News Soldiers wrongly punished for skipping religious concert

[Evo]

The investigation finds the Army erred. This is follow up to a previous thread which was closed due to numerous guideline violations, so it is not being re-opened, and this thread is not to be a continuation of that thread.

A staff sergeant erred when he banished dozens of soldiers to their barracks and ordered them to clean up after they refused to attend a Christian concert on a Virginia Army base last year, an investigation concluded.

When the Army learned the soldiers were punished, the company commander apologized to them the next day, according to the investigation's findings, released Tuesday to The Associated Press.

The actions of the staff sergeant, who was not named, were referred back to his battalion commander for nonjudicial action, according to Col. Daniel T. Williams, a spokesman for the Army's Document and Training Command, who detailed the findings of the investigation in a telephone interview. He said any punishment, if it occurred, would be kept confidential.

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_on_re_us/us_christian_concert_soldiers

 

[drankin]

I just finished a company wide mandatory harassment training. If someone decides to openly pray outloud in their workplace several times a day there is nothing anyone can do about it. Federal law. If anyone says anything to the person and that person feels that their work environment has become hostile towards their religous practice, it is grounds for a harassment claim that can result in monetary damages and termination of the offending party.

 

[Evo]

I just finished a company wide mandatory harassment training. If someone decides to openly pray outloud in their workplace several times a day there is nothing anyone can do about it. Federal law. If anyone says anything to the person and that person feels that their work environment has become hostile towards their religous practice, it is grounds for a harassment claim that can result in monetary damages and termination of the offending party.

This is about forcing someone into a religious function against their will.

 

[drankin]

This is about forcing someone into a religious function against their will.

If you had to sit there and listen to someone pray several times a day against your will, wouldn't that be the same thing?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not thrilled with this, but I feel the need for more information (which I think is what Drankin is struggling with) along the lines of: what is a 'Christian concert"? Are we talking about a sermon, or "Christian rock", or are we talking about something pretty neutral?

Either way, the military has admitted that the Sgt. blew it, and it's common practice to stick blame with the lowest ranking guy who can take it, then cover their butts.

I'd like to know more, but my impression is that the concert is no problem, but the hostile environment toward non-attendees is corrosive to morale and unit cohesion.

 

[drankin]

Obviously, if it was a religiously themed event, it should not have been mandatory. For it to be mandatory is a form of harassment according to the recent training I've had. I'm pointing out something that is in essence the same thing. Except it's in the work place. I could be forced to attend someone elses personal religious event several times a day. But it's protected and I have no recourse.

 

[waht]

You can see some of this military Christian concert in this video.

It's more than just a concert. I quote the guy in the video who runs the concert @0.52 sec:

"I pray they will come into God's Army"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCANcaaYAM

 

[nismaratwork]

Obviously, if it was a religiously themed event, it should not have been mandatory. For it to be mandatory is a form of harassment according to the recent training I've had. I'm pointing out something that is in essence the same thing. Except it's in the work place. I could be forced to attend someone elses personal religious event several times a day. But it's protected and I have no recourse.

I think that stinks frankly, but by the same token a personal expression of faith or religion is not the same as a themed event. I'd liken it the difference between someone having chronically bad breath, and someone eating a clove of garlic before having a chat. Both may be offensive, but the latter is the one that can be reasonably adressed... the former is ultimately your, my, "our" problem.

 

[nismaratwork]

You can see some of this military Christian concert in this video.

It's more than just a concert. I quote the guy in the video who runs the concert @0.52 sec:

"I pray they will come into God's Army"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCANcaaYAM

IMO, that has no place in our military, period. If this was an Imam saying the same, it would not be taken well... I'd mention a rabbi, but they don't tend to be militant in that fashion.

G-d's army... people don't just half fancy themselves do they?

I'd add: AMERICA's Army, the army of and by the people, for the peope... not for god.

