L.Cpl. Sterling was prosecuted as a criminal by the United States Government when she represented herself. She has since appealed her case to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. She stated that her rights to religious expression were protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law used in court to protect religious liberty.
However, the trial and the appellate courts said that displaying quotes from the Holy Bible does not constitute religious exercise, yet they are accusing her of quoting a religious statement (which in and of itself is exercising religion.) L.Cpl. Sterling and her attorneys disagree. Says Liberty Institute Director of Military Affairs and Senior Counsel Mike Berry, "Restricting a Marine's free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional." Liberty Institute and attorney Paul Clement are asking the court to rule that the appellate court should have applied RFRA in L.Cpl. Sterling's case, protecting her right to post Bible verses as a form of religious exercise.
What I would like to ask is, when did the US military become qualified at determining which portions of Isaiah are religious? What gave the Marine's supervisor, who is a former drill instructor, the right to make this determination? Where did he receive his advanced training in Hebrew and Biblical Studies to make that call, and why didn't the unit commander call him on it and call in the resident expert on religious affairs--the Navy chaplain?
In a recent conversation, Dr. James F. Linzey stated, "When did the former drill instructor become a theologian? Drill instructors often tell Marines to stay in their own lane, meaning to attend to their own business, their own expertise, and do their own jobs, not delve into others' expertise and work. It is quite obvious to me that the former drill instructor did not practice what he preached, but acted outside his lane. Had he a question about religious expression, he should have phoned the Navy chaplain assigned to the unit."
Linzey went on to say, "Had the former drill instructor a question on a medical issue, I am certain he would have phoned the medical doctor assigned to the unit. Had he a question about a legal matter, he would have phoned the JAG assigned to the unit. But when the question of religion arose, it appears he assumed to be the resident expert and thought he knew better than the Navy chaplain assigned to the unit."
Jews, Hebrews, Muslims, Christians, and non-denominational people appreciate and are inspired by the writings of Isaiah. Isaiah's writings are not the basis of any religion. St. Jerome said that Isaiah was a historian; others said that he was an evangelist, apostle, prophet, perhaps even a chaplain since he was God's spokesman to several kings of Judah. His historical and futuristic writings were included in Hebrew "Scriptures" unbeknownst to him. Did canonizing the scroll of Isaiah magically make it religious? If it weren't canonized, would the drill instructor therefore have not decided L.Cpl. Sterling engaged in religious expression? What is the standard in the US Marine Corps?
Many Christians denounce religion. I know many Christians who say they do not believe in organized or formal religion, but who believe in the Bible. Perhaps Isaiah did not see himself as religious as well, but one who simply believed in a relationship with God and wrote down historical and futuristic events. H. G. Wells, Nikola Tesla, and Nostradamus are examples of people who wrote and said futuristic things. What makes Isaiah's statements religious and theirs not? Had a statement from either of them been posted at L.Cpl. Sterling's desk, would she have been court-martialed?
Another example found in the Old Testament is civil law. Civil law, found in the Law of Moses, is not a body of religious material. Much of the Torah is civil law--how to get along with one another in society and communal living. The entire American judicial system is based on the Law of Moses, but is not religious at all. The very concept of breaking a law and paying a fine or doing time is based on the Law of Moses. Did someone forget to tell the drill instructor this, or was he so blind? So much for his expertise on religion!
L.Cpl. Sterling, working for the US military industrial complex, found the statement from Isaiah reassuring and quite fitting for her personal space in her work environment. Perhaps she was determined not to be the next victim of the weapons of warfare of America's enemies. For this, she was court martialed. The statement "No weapon formed against you will prosper" simply is saying that weapons in military battle will not succeed. If that quote were religious, then every time the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps or any military leader tells U.S. Marines that they will probably not be harmed in a conflict if they follow proper procedures, they would be making religious statements. Should they then be court martialed for making religious statements when they simply tell them they might not be hurt in battle? When the president of the United States says, "God bless America," should he be impeached? The double standards and hypocrisy show how insane our country has become.
Similarly, "Thou shalt not steal," which is a civil law in the Old Testament, if posted at the brave Marine's desk, might have landed her in court. But perhaps if stated like this, it might be seen for what it is: "Do not take from others what is not yours."
Canonizing non-religious statements does not make them religious. Have you heard Christians say they do not believe in religion, but in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ? It is accurate.
According to Merriam-Webster, 'Religious' is relating to or believing in a religion.' It means devout, pious, reverent, godly, god-fearing, and more. Religious expression on the job can simply be 'pious,' or 'reverent.' Should one be court-martialed for expressing religion through silent piety or reverence? This is a form of silent religious expression, just like silently posting a leadership quote from Isaiah. Posting leadership statements is something even atheists can do, regardless of who is being quoted.
My opinion is that what is 'religious' is not for US military drill instructors to determine, and that the drill instructor should have asked the unit chaplain for expert opinion, but was negligent in his duties, and should have been severely reprimanded. Judges likewise have no qualifications to decide such matters. Their expertise should be law, not religion. But when they fail to understand that the judicial system they have sworn to uphold is based on Old Testament law, they should be summarily fired for being the incompetent judicial activists they are.
What is 'religious' certainly is a concept that needs further exploration before court-martialing a US Marine. I've seen many leadership quotes posted and quoted by military leaders, but none of them were court-martialed. Where was L.Cpl. Sterling's Navy chaplain in all this? Is he going to be God's mouthpiece, like Isaiah, and speak deliverance to her?
Perhaps L.Cpl. Sterling should have quoted the rest of Isaiah's statement at her desk: "...and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn." Perhaps she should simply call down God's judgment and condemnation against the false judgment handed her by the wicked mouths of deceit and hypocrisy in that courtroom. My prayers are with L.Cpl. Sterling. May God grant her deliverance.
