Posted on 02/09/2009 8:14:15 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
RAF MILDENHALL, England — An Air Force colonel is being criticized for improperly referring airmen under her command to a far-right religious Web site.
Col. Kimberly K. Toney sent a e-mail Jan. 16 to the 501st Combat Support Wing inviting airmen to enjoy a linked video highlighting an inspirational individual on 4marks.com, a Roman Catholic Web site.
The video featured Nick Vujicic, a 25-year-old who was born without arms or legs. According to the video’s introduction, Vujicic finds his "greatest joy in this life is to introduce Jesus to those he meets and tell them of his (Jesus’) great desire to get to know them personally by allowing him to become their Lord and Savior."
Air Force Master Sgt. Jeffrey L. Thompson, a member of the 501st, sent a letter to Toney that complained she had inappropriately advanced her faith in an official capacity.
"My own impression of your e-mail was an organizational endorsement of Christian faith, because the e-mail, article and video compelled us to witness an exercise in religious-specific faith that I felt was in conflict with DOD neutrality on religion," Thompson said in his letter.
Thompson, who says in the letter that he is a Roman Catholic, had no further comment Monday.
No formal complaint had been lodged in connection to Toney’s e-mail as of Monday, U.S. Air Forces in Europe spokesman Senior Master Sgt. Stefan Alford said. Thompson states in his letter to Toney that he intends to file an official complaint.
"He has yet to fill out the required paperwork and start the complaint process," Alford said. "Right now there’s no complaint, no investigation."
Alford said Toney first received the video through a colleague.
In the Feb. 2 letter to Toney, Thompson contended in his letter that the e-mail violated Air Force regulations regarding religious proselytizing. He also said the Web site 4marks.com "explicitly promotes an atmosphere that is hostile to our commander-in-chief, which is potentially detrimental to the good order and discipline of our unit."
One posting on the Web site features President Barack Obama in a Nazi uniform with a Hitler-style moustache, while other content claims Obama "wants to murder babies that have survived abortion."
"As a commander you wield a tremendous amount of power," Thompson stated in his letter. "What you say, write, or send out sets our direction and instructs us how to get there."
Toney declined to comment and instead said she would release a statement.
In that statement she apologized for the e-mail and said she did not realize the Web site and links contained "inappropriate" content.
"I sincerely apologize for this oversight, especially to those individuals who may have been offended, and want to ensure all are aware that my intent was solely to provide a tool that might offer beneficial insight toward overcoming adversity," she said in the statement sent to all members of the 501st.
Toney has commanded the 501st and its approximately 3,000 military personnel distributed across eight bases in the U.K. and Norway since 2007.
In his letter to Toney, Thompson also wrote that he had contacted the Military Equal Opportunity office about filing a complaint. He also says that the airman with whom he spoke at the office divulged his identity to Toney — a violation of numerous Air Force regulations.
The MEO office worker did not return repeated requests for comment.
"[The worker] informed me that he has told you my identity regarding this issue," Thompson wrote to Toney. "I appreciate that his intentions were good, but approaching the wing commander on what I perceived as a foul has made me very nervous.
"No one wants to be on the wrong side [of] their wing commander," Thompson said in the letter.
Others also saw Toney’s e-mail as an inappropriate mingling of religious beliefs and official military duty. Military Religious Freedom Foundation head Mikey Weinstein said his organization heard from "in excess" of 60 people regarding the e-mail. Weinstein released the correspondence to Stars and Stripes.
Thompson reached out to the foundation, based in Albuquerque, N.M., for help, Weinstein said.
The foundation claims more than 11,000 military "clients" have contacted the group when they felt their religious rights were being affected, said Weinstein, who is an Air Force Academy graduate, former military attorney and onetime member of President Ronald Reagan’s legal counsel, according to the foundation’s Web site.
4 marks is not a far right site. It is very mainstream Catholic, in fact, a little too liberal for me.
“Here’s a thought experiment: suppose she had sent a similar email as a Muslim expressly supporting Islamic terrorists? These terrorists are absolutely convinced they are following their religion. I wonder what your reaction might be.”
Uh, last I heard Islamic terrorists were killing people and blowing up things.
When is the last time you heard about an armless and legless Catholic doing these kind of things?
That said, the publicity from this sort of thing will not help her when (or if) she meets the B.G. board.
“regardless of her rank, she cannot impose it on anyone, in any form.”
How is an email “imposing?” It’s frankly the same thing as an audible discussion, only sent over a distance. Further, there’s no need to even respond to a written form of communication as opposed to a spoken one.
Demanding that those with any beliefs of any consequence silence them to others is ludicrous and frankly a massive overstep of authority, as well. There was nothing harmful in the words that were exchanged.
I’m not seeing the difficulty in saying, “Here, check out this inspiring website.”
It is most definitely a hierarchy and is based in large measure on this command influence. There is a good reason for legally and practically recognizing command influence: it makes for great organizations in peace and war but can also destroy them.
The very definition of a commander means they simply cannot send casual emails to their people - that's why they are called commanders and are vested with broad legal and moral authority. When she speaks or writes she speaks or writes as a commander, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
She absolutely should not be voicing her beliefs and there is amble legal precedent supporting that point of view. And history is littered with officers who thought is did not apply to them.
Even if she had had said the same thing in her staff meeting she would be equally at fault.
It is not an issue of her private beliefs. It is an issue of misusing her position and authority as a commander.
