Air Force Base Fires Hindu Woman After Accusing Her Of Being Witch, Bringing ‘Demons’ Into Office

[keith99]

You are in the military, you are given a direct order and chose to disobey that order.

You had better be very sure it was an unlawful order.

Also it seems there were other low level issues also. My guess is this person did not get that she was in the military.

 

[pat34lee]

From the "what religious discrimination actually looks like" files;

It couldn't be that these statements are self-serving, that she is lying in order to get money?
Naaa, and every accusation of racism and sexism is real, too.
Except for those accusations against liberals.

 

[Bible Page]

The military times article said the Isaiah verse was taped to the computer monitor and tower and on her desk. It sounds like her supervisor was hostile to her beliefs because she ripped these copies off of those objects, and did the same thing the next day when they had been replaced.
While the reason for the verse, helping Ms.Sterling cope with frustrated Marines dealing with problems concerning their Common Access Cards.

There's no mention in that Military Times article that this was a community computer. If it was a so called common access area, what's that mean? People could stand to see the Isaiah verse in 28 point font? That's not overly large. And so what? It was her desk and work space.

 

[cow451]

about that fired chaplain: was that the guy fired because he was wearing his uniform when he wasn't supposed to be wearing it? and then claimed he got fired for praying in Jesus name?
tulc(is just wondering)

Please tell tulc that tulc is correct.

 

[Maren]

The military times article said the Isaiah verse was taped to the computer monitor and tower and on her desk. It sounds like her supervisor was hostile to her beliefs because she ripped these copies off of those objects, and did the same thing the next day when they had been replaced.
While the reason for the verse, helping Ms.Sterling cope with frustrated Marines dealing with problems concerning their Common Access Cards.

There's no mention in that Military Times article that this was a community computer. If it was a so called common access area, what's that mean? People could stand to see the Isaiah verse in 28 point font? That's not overly large. And so what? It was her desk and work space.

Ultimately, the point is not that it was a Bible verse, it is because she refused to obey an order given to her by her superior. Now, if she felt her Sergeant was giving her an unlawful order, she had other remedies. In particular, she should have taken her complaint up the chain of command, starting by appealing to her sergeant's superior. Because she didn't, despite opportunity to do that, she defied a direct order -- and that is what she was court martialed for.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Either way, the woman court martialed for the bible verse was a Marine, whereas the woman in the OP was a civilian, not bound by the UCMJ. Different rules.

 

[Armoured]

She was Christian, black, and a Marine.
Marine prosecuted for putting bible verses on her desktop

By Michal Ortner
Lance Corporal (LCpl) Monifa Sterling was criminally prosecuted at a court-martial for displaying a Bible verse on her desktop while serving at Camp Lejune in North Carolina. While representing herself in court, Sterling referenced her First Amendment right for religious expression and the protection that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) offers her.

Both the trial and the appellate court claimed that the display of the Bible verse did not fall under the RFRA because it is not considered a religious act. Sterling and the Liberty Institute lawyers who now represent her disagree.

“If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday,” says Mike Berry, the Liberty Institute Director of Military Affairs and Sterling’s senior counsel. “Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”


LCpl Sterling and other service members at Camp Lejune were accustomed to posting personal items in their workstations. In three different locations, Sterling taped Isaiah 54:17, which states, “No weapon formed against you shall prosper.”

Sterling’s supervisor and former drill instructor took issue with the Scripture and ordered that she take the down the verse immediately, and allegedly used profanity during the demand. When Sterling questioned the request, her supervisor said, “I don’t like the tone.” Sterling said that she would not remove the Bible verse because it was her constitutional right to display it.

The following day, Sterling was charged with disobeying a direct order and her Bible verse was forcibly removed from her station.

“If a service member has a right to display a secular poster, put an atheist bumper sticker on their car, or get a Star of David tattoo,” explains Berry, “then Lance Corporal Sterling has the right to display a small Bible verse on her computer monitor.”

“This is a very scary time when you are not allowed to have a very small printed Bible verse in your own personal workspace because it might offend other Marines,” said Hiram Sasser, an attorney with the Liberty Institute.

Sterling was discharged for bad conduct and stripped of rank from Lance Corporal to Private. She says that it has been difficult to find a job because of her history of bad standing with the military. The Liberty Institute is hopeful that the charges against Sterling will be removed.

As suspected. The charge wasn't "displaying a Bible verse" it was "ignoring a direct order".

 

[Armoured]

Ultimately, the point is not that it was a Bible verse, it is because she refused to obey an order given to her by her superior. Now, if she felt her Sergeant was giving her an unlawful order, she had other remedies. In particular, she should have taken her complaint up the chain of command, starting by appealing to her sergeant's superior. Because she didn't, despite opportunity to do that, she defied a direct order -- and that is what she was court martialed for.

Exactly.

 

[Armoured]

It couldn't be that these statements are self-serving, that she is lying in order to get money?
Naaa, and every accusation of racism and sexism is real, too.
Except for those accusations against liberals.

Let's blame the victim!

 

[Bible Page]

As suspected. The charge wasn't "displaying a Bible verse" it was "ignoring a direct order".

That came because the individual giving the direct order was opposed to display of the Bible verse!

 

[Armoured]

That came because the individual giving the direct order was opposed to display of the Bible verse!