 

[drankin]

IMO, that has no place in our military, period. If this was an Imam saying the same, it would not be taken well... I'd mention a rabbi, but they don't tend to be militant in that fashion.

G-d's army... people don't just half fancy themselves do they?

I'd add: AMERICA's Army, the army of and by the people, for the peope... not for god.

I have no problem with our military accommodating religious events (regardless of their faith) for the soldiers. It is for the sake of the soldiers after all. I mean, we are already expecting them to put their lives on the line for our country. To then deny them one of the fundamentals our country was founded on is a bit demoralizing IMO. But, it absolutely should not be mandatory, of course.

 

[waht]

IMO, that has no place in our military, period. If this was an Imam saying the same, it would not be taken well... I'd mention a rabbi, but they don't tend to be militant in that fashion.

G-d's army... people don't just half fancy themselves do they?

I'd add: AMERICA's Army, the army of and by the people, for the peope... not for god.

Soldiers always have had faith services available such as a chapel or a priest somewhere handy. Which is fine if they need to pray or see a priest.

But the Christian concert is nothing but a Trojan horse used to actively recruit new service members into the Christian faith. There is no other estimation. It doesn't belong in the Army.

 

[drankin]

Soldiers always have had faith services available such as a chapel or a priest somewhere handy. Which is fine if they need to pray or see a priest.

But the Christian concert is nothing but a Trojan horse used to actively recruit new service members into the Christian faith. There is no other estimation. It doesn't belong in the Army.

Wasn't it advertised as a Christian event? Isn't that why some soldiers did not want to go? Liken to the various church services which are also held in the military.

 

[waht]

Wasn't it advertised as a Christian event? Isn't that why some soldiers did not want to go? Liken to the various church services which are also held in the military.

See the video at @15 sec.

"Soldiers are being given a sheet of paper with seven blanks in them so that they will come back with seven more people so they will come to Christ"

 

[turbo]

"Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts" (From the article in the OP.) Can soldiers be "spiritually fit" if they are Jews, atheists, or Muslims? Hiring pricey Christian bands to "entertain" the troops is a waste of taxpayer money, IMO. Trying to coerce or force soldiers to attend such concerts is just wrong, and the blame should go right to the top.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wasn't it advertised as a Christian event? Isn't that why some soldiers did not want to go? Liken to the various church services which are also held in the military.

Again... big difference between a serviced, and a call to proselytize within the ranks... which the UCMJ is not OK with. In addition, any call to be part of any army except one loyal to the President and Congress is frankly against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Beyond that, services and themed events are one thing... bring over Matisyahu, Punjabi MC, and Whatever passes for Christian Rock... big difference from, "join god's army, here's a pamphlet".

 

[NeoDevin]

I have no problem with our military accommodating religious events (regardless of their faith) for the soldiers. It is for the sake of the soldiers after all. I mean, we are already expecting them to put their lives on the line for our country. To then deny them one of the fundamentals our country was founded on is a bit demoralizing IMO. But, it absolutely should not be mandatory, of course.

The problem is, it's not "regardless of faith". After this outcry about this event, the leaders involved stated that they would be willing to offer similar support to any secular/other religion event.

Taking them up on this offer, a secular group organized a similar concert "Rock Beyond Belief". They were strung along the whole time, and then a month before the date, they were told that they would receive NO funding (while the Christian "Rock the Fort" event received more than $50,000), be restricted to a much smaller venue (that only seats 700), and require a disclaimer on their advertisements that it is not officially endorsed by the military (despite extensive official endorsement of the Rock the Fort event, and it being advertised as an "official spiritual fitness event"). This, in spite of the fact that Rock Beyond Belief was bringing in much more popular speakers and bands than were at the Rock the Fort event. These last minute restrictions forced the event to be cancelled.

Not only were soldiers punished for not attending the religious event, they were prevented from holding a similar secular event (AFTER statements by the officials involved that they would provide a similar level of support to other events).