She should be relieved by her numbered air force commander.
The point on Islam was an extreme to illustrate a point: the fervent believers are absolutely convinced they are on the side of righteousness. Was in no way comparing Catholicism to the current moonbats from the ROP.
Well, I do understand the military. And if my Brigade Commander had sent something like that out, I could have easily deleted and dismissed it. She wasn't ordering people to convert or die, she sent out an email. Was it completely wise to send it out in what amounts to an official capacity? No, but that's certainly not grounds for being relieved. It's merely grounds for her CO to tell her to be more discreet with personal issues.
And this idiot who wrote the article should be shot. "Far right" my ass.
It would only appear that to the brown-nose brigade.
This is just another attempt to silence Christians in the public square. Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
I spent 7 1/2 years in the Army, enlisted.
The leader in this article was wrong.
The power I had over my junior enlisted was nearly total.
Her failure to understand this lapse of integrity is beyond me.
She should forfeit her command.
“This is not overhearing a religious conversation or an exercise in religious freedom. She sent an official communication to her subordinates.”
Road apples. She told them where something was; she didn’t order them to look at it, or imply that doing so or not would have any consequences—or even that she would know who looked at it and who didn’t.
“It is an abuse of her position as a commander.”
Buncombe. Commanders are allowed to have religious convictions, and even to allow their subordinates to discover what those are.
“Command influence is a critical element of the success of the military. It sets an environment.”
Active and reserve, I have a total of 25 years. You?
“When the wing commander advocates a specific religion, or even multiple religions, it is a misuse of position.”
You just keep repeating that same old manure, and it doesn’t smell any better the last time than the first. A military commander is perfectly free to stand up and say, “I’m a two seed in the spirit predestinarian Baptist, because it’s true.” The only problem arises when there is discrimination against or in favor of any religion.
“Even chaplains are forbidden from proselytizing in the military.”
That might have happened since I retired in 1999. But then, the left has wrought much harm; they might have achieved that ridiculous nonsense as well.
“Here’s a thought experiment”
That’s not a thought experiment. It’s an insult disguised as a question. And not very well disguised, either.
You would really equate an inspirational speech with support for the terrorists with whom we are at war? That is idiocy.
Giving you more credit than you deserve, if the commander were a Muslim-or a Jew, or a Sikh—whose loyalties lay with the U.S., and sent out a link to a presentation similar in form and intent to the Christian one, my reaction would be similar as it is to this—that is, no big deal.
In implying that I would react differently, you are calling me a bigot.
“Finally, it is inherent in a commander’s responsibility to investigate possible wrong-doing regardless of how he or she becomes aware of it.”
Which in this case would take any rational person the time required to view the materials concerned, plus the time required to take a deep breath and say, “Get the hell out of my office, you moron.”
“The spokeman’s remark on “no complaint so no nvestigation” was and still is asinine.”
Yes. The decision whether to investigate or not should turn on the question of whether there appears to be anything to investigate. The spokesman should have just passed out copies of the Constitution, then had the press weasels flogged out of the nearest gate.
“If a person were making the adoption of those views a condition of employment, or of preferential treatment... “ That’s precisely what the wing commander did...”
Very disturbing, if true. Please post evidence, links?”
The wing commander did no such thing. She didn’t even do anything that could be deliberately misconstrued, with the worst possible will, to be those things .
“The power I had over my junior enlisted was nearly total.”
What planet was that? It certainly wasn’t any branch of the US military.
What I meant to say, was that at different times, I had between 10- 15 junior enlisted that I spent a significant amount of time with everyday for months and or years.
How I acted, how I executed my orders, and how I behaved, influenced them.
Many were just kids, even as young as 17.
And yes our religious preferences were on display. Who went to what service or not was very apparent.
I discussed life and death issues with these young men. I also help to resolve marital problems, any issue not readily resolved was brought to the Chaplain or mental health professionals.
I have also had young men ask why I went to Mass. Did I think it could help them, why did I believe in the Catholic Church?
My direct contact, my religious beliefs, and how I expressed them had direct effect on them
Total was the wrong word.
Significant influence is better.
BTW, 24+ years, all commissioned, all active.
Steve? Evidence?
Much Ado About Nothing
The second sentence states that the message was sent to the unit (i.e. necessarily via the official message channels as a communication from the unit commander, that being the only way to communicate with "the unit" as a whole).
QED.
And? It was a suggestion to see an inspirational video about a person who overcame huge personal obstacles, right?It was just a link they could follow or not follow, wasn't it? Nor was there any way the wing commander could find out if the recipients had or hadn't followed the link, was there?
Once again, you have shown no evidence that the wing commander, as you rashly claimed, made viewing of a positive, uplifting video a "condition of employment," or of "preferential treatment."
Asserting it repeatedly, and without evidence, somehow does not constitute a persuasive argument.
“But I have to comment on the “if you disagree with me you are calling me a bigot”. I think the comment itself reveals the truth.”
It is your misinterpretation of my statement that is truly significant. I did not say that you were calling me a bigot for disagreeing. If you had 24 years as a commissioned officer you should be both smarter and more sophisticated than that.
I said that you called me a bigot in that you asserted that I would have reacted differently if the link had been to an inspirational talk by a person of a different faith.
My meaning was clear from what I wrote. I went back and checked. So that leaves the quesions: were you careless in reading, are your reading skills deficient, or was it a malicious misrepresenetation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.