Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith

Breitbart News
by Ken Klukowski
1 May 2013, 8:12 AM PDT

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)–whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by “proselytizing.” …I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 30,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.


The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

Get AQ Email Updates

5 comments on “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith

  1. The Soviet communist adage was:

    “You can be Christian as long as no one knows it.”

  2. Hey, don’t ask, don’t tell.

    Diabolical disorientation. God help us.

  3. A priest friend was saying that priests were prevented from entering the place of explosion at Boston to give the last rites, but others were permitted to enter.

  4. And so, the Jewish head of the Military Religious “Freedom” Foundation says sharing the Gospel is a form of “spiritual rape.”
    NewSpeak is really upon us now, as well as newly thought-up crimes. This is very distressing, when “freedom” of religion comes to mean the prohibition of religion. None of this is new–words have taken their opposite meaning since the French Revolution–but it is now so brazenly in our faces–we may yet have the opportunity of martyrdom.

  5. This argument has been simmering since the protestant rebellion, where two factions formed, one by Allen and Parsons, the other the so-called Appellants, named because they sued that Rome should stop opposing the heretical regime in Britain–opposing it really, with guns. The Appellants were so comfortable, you see, well placed in court, friendly with their beloved queen, why should those dratted troublemakers aim at a restoration? And we have been struggling with it ever since. The Appellants now insist on ‘religious liberty,’ just as their counterparts did then. That was the first time this heresy was raised. Vatican II’s apostasy came with cobwebs from the earliest days of imperialism’s victory over the economic kindness of medievalism–that’s what the protestant rebellion was all about, simple robbery. Nationalism, ‘love of country’ over love of God, took the place of the universal Church. “Religious liberty’ is the demand of those who wish to settle. Que Viva Cristo Rey is the demand of those who do not—until we get a slogan in English at least. Which side are you on?

Leave a Reply