Source: http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/04/last-minute-crippling-restrictions-forced-us-to-cancel/

Edited: Over $100,000 of government controlled funds were contributed to the Christian event. http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/01/27/army-spiritual-fitness-concert-cost-100k-foia-docs-released/"

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem is, it's not "regardless of faith". After this outcry about this event, the leaders involved stated that they would be willing to offer similar support to any secular/other religion event.

Taking them up on this offer, a secular group organized a similar concert "Rock Beyond Belief". They were strung along the whole time, and then a month before the date, they were told that they would receive NO funding (while the Christian "Rock the Fort" event received more than $50,000), be restricted to a much smaller venue (that only seats 700), and require a disclaimer on their advertisements that it is not officially endorsed by the military (despite extensive official endorsement of the Rock the Fort event, and it being advertised as an "official spiritual fitness event"). This, in spite of the fact that Rock Beyond Belief was bringing in much more popular speakers and bands than were at the Rock the Fort event. These last minute restrictions forced the event to be cancelled.

Not only were soldiers punished for not attending the religious event, they were prevented from holding a similar secular event (AFTER statements by the officials involved that they would provide a similar level of support to other events).

Source: http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/04/last-minute-crippling-restrictions-forced-us-to-cancel/

Edited: Over $100,000 of government controlled funds were contributed to the Christian event. http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/01/27/army-spiritual-fitness-concert-cost-100k-foia-docs-released/"

No wonder they're trying top pawn this off on some Sgt... generals/colonels are covering their butts.

 

[Perspicacity]

When I was in basic training (1999), Sundays were set aside for religious observances. If you didn't want to go, you got to hang out in the barracks, which we would of course have to clean while other soldiers were singing hymns or whatever. We were never ordered directly to do it, but it was known that there would be a barracks inspection on Sunday nights and us non-believers would be the only ones around to do it.

I will admit that later on in my service, I attended numerous religious "retreats"--simply because there were times that eating pizza and having religious discussions with Chaplains sounded better than kitchen or guard duty. I never had to lie about my beliefs, and while some of the chaplains were obviously christian fundamentalists, I enjoyed arguing with some of the more rational ones.

 

[drankin]

Again... big difference between a serviced, and a call to proselytize within the ranks... which the UCMJ is not OK with. In addition, any call to be part of any army except one loyal to the President and Congress is frankly against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Beyond that, services and themed events are one thing... bring over Matisyahu, Punjabi MC, and Whatever passes for Christian Rock... big difference from, "join god's army, here's a pamphlet".

I agree that publicly proselytizing in the military is wrong. Handing out religious literature is wrong. Undue consequences for not attending a religious event is wrong. Those lines were crossed. But the availablity of religious events, or non-religious events, should not be done away with. It's among many things that should be available to keep up morale in our military. It looks like some of the traditional ways of doing things needs to be scrutinized.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree that publicly proselytizing in the military is wrong. Handing out religious literature is wrong. Undue consequences for not attending a religious event is wrong. Those lines were crossed. But the availablity of religious events, or non-religious events, should not be done away with. It's among many things that should be available to keep up morale in our military. It looks like some of the traditional ways of doing things needs to be scrutinized.

100% in agreement with you.

 

[nismaratwork]

When I was in basic training (1999), Sundays were set aside for religious observances. If you didn't want to go, you got to hang out in the barracks, which we would of course have to clean while other soldiers were singing hymns or whatever. We were never ordered directly to do it, but it was known that there would be a barracks inspection on Sunday nights and us non-believers would be the only ones around to do it.

I will admit that later on in my service, I attended numerous religious "retreats"--simply because there were times that eating pizza and having religious discussions with Chaplains sounded better than kitchen or guard duty. I never had to lie about my beliefs, and while some of the chaplains were obviously christian fundamentalists, I enjoyed arguing with some of the more rational ones.

