“Freedom’s Finis Flight?” first appeared in the March/April 2012 issue of Touchstone.
If you enjoy this article, you'll find more of the same in every issue.

From the March/April, 2012 issue of *Touchstone*

Freedom’s Finis Flight? by Joseph M. Burns

COMMUNIQUÉ

Freedom’s Finis Flight?

The U.S. Air Force’s “Neutrality” Policy Creates a Religious No-Fly Zone

by Joseph M. Burns

On September 1, 2011, General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, signed out a memo with new and worrisome instructions for airmen of all ranks—including both uniformed members and Air Force civilians—on “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.”¹ This policy is cause for no small concern, especially when compared to the prior Air Force policy (“Revised Interim Guidelines Concerning Free Exercise of Religion in the Air Force”) signed out by the previous Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on February 9, 2006.² The new memo inaugurates a significant tightening of religious-freedom boundaries in the Air Force and follows other measures that seem to be aimed at replacing free exercise of religion with freedom from religion. Unlike the former, of course, the latter has no foundation in the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding the rationale for his September 1 memo, General Schwartz’s spokesman said:

We have seen instances where well-meaning commanders and senior noncommissioned officers appeared to advance a particular religious view among their subordinates, calling into question their impartiality and objectivity. We can learn from these instances.³

Perhaps we can, but if we’re worried about impartiality and objectivity, shouldn’t we simply reinforce the existing policy globally while taking appropriate actions towards violators individually? After all, we wouldn’t outlaw pedestrian travel to control jaywalking, would we?

Yet when you compare the details of the new policy with their counterparts in the old, it looks like the answer is actually yes. For example, the previous guidelines took a more balanced approach between religion and irreligion. They prohibited both officially endorsing and officially disapproving of any faith belief. The new guidelines only outlaw officially endorsing a faith belief. So, under General Schwartz’s new policy, leaders are now free to officially and publicly disapprove of any faith belief or of faith in general. Official disapproval of a faith belief would certainly make it difficult to freely exercise that faith. That reality clearly calls into question the “impartiality” of the new standards.

What’s more, the new Air Force policy fails to tackle both sides of the constitutional proscriptions surrounding religion. In particular, the 2006 policy addressed both faith beliefs and the absence of same, reminding airmen that neither could be officially endorsed or officially disapproved of. The fact that the 2011 version leaves out the previous restriction against the endorsement of a lack of faith beliefs is tantamount to an implied endorsement of irreligion, leaving the door open for all Air Force leaders to officially endorse an absence of faith beliefs. Such endorsements would naturally be seen by subordinates as official opposition to religion. Where is the neutrality in a policy that spawns that sort of outcome?

Most troubling, General Schwartz’s memo adds the startling stipulation that commanders must not even appear to endorse religion. That completely subjective caveat enormously broadens the reach of the restrictions. Would wall hangings or desk art featuring Bible verses be verboten under this standard? How about saying “God bless you” or even “Bless you” instead of “Gesundheit” when somebody sneezes? Is it now out of bounds for a commander or supervisor to tell someone facing a difficult mission or experiencing a family tragedy, “I’ll be praying for you”? As these very passive examples illustrate, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could exercise his religion freely without appearing to endorse it.

Tightening the restrictions on religious freedom even further, the new Air Force policy levies a gag order on commanders: “I expect chaplains, not commanders, to notify Airmen of Chaplain programs.” While declaring commanders responsible for those same programs, the September 1 memo handcuffs their ability to influence the programs’ utility and success. The resulting official indifference from senior leadership and the attendant lack of visibility will ultimately cause chaplain programs to become functionally inert. Such a disturbing consequence would be directly at odds with the spiritual component of the Air Force’s Comprehensive Airman Fitness Program, which seeks to increase the resilience of airmen in the face of the rigors of military life. So then, are these handcuffs truly a sign of neutrality toward religion, or rather of hostility
to it?

Finally, even the titles of the 2006 and 2011 memos differ significantly in their primary emphases. The former focuses on the “Free Exercise of Religion,” the latter on “Religious Neutrality.” While the distinction may seem minor, it leaves little doubt that there is now less interest in allowing the free exercise of religion in the Air Force and more interest in curbing it.

Course Scrutiny

Though the Chief of Staff’s new policy is itself enormously significant, it is not the only recent action by him, or the Air Force in general, that signals a vector change away from the free exercise of religion and towards freedom from it. In June 2011, a commentary appeared in the Travis Air Force Base newspaper about servant leadership. It was written by a Chief Master Sergeant with more than two and a half decades of service to America. His commentary used business, military, and personal references to describe and recommend servant leadership, and it also included these opinions:

Whether you choose to believe the Bible is fictional or non-fictional is a personal matter, but when it comes to a servant leader, no one can argue the fact that Christ is a great example. There are many examples of Christ serving his disciples. . . . At the last supper, he served his disciples and declared his role in their midst as one of servant. He washed their feet and dried them. . . . The ultimate service was when he gave his life to save others. . . . As for me, I choose to believe. . . .

This commentary was quickly pulled from the base’s website, and indications were that the order to remove it came from General Schwartz. Whatever the case, the Air Force, in effect, told this leader—who had achieved the service’s highest enlisted grade—to privatize and compartmentalize the precepts that no doubt helped him arrive there.
Later, in July 2011, the Air Force suspended a course on “Christian Just War Theory,” which had been taught to missile-launch officers for more than twenty years, because it relied on verses from the Bible.⁴ The course was used to explain to those airmen responsible for launching nuclear missiles why certain acts of war are righteous. Within a month, the Air Force also found fault with another course, taught in all Reserve Officer Training Corps programs across the country, because it, too, used biblical texts as a foundation for discussing ethical issues.⁵

Subsequently, the Air Force launched a service-wide review of all its courses on ethics, core values, morals, and character, in an effort to ensure that these topics would be taught within the bounds of religious neutrality. But no comment was offered indicating what neutral foundation the service would use in place of or alongside the Bible to aid future officers in differentiating between right and wrong, an essential skill for maintaining the trust and confidence of the American
people.

