[servo1969]

Here's the thing- I absolutely agree that Christians are being persecuted by this administration, especially in the military. I think it's wrong the way she was treated. I have one problem with her situation: It's not her computer or desk. It's the US Government's desk. If they tell you to remove personal stuff off your desk or their computer you do it. Even if you're being singled out. Its not your property. I don't think this particular hill was a good one to die on. Not this specific case, anyway.

[Impy]

It’s a wonder anyone is still willing to serve in the military under these conditions. The next Republican Secretary of Defense has some work to do.

[lee martell]

I agree. We had a case of two very stubborn women locking horns and playing for power. In some cases we have to remember, the military has a right to dictate how their material is to be treated or maintained. It’s not out property, not really.
She wasted a lot of time defending herself when the other side had everything to gain and very little to lose. They could have drug this ego war out for another couple of years.

[Birdsbane]

God’s Word trumps all earthly law.

[RKBA Democrat]

So let me get this right. According to caesar’s courts, displaying a Bible verse doesn’t constitute religious exercise.

And what is it that Christians seek to gain by appealing to caesar?

[Political Junkie Too]

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to her case because displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious exercise.

It didn't display all by itself. It took an action to make it display.

What about speaking it out loud?

What about speaking it out loud at a school?

What about speaking it out loud at a graduation or a football game?

What about speaking it out loud at school in a club of like-minded students?

All of that is outlawed, but this soldier "displaying" a Bible verse is not covered?

Do you get the sense that everyone - at every level of government - is just making it up as they go to suit their particular agenda at the time?

-PJ

[Anoreth]

Wonder how she got away with that haircut.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Here, the appellant taped a biblical quotation in three places around her workstation, organized in a fashion to “represent the trinity.” While her explanation at trial may invoke religion, there is no evidence that posting signs at her workstation was an “exercise” of that religion in the sense that such action was “part of a system of religious belief.” Indeed, the appellant never told her SSgt that the signs had a religious connotation and never requested any religious accommodation to enable her to display the signs. Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the appellant was simply placing what she believed to be personal reminders that those she considered adversaries could not harm her. Such action does not trigger the RFRA.

The full opinion of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is here. It's worth a read. This article doesn't quite capture what was going on here - based on the facts laid out in the opinion, it sounds like she did not seem to think that orders applied to her, and the "signs" thing was just one small part of that bigger issue.

[Grimmy]

Imo, it’s that any SNCO, USMC or otherwise, could find that bit of nothing in any way offensive.

Douchebag needs to see the Corpsman to have his Sniveling Astro Turf Gland removed.