Now that to me is abusive as well, and not everyone is going to have your intellect and joy of debate. I don't like those quiet pressures, but they're still relatively tame compared to this... which is so over-the-top.

Full disclosure: I'm agnotic, and not religious... I still think that people have a right to worship, especially if their butts are on the line. I don't support treating those who don't like the bad children... that's absurd.

 

[waht]

I agree that publicly proselytizing in the military is wrong. Handing out religious literature is wrong. Undue consequences for not attending a religious event is wrong. Those lines were crossed. But the availablity of religious events, or non-religious events, should not be done away with. It's among many things that should be available to keep up morale in our military. It looks like some of the traditional ways of doing things needs to be scrutinized.

No one is arguing to take that away. There is nothing wrong with providing basic religious services for the soldiers such as priests, or a nearby chapel to attend weekly service or whatever suits your faith. Soldiers have those services available in every military.

But how do you justify a full blown party with free drinks, foods, loud rock Christian music, constant prayers and chants to what are literally campaign slogans "we are God's army" that goes on for half a day.

They have said repeatedly, the concert is for "spreading" the Christan message to other lost soldiers rather than simply providing religious services which were already available prior to the advent of Christian concerts. And they've recruited the members who already attend to bring in more friends to the fold.

Justifying that the attendance is optional is necessary if they want to stay in business of course. But it's a lie. They've created an atmosphere of almost compulsory attendance. There is nothing else to do for someone who doesn't want to go. Clean the barracks maybe.

 

[nismaratwork]

No one is arguing to take that away. There is nothing wrong with providing basic religious services for the soldiers such as priests, or a nearby chapel to attend weekly service or whatever suits your faith. Soldiers have those services available in every military.

But how do you justify a full blown party with free drinks, foods, loud rock Christian music, constant prayers, and chants to what are literally campaign slogans "we are God's army" that goes on for half a day.

They have said repeatedly, the concert is for "spreading" the Christan message to other lost soldiers rather than simply providing religious services which were already available prior to the advent of Christian concerts.

Justifying that the attendance is optional is necessary if they want to stay in business of course. But it's a lie. They've created an atmosphere of almost compulsory attendance. There is nothing else to do for someone who doesn't want to go. Clean the barracks maybe.

Clearly there has to be a change... comfort in religion doesn't have to involve preaching to others, or punishing de facto those who don't. This is a bad precedent you're describing, and the best solution seems to be that already rejected: Party A, needs to be matched by secular party B.

 

[waht]

Clearly there has to be a change... comfort in religion doesn't have to involve preaching to others, or punishing de facto those who don't. This is a bad precedent you're describing, and the best solution seems to be that already rejected: Party A, needs to be matched by secular party B.

The military code forbids religious endorsement, but not a secularist. So a secular party that is fair to all should be made available.

 

[drankin]

The military code forbids religious endorsement, but not a secularist. So a secular party that is fair to all should be made available.

There is plenty of that. Alot of secular celebs, entertainers and comics tour military installations. More so than religious events. http://www.militaryconcerts.com/

 

[nismaratwork]

There is plenty of that. Alot of secular celebs, entertainers and comics tour military installations. More so than religious events. http://www.militaryconcerts.com/

Are they being asked to convert others to the way of Beyonce, or join U2's army?

 

[Perspicacity]

Are they being asked to convert others to the way of Beyonce, or join U2's army?

Actually, with the way that celebrities like to go on and on about whatever pet project or cause in which they are currently involved...

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually, with the way that celebrities like to go on and on about whatever pet project or cause in which they are currently involved...

Then they shouldn't be there either, or not selling that line. HOWEVER... you ever see a major anti-war bit at a USO show?... come on.


Equating celebrity concerts or events as somehow being similar to literal proselytizing for a specific religion, is absurd.