Without doubt, the capstone to all these actions was the memo signed out by the Chief of Staff on September 1, which was celebrated as a “watershed edict” and “monumental victory”⁶ by the inaptly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the same organization that prompted the Air Force to suspend “Christian Just War Theory”⁷ and to scrutinize all courses, like “Core Values and the Air Force Member.”⁸

Upsetting the Balance

Commenting on the interim guidelines issued by the Air Force in 2005, the American Center for Law and Justice highlighted the delicate balance between avoiding the establishment of religion and ensuring its free exercise:

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As noted in Locke v. Davey . . . (2004), the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are frequently in tension. Yet, the Court has long said that “there is room for play in the joints” between them. . . . In other words, there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Moreover, neutrality in religious matters requires that the state neither favor nor disfavor religion. The First Amendment clearly proscribes favoring religion over non-religion or one religion over others, but it likewise proscribes favoring non-religion over religion. . . . Neither Religion Clause obligates the Air Force to exclude ideas or topics about or concerning religion, faith, and God—or the converse. “[T]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens . . . (1990).⁹

In essence, the twin constitutional religious proscriptions—against establishment of religion and against prohibition of its free exercise—mark off a religious fair-play zone. Staying in bounds requires determined and careful balancing of each. Nowhere, however, does the Constitution demand (or, more importantly, even allow) anything close to a religion-free zone—a place where those offended by religion can exist untroubled by it in any way. General Schwartz’s September 1 policy pushes the Air Force precipitously close to that unconstitutional religion-free zone by increasing restrictions on free exercise that already appear to be outside the Constitution’s fair-play zone.

In truth, it is impossible for General Schwartz or anyone else to increase impartiality or objectivity in a two-sided issue by diminishing only the rights of those on one side. The Constitution’s dual proscriptions on religion delicately balance a two-sided coin on its narrow edge. Any pressure exerted against one side, without equal pressure against the other, doesn’t equalize that balance; it upsets it. In the end, the coin falls over, with just one side exposed while the other vanishes completely. Thus, although the 2011 memo begins with a reminder to airmen of this important balance, it goes on to levy
requirements that serve to disturb it.

Whatever lessons the Air Force can learn from the well-meaning commanders and senior noncommissioned officers who appeared to advance a particular religious view among their subordinates, it’s unimaginable that they would be so momentous as to require curtailing the Constitution’s right of free exercise of religion, which has been undisturbed in America’s military for more than 220 years. Even harder to understand is how such an order would come from the hand of one who swore an oath “to support and defend” that Constitution. •

The views presented in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or its Components.

Endnotes
1. Schwartz, N. A. (9/1/11). Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion. Retrieved Nov. 11/17/11, from Military Religious Freedom Foundation: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/docs/gen_schwartz_letter_religion_neutralilty.pdf.
2. Wynne, M. W., & Moseley, T. M. (2/9/06). Revised Interim Guidelines Concerning Free Exercise of Religion in the Air Force. Retrieved 11/17/11, from Mission to North America—Presbyterian Church in America: http://pcamna.org/chaplainministries/RevisedInterimGuidelines.pdf.
3. Ricks, M. (9/16/11). Schwartz: Don’t Endorse Religious Programs. Retrieved 11/14/11, from Air Force Times: www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/09/air-force-schwartz-warns-commanders-on-religious-programs-091611.
4. Starnes, T. (8/3/11). Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages. Retrieved 11/17/11, from Fox News.com: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/air-forces-suspends-christian-themed-ethics-training-program-over-bible.
5. Ricks, M. (8/14/11). Air Force reviewing all ethics training. Retrieved 11/17/11, from Air Force Times: www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/08/air-force-reviewing-ethics-training-081411w.
6. Rodda, C. (9/14/11). Air Force Chief of Staff Releases Policy Guidelines Requiring All Steps be Taken to Ensure Religious Freedom. Retrieved 11/15/11, from Military Religious Freedom Foundation: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2011/09/air-force-chief-of-staff-releases-policy-guidelines-requiring-all-steps-be-taken-to-ensure-religious-freedom.
7. Rodda, C. (9/7/11). Texas Senator Demands That Air Force Answer to Him on Pulling of “Jesus Loves Nukes” Training. Retrieved 11/17/11, from Huffington Post: www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/texas-senator-demands-tha_b_953064.html.
8. Weinstein, M. (Sept. 2011). Message From MRFF President and Founder Mikey Weinstein. Retrieved 11/17/11, from Military Religious Freedom Foundation: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/newsletters/2011-09.
9. Ash, R. W. (10/20/05). Comments of the ACLJ on the USAF Interim Guidelines Concerning Free Exercise of Religion in the Air Force. Retrieved 11/14/11, from the American Center for Law and Justice: http://media.aclj.org/pdf/051020_usafrelguidelinesmemo_final_.pdf.

Joseph M. Burns retired from the Air Force in 2008 after serving for 27 years. Since then, he has worked as an Air Force civil servant. He is a graduate of Breakpoint's Centurions Program.

“Freedom’s Finis Flight?” first appeared in the March/April 2012 issue of Touchstone. If you enjoyed this article, you'll find more of the same in every issue.

Letters Welcome: One of the reasons Touchstone exists is to encourage conversation among Christians, so we welcome letters responding to articles or raising matters of interest to our readers. However, because the space is limited, please keep your letters under 400 words. All letters may be edited for space and clarity when necessary. letters@touchstonemag.com