Educating 'God-haters' on military chaplaincy

Religious liberty is rightfully cherished by Americans. Christians who serve in the military should rest knowing that their God-given right to profess their faith in both public and private settings are protected by the U.S. Constitution. An incalculable amount of service members have died to protect religious liberties.

Sadly, liberals hate religious liberty. Although liberals demand tolerance, they themselves will not be tolerant of Christians. Historically, they've relied on vituperation and "yellow journalism" to incite the populace so their melodramatic complaints might induce panic or controversy.

In less than 24 hours after posting an article entitled, "Why Military Chaplains Omit the Name of Christ," a Patheos editor, Hemant Mehta, published a hit piece, "Air Force Capt.: Military Chaplains Who Don't Proselytize Aren't True Christians."

In Mehta's article, he failed to cite what rule in the military exists that explicitly prohibits chaplains from praying in the name of Jesus. He also accused me of "actively encouraging chaplains to break the rules," but then failed to cite the rules I was allegedly encouraging chaplains to break. Instead, Mehta cherry-picked an unrelated policy at the end of his article without explaining how it directly applies to the point of my article. There are no rules, laws, policies or anything in the Constitution that prohibits chaplains from praying in the name of Christ.

Mr. Mehta's article proved that he does not have any sort of grasp on the policies that protect a military chaplain's rights to exercise their irreducible convictions. To start, I would like to draw attention to the title of Mr. Mehta' article. His title alleges that I am calling out other military chaplains who don't "proselytize." In the article I had written, the word "proselytize" was never mentioned, and Mr. Mehta failed to even provide a basic definition of what he thinks the word means. The topic of my article was on prayer. However I did say, "Of all the duties expected of a chaplain, none exceeds the task of evangelism." Both praying in the name of Jesus and evangelizing are permitted in the military. It's sad that Mr. Mehta failed to do his research on these topics.

To assist Mr. Mehta in his research endeavors, I will provide him with a reference guide: "The Military Commander & The Law," which happens to be a publication of the Judge Advocate General's School. Hopefully, Mr. Mehta will study these references so that in the future, he will not conflate the legal practice of "evangelism" with the illegal act of "proselytizing":

1. Evangelizing in the workplace:

Voluntary discussions of religion are permissible, even if conducted in uniform, to the same extent that they may engage in comparable private expression about subjects not related to religious issues. …

There is nothing wrong with an Airman sharing his/her faith or inviting another co-worker to attend his/her place of worship as long the Airman respects the views and requests of the co-worker [emphasis mine]

2. Chaplains praying in the public:

As a general rule, prayer constitutes protected religious expression. …

If a chaplain is asked to pray at an official event, the choice of prayer is in the discretion of the chaplain as long as the prayer does not state or imply any Air Force endorsement of a specific religion. … [emphasis mine]

Also, since Mr. Mehta disdains my stance on publicly exhorting other Christians to pray in the name of Christ, it would help him to pay careful attention to the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, which set a precedent for religious liberty and sectarian prayers:

The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian. …

Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum. …" [emphasis mine]

To further his argument, Mr. Mehta appealed to the anti-God advocate, Mikey Weinstein, who "demonized Christians for cold hard, cash." Weinstein accuses me of being a "hate-drenched, fundamentalist Christian supremacist" while simultaneously publishing his own hate-drenched press release which refers to me as a "despicable religious extremist bully and hater."

With all due respect to Mr. Mehta, his reference to Weinstein's diatribe that the "DoD has done absolutely NOTHING [sic]" should have informed him why I have not been disciplined: Weinstein's psycho-babbling is frivolous, and because I have done nothing wrong. The Constitution protects my right to exercise my faith. In all of the years I have been writing about my sincerely held beliefs, I have never been sanctioned for exercising my faith. Weinstein is a failed lawyer and Mehta should be wiser than to reference him in the future. (Weinstein loves the publicity and puts it up on his website to bloviate.)

In closing, I do not hate Mr. Mehta or Mr. Weinstein. If it was not for the grace of God, I would be just as intent as they are in attempting to sanction Christians from practicing their faith. I pray that God would deliver them both from their bondage to see that the God they hate, is the same God they will give an account to on the Day of Judgment. May God have mercy on them both.

Note: The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.