 

[Perspicacity]

Then they shouldn't be there either, or not selling that line. HOWEVER... you ever see a major anti-war bit at a USO show?... come on. Equating celebrity concerts or events as somehow being similar to literal proselytizing for a specific religion, is absurd.

Bono preaches more than any priest I've ever known, and how about Kathy Griffin dissing Bristol Palin in front of a crowd of unappreciative troops? I also remember Robin Williams insulting Bush at a USO show back towards the beginning of the Iraq War and upsetting a lot of soldiers.

 

[nismaratwork]

Bono preaches more than any priest I've ever known, and how about Kathy Griffin dissing Bristol Palin in front of a crowd of unappreciative troops? I also remember Robin Williams insulting Bush at a USO show back towards the beginning of the Iraq War and upsetting a lot of troops.

How is Kathy Griffin "dissing" Bristol Paliin in any way like telling people to go convert your fellow soldiers, which is against the UCMJ? Bad taste, bad comedy, etc... even insulting the President, again... not a crime.

Hell man, they're not even close to being equivalent... which I hope you know, even if your personal views are set.

edit: Bono is a twit, but then, who cares?... you can preach political ideology, just not religion. This is a legal issue, not a matter of your personal taste.

 

[Perspicacity]

How is Kathy Griffin "dissing" Bristol Paliin in any way like telling people to go convert your fellow soldiers, which is against the UCMJ? Bad taste, bad comedy, etc... even insulting the President, again... not a crime.

Hell man, they're not even close to being equivalent... which I hope you know, even if your personal views are set.

edit: Bono is a twit, but then, who cares?... you can preach political ideology, just not religion. This is a legal issue, not a matter of your personal taste.

Because as far as I'm concerned, both are matters of Freedom of Expression, and both are equally as annoying. I've had many a comrade in arms try and talk me into going to church with them—as long as they didn't use their military authority to force me or intimidate me they were within their rights.

In the end, we have exactly the same phenomenon—two different groups of people who think they have the answers for everything and they each love to make everyone else listen to them.

 

[nismaratwork]

Because as far as I'm concerned, both are matters of Freedom of Expression, and both are equally as annoying. I've had many a comrade in arms try and talk me into going to church with them—as long as they didn't use their military authority to force me or intimidate me they were within their rights.

In the end, we have exactly the same phenomenon—two different groups of people who think they have the answers for everything and they each love to make everyone else listen to them.

No, you've conflated two very different things, and ignored that this is an issue of established law being violated. Your concern is worth noting, but not relevant.

 

[drankin]

I

No, you've conflated two very different things, and ignored that this is an issue of established law being violated. Your concern is worth noting, but not relevant.

Citation please. So we know what you're talking about.

 

[nismaratwork]

I

Citation please. So we know what you're talking about.

''Twould be my pleasure good sir!

DEC 19 2000
CCJA
GENERAL ORDER NUMBER 1A (GO-1A) ∗

TITLE: Prohibited Activities for U.S. Department of Defense Personnel Present Within the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) AOR.

PURPOSE: To identify conduct that is prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline of all forces in the USCENTCOM AOR.

AUTHORITY: Title 10, United States Code, Section 164(c) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Title 10, United States Code, Sections 801-940.
APPLICABILITY: This General Order is applicable to all United States military personnel, and to civilians serving with, employed by, or accompanying the Armed Forces of the United States, while present in the USCENTCOM AOR except for personnel assigned to: Defense Attaché Offices; United States Marine Corps Security Detachments; sensitive intelligence and counterintelligence activities that are conducted under the direction and control of the Chief of Mission/Chief of Station; or other United States Government agencies and departments.

1. STATEMENT OF MILITARY PURPOSE AND NECESSITY: Current operations and deployments place United States Armed Forces into USCENTCOM AOR countries where local laws and customs prohibit or restrict certain activities which are generally permissible in western societies. Restrictions upon these activities are essential to preserving U.S. / host nation relations and combined operations of U.S. and friendly forces. In addition, the high operational tempo combined with often-hazardous duty faced by U.S. forces in the region makes it prudent to restrict certain activities in order to maintain good order and discipline and ensure optimum readiness.

2. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES:

a. Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTCOM AOR.

b. Entrance into a Mosque or other site of Islamic religious significance by non-Moslems unless directed to do so by military authorities, required by military necessity, or as part of an official tour conducted with the approval of military authorities and the host nation. This provision may be made more restrictive by Commanders when the local security situation warrants.

(CUT FOR BREVITY)

j. Proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice.

(Cut again)

//ORIGINAL SIGNED//
TOMMY R. FRANKS
General, U.S. Army

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/GeneralOrderGO-1A.pdf

It's a standing order, (GO-1A) General Order-1A subsection 2j.

 

[drankin]

''Twould be my pleasure good sir!



http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/GeneralOrderGO-1A.pdf

It's a standing order, (GO-1A) General Order-1A subsection 2j.

That's not relevant to this discussion IMO. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Are you saying that a religious concert is proselytizing?

 

[NeoDevin]

That's not relevant to this discussion IMO. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Are you saying that a religious concert is proselytizing?

Not every religious concert is proselytizing, but this one in particular was.

 

[waht]

Coming straight from Rock-the-Fort Website:

http://www.grahamfestival.org/Festival/pgview.aspx?pgid=88&cid=26

http://www.grahamfestival.org/assets/resources/263/pdfdoc.pdf

4. New Christians in your Church
Jesus’ mandate to disciple the nations is still in effect (Matt.28:19). The Rock the Fort outreach is designed to channel new believers into your church, so you can encourage them to further spiritual growth. The future of the church lies in reaching and discipling the next generation.

Reignite your faith
and find power to live a life
that radiates God’s love.
Discover the victory He has
for His children and equip yourself to share it with others
through this dynamic course. You’ll also find practical
help on reaching your friends for Christ and be equipped
to serve and encourage them at the Rock the Fort event.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3656/rockthefort.png

 

[drankin]

Yep, the purpose of that organizatoin is to proselytize. Apparently, someone didn't get the memo.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's not relevant to this discussion IMO. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Are you saying that a religious concert is proselytizing?

I'm saying that a religious concert which includes exhortation to proselytize, and even hands out cards to get others there to proselytize... is yeah... I'm going to go on a limb and say that falls under the article mentioned.

Of course... I'm late in my reply... damn.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yep, the purpose of that organizatoin is to proselytize. Apparently, someone didn't get the memo.

Or they did... and this is as others have alleged, just the most visible and undeniable tip of an iceberg.

 

[Proton Soup]

''Twould be my pleasure good sir!



http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/GeneralOrderGO-1A.pdf

It's a standing order, (GO-1A) General Order-1A subsection 2j.

apparently, that applies in AOR countries

http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/aor/

• Afghanistan
• Bahrain
• Egypt
• Iran
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kazakhstan
• Kuwait
• Kyrgyzstan
• Lebanon
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• U.A.E.
• Uzbekistan
• Yemen

 

[nismaratwork]

apparently, that applies in AOR countries

http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/aor/

• Afghanistan
• Bahrain
• Egypt
• Iran
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kazakhstan
• Kuwait
• Kyrgyzstan
• Lebanon
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• U.A.E.
• Uzbekistan
• Yemen

True, and there is more that applies to the USA... Mugaliens cited it in an earlier thread I believe... I can dig it up if you really want.

edit: We have more Areas of Responsibility than those, which are only the AOR of Central Command (CENTCOM)

 

[BobG]

''Twould be my pleasure good sir!



http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/GeneralOrderGO-1A.pdf

It's a standing order, (GO-1A) General Order-1A subsection 2j.

That clause should be considered in light of the context it's presented. Military personnel in the CENTCOM AOR are not allowed to try to convert the residents of the nation they're stationed in.

