“Secondly, the wing commander sent out the email as the wing commander. There is no way around the fact that in her official position as a commander she was advocating a specific religious point of view. Huge foul.”
Interpretations of the Constitution that forbid advocating a specific religious point of view are wrongly decided.
If a person were making the adoption of those views a condition of employment, or of preferential treatment, that would be a horse of a different color. That might approach the establishment of an official religion, which is what the constitution forbids.
However, telling someone where information may be found, to which he may or may not listen, at his own discretion, is no more an imposition than a map on a bookshelf. Sure, the map tells you how to get to Pink, Oklahoma, but it is not forcing you to go.
There is no constitutional prohibition on religious speech. No one has a right to be forever free from hearing—or overhearing—religious speech.
That's precisely what the wing commander did, a fact that is obvious to anyone who has a clue about life in the armed forces.