Last week it was reported that a United States Army chaplain stationed in Iraq, Capt. Jonathan Stertzbach, was ordered to stop preaching. Apparently, his censure came as a result of comments he had made about the military’s growing intolerance toward Christian expressions. Specifically, Stertzbach found himself in hot water for complaining about how the military was pressuring ministers to offer up only non-sectarian prayers: i.e. those that omit any mention of Jesus Christ. But, for now, that is about all that we’re going to be allowed to know. The captain has now been forbidden to discuss the matter with anyone, including the press.
When the Washington Times attempted to interview Stertzbach he would only confirm that he had been silenced. Beyond that, he could only say, “I am not allowed to talk to anyone right now.” What you have been allowed to hear is the sound of silence. When we hear it, we should listen. Under the right circumstances it has the potential of crescendoing into a deafening roar that eventually could threaten the integrity of our most fundamental freedoms.
The First Amendment in its entirety provides as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This one power-packed sentence lists six rights. How many do you think may have been violated by the silencing of Stertzbach? Most would probably say four. Some might even say five; I believe all six.
First, the military clearly has infringed upon the chaplain’s right to freely exercise his religious faith. The military should not be able to dictate to chaplains what they are or are not allowed to utter in sermons and prayers. Second, the military violated Stertzbach’s right of free speech when it removed him from the pulpit and again when it prevented him commenting to the press. They obviously didn’t want him to be able to either air his complaints about, or resist compliance with, their unconstitutional policy. To me such censorship about matters that are non-military in nature flies in the face of the purpose for which the right of free speech was created. Third, the military violated our right to a free press by imposing a silence that necessarily limited the press’s ability to freely report about non-military matters that may be of public concern. The fourth violation stems from the fact that the military’s non-sectarian religious directives objected to by Stertzbach effectively are very likely to render moot the right of people to assemble for the purpose of worshipping their God in any meaningful way. When the military constrains the content of religious services in order to achieve some non-sectarian objective, it has gutted the very purpose for which the people decided they wanted to assemble. What’s the point of Christians, or for that matter members of any other faith, gathering when they are not allowed to discuss the important beliefs and precepts they share in common? How long do you think a Harley club would continue to exist if a law prohibited any discussion of motorcycles at their meetings?
That leaves us with two remaining rights found in the First Amendment: the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and the right to be free of any religion that the government might otherwise wish to establish. In my opinion, the silencing of Stertzbach, at minimum, threatens the violation of both. Can we all agree that when a government silences its citizens its actions at the very least should become suspect? It makes it difficult for the rest of us to determine if our right to petition the government for a redress of our grievances tomorrow is being safeguarded or denied by the very same government that is busy silencing others who have grievances today. One of the things history seems to have taught us is that, when a government imposes silence upon its citizens, it is likely because it doesn’t want the complaints of some to be considered and evaluated by the rest -- especially when the government anticipates telling the people they have silenced to pound sand.
As to our right to be free of a religion established by our government, in my view the violation of this right may be the most insidious. The silencing of Stertzbach is evidently part of the government’s overall agenda to homogenize all faiths. But by doing so is the government not in reality creating its own religion? Wouldn’t all churches, synagogues and mosques eventually be compelled to become members of the Global Church of the Non-Sectarian? Even if it is being done under the façade of promoting “tolerance”, who cares? What matters is, if that agenda is allowed to stand, can you see how it could eventually lead to the persecution of others who, like Stertzbach, refuse to conform to the government’s future mandates that limit religious practices. The possibility of that should concern all of us.
We hear how tyranny is a cancer that is only allowed to grow within a society where a complacent majority is willing to submit to its slow and gradual encroachments. Those that founded this country would be the first to remind us today that no government is inherently “good”; that it is the duty of a free people to remain constantly vigilant to keep tyranny at bay. But, practically speaking, that task is often not easy. Especially when the only indications that tyranny may be taking root are those that are allowed to whisper to us from the sounds of silence.
© 2005 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com