And as discussed, if she felt the order was unlawful, she should have gone through proper channels, not disobeyed a direct order.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a clean up.

Please remember to address the content of the post and not the character of the poster (or any poster, for that matter).

Thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Sounds like 2 Christians are weak in their faith from what I gather from the air force times article. If we had these kind of Christians 1,900 years ago we'd have no Christianity. lol

 

[Bible Page]

And as discussed, if she felt the order was unlawful, she should have gone through proper channels, not disobeyed a direct order.

The first violation was giving the order. And then that one issuing the order violently ripping down the Bible verses. Sounds like they hit home to the demon possessed given the reaction someone who should be a professional and of higher rank expressed just at seeing Bible verses that weren't in themselves illegal to start with.

 

[Armoured]

The first violation was giving the order. And then that one issuing the order violently ripping down the Bible verses. Sounds like they hit home to the demon possessed given the reaction someone who should be a professional and of higher rank expressed just at seeing Bible verses that weren't in themselves illegal to start with.

Seriously, the military is really thingy about obeying orders. You don't just get to ignore the ones you disagree with. There is a proper procedure to follow if you are given an unlawful command. She didn't follow that procedure. That's what she was court martialed for. The notes she put up could have been scripture, or the dimensions of playmate of the month. Doesn't matter. Your superior tells you do something, you do it, or protest the order and go up the chain. No third alternative.

 

[Maren]

The first violation was giving the order. And then that one issuing the order violently ripping down the Bible verses. Sounds like they hit home to the demon possessed given the reaction someone who should be a professional and of higher rank expressed just at seeing Bible verses that weren't in themselves illegal to start with.

Actually, it isn't clear the order was a violation, particularly if this (as some have stated) was on a shared computer. If the order wasn't a violation, then here supervisor removing the verses, after she had not followed the order, is also not a violation. This is the reason you "go up the chain" by going to the supervisor's superior. You don't just decide you don't like the order and refuse to follow it, that doesn't work in the military.

 

[DaisyDay]

The first violation was giving the order. And then that one issuing the order violently ripping down the Bible verses. Sounds like they hit home to the demon possessed given the reaction someone who should be a professional and of higher rank expressed just at seeing Bible verses that weren't in themselves illegal to start with.

Did the staff sergeant recognize the passage as a Bible verse?

The new appeal says the lower court was wrong to say that there was no evidence that Sterling’s posting of the signs was an exercise of religion because it was never demonstrated to be “part of a system of religious belief.” The Navy-Marine Corps appeals court noted that Sterling had never told her staff sergeant that the signs had a religious connotation, and it was reasonable for her to assume that Sterling had simply posted reminders for herself that adversaries could not harm her.

Source

This is still being appealed.

The 28pt lettering isn't that big, but she was repeatedly asked to remove it and it is not identified.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't see how someone being discharged for disobeying an order - whether the order was right or wrongfully given - is the same thing as someone being fired for simply being Hindu.

 

[keith99]

Actually, it isn't clear the order was a violation, particularly if this (as some have stated) was on a shared computer. If the order wasn't a violation, then here supervisor removing the verses, after she had not followed the order, is also not a violation. This is the reason you "go up the chain" by going to the supervisor's superior. You don't just decide you don't like the order and refuse to follow it, that doesn't work in the military.

Actually it is clear the order was lawful and reasonable.

From the link Tallguy88 provided:

In Sterling's first appeal, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals in February upheld the conviction. A military judge determined that the quotations, "could be interpreted as combative … [and] could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline," court records show.

And the more I think about it the more it is clear the verse was confrontational, it was directed against those Marines she was dealing with, clearly contrary to good order and discipline. I'd be inclined to argue the opposite if she were in a combat situation, e.g. the verse then would be directed against the enemy. But even there issues arise in any of our current situations.

 

[Bible Page]

Isn't it odd that that particular piece of scripture would cause a superior to become that enraged? It's the Marines.
No weapon formed against me....
One would think that would be a positive affirmation for a Marine who's job is to work with other Marines bringing complaints to her desk. Whether or not that superior knew it was scripture just the line of verse itself, with no Bible book identifying it, would seem to me to be a pretty good affirmation being in the armed forces.

If this superior officer didn't know it was a Bible verse, what about that mere sentence would cause her to tell a Marine she's to remove it from the three places on her work station? How can that simple sentence enrage someone to the degree it did this superior?

If she knew it was a Bible verse, same thing.Why the rage? The orders were initiated by the Superior taking issue with the sentence written in 28 point font, which as you agree isn't that large. And it would be easy to observe not that noticeable on a computer tower, a desk and a monitor.
The order she gave originated with taking umbrage to the sentence written on three pieces of paper. Let's go with ignoring the fact it is scripture.

Where in the regulations is it said that a single sentence that this Marine accused could have simply said was a positive affirmation she leaned on when she was dealing often enough with irate Marines calling her desk. Let's say the Isaiah book, chapter and verse, were not printed on the pieces of paper. Just the sentence itself.

What are the regulations that give that supervisor the right to demand they be removed? And then resort to a temper that caused that superior officer to rip the three pieces of paper from three points of application on this Marines work station?

Did the staff sergeant recognize the passage as a Bible verse?

Source

This is still being appealed.

The 28pt lettering isn't that big, but she was repeatedly asked to remove it and it is not identified.