This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A policy revision adopted recently by the U.S. Army could spell trouble for soldiers who believe in and follow the Holy Bible.
In June, the Army issued two new directives regarding the handling and reporting of "protest, extremist and criminal gang activities" by soldiers. Army directive 2024-07 on handling extremist activity, as well as the service's directive 2024-08 on reporting extremist activity, can both be found on the website of the Army Inspector General.
WorldNetDaily interviewed Dr. Charles "Chase" Spears, recently retired after a 20-year Army public affairs career specializing in ethical military communication strategy.
"Since day one of his tenure as secretary of Defense," Spears told WND, "Lloyd Austin claimed that there is a major issue with [Christian] extremism in the military." Spears added, "This is the same military that made [Austin] a four-star general."
But the Army's new rules beg the question: "Why now, when multiple reports have debunked Austin's claim?" Even if, Spears said, the Army's directives were implemented with the intention of clarifying what amounts to "extremism," a word he says is "open to wide interpretation in the current political climate," the new policy "makes it appear that if you disagree with [the views of Austin and the Biden administration], then you're an extremist."
Attorney R. Davis Younts agrees with Dr. Spears, telling WND that he likewise fears the ambiguity in the Army's new rules. According to the retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate general (JAG) officer, the directives encompass an "extremely broad range of activities."
Both Spears and Younts are concerned about how the new directives will be interpreted. For example, considering the 0recent Army portrayal of pro-life organizations as terrorist organizations, Younts said his concern has been heightened. "If a service member offers money or resources or volunteers to support a group that advocates against abortion, could he be viewed as supporting extremists?" Younts questioned. "What about supporting a group that advocates for … the existence of only two genders?"
Taking it one step further, Younts asked, "If I were still in the Air Force and tithed to my church, which goes out to pray in protest against a transgender story hour, would my church fit the Army's definition of an extremist group?"
To that end, Spears pointed out that Army directive 2024-07 states extremist activity includes "advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation." He warned that "because they feel they need to please their political superiors, some military commanders will infer that because you disagree with women competing in men's sports, you are now engaging in an act of extremism."
In fact, Spears added, the Army's new reporting requirements "essentially force commanders to prove the innocence of soldiers accused of extremism, rather than guilt."
"These are now things every single Christian military member that is doctrinally aligned with traditional biblical views of life, marriage and gender must consider," Younts told WND. For this reason, he recommends "these service members should be raising the issue to their congressmen, and apply for a religious accommodation to be exempted from the policy."
"We have to get [military] leaders to clarify what they are saying in the new directives," Younts argues. "I don't think it's irrational to believe that some of today's senior leadership would view the church or another 501(c) nonprofit organization as an extremist for disavowing abortion, same-sex marriage and a host of other sins running rampant in society."
For Spears, one of his biggest concerns is the fact that the directives apply not only to active-duty Army personnel, but also to inactivated members of the Reserve and National Guard. "When reservists and guardsmen are activated, they fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice – but when not activated, they fall under civil law, like all other civilians," he explained. "The Army's new rules on so-called 'extremism' further erode the line between civilian and military life."
"This is a terrifying development that extends the Defense Department's intrusive reach into the personal lives of non-activated Reservists and National Guardsmen," Spears argued. And this, he concluded, "sends a chilling message across the force that must be overturned by the courts."
