![\"Monifa](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Monifa-Sterling-247x333.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nThe Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled in the case against former Marine Corps Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling<\/a> who claimed that her supervisor violated her religious rights by making her take down some Bible verses she had posted in her shared workspace. <\/p>\n Folks like the Becket Fund <\/a>and Fox News<\/a> would have you think that it’s about religious freedom, but a thorough reading of the decision would reveal otherwise. For example, she didn’t reveal to her supervisor that the passages she had on her wall were bible verses. \u201cNo weapon formed against me shall prosper\u201d is one that most people wouldn’t recognize;<\/p>\n SSgt Alexander discovered the signs and ordered Appellant to remove them because \u201cit wasn\u2019t just her desk; it was being shared by the other junior Marine.\u201d According to Appellant, SSgt Alexander said that she wanted the signs removed because she did not like their tone. Nothing in the record indicates that SSgt Alexander knew that the text was Biblical in origin, and the NMCCA found that Appellant never informed SSgt Alexander that the signs had either a religious genesis or any religious significance to Appellant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There were other things at issue.<\/p>\n In August 2013, another of Appellant\u2019s superiors, SSgt Morris, noticed that Appellant was not wearing the proper uniform, and he ordered her to wear \u201cher service uniforms as directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.\u201d Ac-cording to SSgt Morris, Appellant refused to obey the order because Appellant said \u201cshe had a medical chit out there stating she could not wear the uniform.\u201d SSgt Morris spoke with medical personnel at the base, who stated that Appellant could wear the required uniform, and he again ordered Appellant to change into the proper uniform. Appellant re-fused. SSgt Morris then escorted Appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson, who repeated the order for a third time. Appellant again refused.<\/p>\n On September 12, 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered Appel-lant to report to the Pass and Identification building on Sunday, September 15, 2013, from 4:00 PM until approxi-mately 7:30 PM, to help distribute vehicle passes to families of service members returning from deployment. According to 1stSgt Robinson, Appellant refused on the basis that \u201cshe was on medication.\u201d On September 13, 2013, 1stSgt Robin-son informed Major (Maj) Flatley that he was having issues with Appellant.<\/p>\n Maj Flatley met with Appellant to \u201ctalk some sense into her, reason with her, [and] to make sure that she goes to her appointed place of duty on Sunday.\u201d During their conversation, Maj Flatley attempted to hand the vehicle passes to Appellant. According to Maj Flatley, Appellant refused to take the passes and stated that she would not be there and would be sleeping. As a result, Maj Flatley called 1stSgt LaRochelle and directed her to begin writing a charge sheet on Appellant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, she didn’t show up to her appointed place of duty, so her leadership applied a Special Court Martial to the situation. It was during her testimony at the Special Court Martial that Sterling revealed that the phrase she’d been ordered to remove was religious in context. Removing the phrase from her shared workspace doesn’t give her a pass for all of the other crap she did.<\/p>\n Importantly, the NMCCA\u2019s findings that Appellant had a \u201ccontentious\u201d relationship with her command, \u201ceven prior\u201d to this incident, and that, in that context, posting the words \u201c[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper\u201d might be \u201cin-terpreted as combative\u201d are also not clearly erroneous. 2015 CCA LEXIS 65, at *19, 2015 WL 832587, at *6 (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant herself conceded that SSgt Alexander did not like the signs\u2019 tone, and the NMCCA found that Appellant did not tell SSgt Alexander that the signs had a religious connotation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From the court’s dissent;<\/p>\n In my view, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2000bb\u20132000bb-4 (2012), provides the men and women of our nation\u2019s armed forces with the presumptive right to fully, openly, and spontaneously engage in religious exercise. This right extends to sincere religious conduct that is not specifically required by, or deemed by judges to be important to, the tenets of a servicemember\u2019s faith. Further, servicemembers who are court-martialed for sincere religious conduct may invoke the protections afforded by RFRA even if they did not obtain the permission of the Government before engaging in that conduct, and even if they did not contemporaneously inform their chain-of-command that their actions were religious in nature.<\/p>\n I conclude that the majority\u2019s disposition of the instant case is not consistent with these rights under RFRA. Moreover, I conclude that the majority\u2019s analysis of the underlying legal issue raises the prospect that other servicemembers in the future may be subjected to conviction at court-martial for merely engaging in religious exercise that is entitled to protection under the statute. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t think that anything she did was religious at all. She was a bad Marine who listened to shit-house lawyers and she got bad advice, and a bad conduct discharge.<\/p>\n The Becket Fund press release hints that they may take the case to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"Monifa](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Monifa-Fox-News-453x333.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n