. Sometimes it is better not to litigate and then have an adverse ruling. Quote Gregory
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.