Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

Whose computer was it?

I work with 330,000 computers. Ever now and then someone says it’s “his computer”. Well actually NOT. They are owned by the company and the company decides:

• Default screen saver
• Default home page for a browser. Wed sites we cannot visit.
• Plus all of the software

Non-story

She is being too sensitive. He is being too sensitive. Both should have diffused the situation. No, you don’t have a right to put your Bible verses up on a company/federal computer. Sometimes, we pick the dumbest hills to die on. Sad.

This ruling is only consistent if NO PERSONAL MESSAGES OF ANY TYPE are allowed at workspaces. Is that done? I highly doubt it.

Other reports say it was printed out on paper.

If the Marine Corps can tell this woman to not display a verse, then it can tell her not to quote a Bible verse also. Of course, she would be free to curse, swear, and talk about how evil Christians are.

Mark, the rule would be consistent if no religious messages were allowed to be taped onto computers.

Also, sexual and religious harassment are also prohibited in the Corps. Thus, swearing and badmouthing Christians is prohibited. It just isn’t enforced (consistently).

Either way, what a poor choice of a hill to die on.

Either way, what a poor choice of a hill to die on.

Sean, what would be a good hill to die on? While I am generally apathetic about these kinds of things, I have to wonder where we should draw the line. The article says that other desks were also decorated. If that is the case, then this seems a blatant form of religious discrimination—something being forbidden simply because it is religious in nature. That would seem to be a problem.

Other reports say it was printed out on paper.

The article says that the next day it was torn off and thrown away. I presume that means it was paper. Either that or some idiot threw out a monitor, not realizing the verse was actually on the monitor but on the computer. So it will show up on the next monitor too.

Not that hill for certain. You can witness on your own time, on your own stuff. I think it is a bad testimony to demand the right to post stuff on government property.

for merely displaying a Bible verse on your desk, would you do what you could to appeal wrongful dismissal? That is what happened in this case. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances that involve real insubordination on the part of the young lady, but it doesn’t sound like it from the news reports.

I don’t think she set out to make it a “cause celebre” and a “hill to die on” (what a convenient buzzword). She may have made mistakes along the way, but the thing appears to have escalated way out of proportion and not entirely because of her actions. It seems to me that if I was fired on that basis, I’d fight it if I could.

Meanwhile, all knowing observers who weren’t there and didn’t suffer the penalties can pontificate about what hill they would die on.

She wasn’t discharged for displaying a verse (unless I am misunderstanding something). She was discharged for disobeying a lawful order to take it down, and a few other charges.

I read the linked court decision from Starnes’ article. Reading behind the lines, she is a problem child who doesn’t belong in the military. Goodbye and good luck.

[Sean Fericks]

She wasn’t discharged for displaying a verse (unless I am misunderstanding something). She was discharged for disobeying a lawful order to take it down, and a few other charges.

Earlier you said:

[Sean Fericks] No, you don’t have a right to put your Bible verses up on a company/federal computer.

So which is it? You can’t put it up or you have to take it down?

I don’t know what is the rule in the American military, but I have seen all kinds of messages posted on computers/desks/work-stations of Canadian military, including, to my surprise, Bible verses. I don’t see how posting the verse would be a violation in the first place, but maybe there is more to the story.

However, it seems presumptuous to assume you can make a judgement about the case based on the facts as reported in the story.

My statements did not contradict the story, or each other. Both are true.

I also asserted that the NCO shouldn’t have made an issue of the verse. Both Marines were surprisingly touchy, and both should have diffused the situation.

However, the Christian failed to be a peacemaker, and I hold her to the higher standard. She did not advance the cause of Christ. Rather, she made a mountain out of a mole hill.

True, I have limited knowledge. Sounds like you may be aware of something that I am unaware of.

No, not at all. I know no more than you do. Just trying to tamp down the dogmatism. There is more than one way to read between the lines. It is possible to read the story more sympathetically to the young lady than you and others seem to be doing.

but you could be right, too. We just don’t know enough to be so confident in our conclusions.

I’m not prepared to call her a problem child after reading the court documents, but it is certainly clear that the work environment at that office was crazy. She probably should have just been quiet and dealt with it. Also seems she either had serious medical problems or she was a “sick call” specialist. But that could’ve been exacerbated by the bad working environment.

The appellant court basically ruled that the comments of the SSGT and 1SGT could’ve been interpreted to refer to the LCPLs insubordination towards her NCO command rather than the specifics of the Bible verse. That is the problem of the SSGT who should’ve made it clear what was going on to her command.

I can assure you, the SSGTs I served with, let alone the GYSGT in command would not have let that happen. You did not misunderstand what they were doing, making everything clear.