In other words, it's illegal for Christian soldiers to be handing out Bibles in Iraq or Afghanistan as they patrol the streets, etc. Nor should military chaplains be trying to convert the local populace. The chaplains are there to serve US military personnel; not spread their religion across the world.

That clause has nothing to do with an outside entertainment group entertaining US troops.

I do agree that there would appear to be problems with the concerts that general scheduled, but your reference is still irrelevant.

 

[nismaratwork]

That clause should be considered in light of the context it's presented. Military personnel in the CENTCOM AOR are not allowed to try to convert the residents of the nation they're stationed in.

In other words, it's illegal for Christian soldiers to be handing out Bibles in Iraq or Afghanistan as they patrol the streets, etc. Nor should military chaplains be trying to convert the local populace. The chaplains are there to serve US military personnel; not spread their religion across the world.

That clause has nothing to do with an outside entertainment group entertaining US troops.

I do agree that there would appear to be problems with the concerts that general scheduled, but your reference is still irrelevant.

Was that a request for further citation? I'm not highly motivated to do so, but I respect you, if you want me to find the relevant standing orders for any given region I can and will. It's not going to help however, the UCMJ is clear in all regions, in or out of theatre.

Here's an indirect reference, but you can check the relevant articles and SO's.
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/newsletters/2009-03/inbox1.html

[Much Preceeds this]
Here Mr. Fister mistakes Constitutional and military regulation for persecution. Religious Proselytizing is regulated by the US Constitution Amendment One, UCMJ Articles: 92, 88, 121, 133, 134 and CENTCOM General Order 1 A, Part 2, Section J, relating to theaters of war. In addition, the Military Entrance Processing Command has issued new regulations to prevent religious proselytizing of recruits at its Military Entrance Processing Stations. The United States Supreme Court has ruled:

Impermissible governmental endorsement of religion occurs whenever a public official — such as a military officer — takes any action that “‘conveys" or attempts to convey a message that religion or a particular religion is favored or preferred.” (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 38, 70 (1985).

Reduced to 5 simplest terms, the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause prohibits any official action that promotes religion generally or shows favoritism toward any particular faith. Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to "non-religion.” Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 604. Government or its representatives may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions).”); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982)

“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”

Furthermore, limits on proselytizing by military chaplains and superior officers were clearly spelled out by a federal appeals court over twenty years ago. "The primary function of the military chaplain is to engage in activities designed to meet the religious needs of a pluralistic military community," the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in 1985, in Katcoff v Marsh. Army chaplains were hired to serve military personnel "who wish to use them," the Court observed; they are not authorized "to proselytize soldiers or their families." Proselytizing by chaplains or the officer corps is a discriminatory, unconstitutional endorsement of religion that results in the religious harassment of our military personnel.

It is imperative that Christian proselytizing be contained and restricted to willing participants without the specter of command influence and only to the extent allowed by military regulation .

Based on the above military regulation and civil law, I submit that based on their current modus operandi, unregulated or unmonitored Christian evangelical organizations, churches and evangelical protestant military Chaplains allowed to operate by means of dogmatic, coercive and overt Christian proselytizing is unconstitutional.

Richard Baker
Colorado Springs Chapter President
Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Again... there are standing orders for each AOR, but they all prohibit proselytizing.

This concert also had nothing to do with entertainment, nor do many such. I've talked to members here who've described religious themed events that are just that... fun, themed events. There's a WORLD of difference between that, and marketing in the form of a concert.

One is fine, and probably necessary if not at least humane and legal. The latter is illegal, and blaming a Sgt. for it is not only absurd, it's a blatant lie.

edit:To be blunt BobG, I'm not guessing here... if you want to make a point, please make it, but there are a world of citations and law that agrees on my aforementioned point. If you want to delay, I understand, but please just issue a challenge directly and demand citations. I'm happy to provide them, especially when they are overwhelmingly in support of my position.