A SOLDIER’S MORALITY, RELIGION, 

AND OUR PROFESSIONAL ETHIC:

DOES THE ARMY’S CULTURE FACILITATE 

INTEGRATION, CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, 

AND TRUST IN THE PROFESSION?

Don M. Snider

Alexander P. Shine

Volume 6

Professional Military Ethics Monograph Series

Visit our website for other free publication 

downloads

http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/

To rate this publication click here.
The United States Army War College

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

CENTER for

STRATEGIC

LEADERSHIP and

DEVELOPMENT

The United States Army War College educates and develops leaders for service 

at the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application 

of Landpower.

The purpose of the United States Army War College is to produce graduates 

who are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem solvers. Concurrently, 

it is our duty to the U.S. Army to also act as a “think factory” for commanders 

and civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engage 

in discourse and debate concerning the role of ground forces in achieving 

national security objectives.

The Strategic Studies Institute publishes national 

security and strategic research and analysis to influence 

policy debate and bridge the gap between military 

and academia.

The Center for Strategic Leadership and Development 

contributes to the education of world class senior 

leaders, develops expert knowledge, and provides 

solutions to strategic Army issues affecting the national 

security community.

The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute 

provides subject matter expertise, technical review, 

and writing expertise to agencies that develop stability 

operations concepts and doctrines.

The Senior Leader Development and Resiliency program 

supports the United States Army War College’s lines of 

effort to educate strategic leaders and provide well-being 

education and support by developing self-awareness 

through leader feedback and leader resiliency.

The School of Strategic Landpower develops strategic 

leaders by providing a strong foundation of wisdom 

grounded in mastery of the profession of arms, and 

by serving as a crucible for educating future leaders in 

the analysis, evaluation, and refinement of professional 

expertise in war, strategy, operations, national security, 

resource management, and responsible command.

The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center acquires, 

conserves, and exhibits historical materials for use 

to support the U.S. Army, educate an international 

audience, and honor soldiers—past and present.

U.S. Army War College

Senior Leader Development and Resiliency

SLDR
i

STRATEGIC

STUDIES

INSTITUTE

The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) is part of the U.S. Army War 

College and is the strategic-level study agent for issues related 

to national security and military strategy with emphasis on 

geostrategic analysis.

The mission of SSI is to use independent analysis to conduct strategic 

studies that develop policy recommendations on:

• Strategy, planning, and policy for joint and combined 

 employment of military forces;

• Regional strategic appraisals;

• The nature of land warfare;

• Matters affecting the Army’s future;

• The concepts, philosophy, and theory of strategy; and,

• Other issues of importance to the leadership of the Army.

Studies produced by civilian and military analysts concern 

topics having strategic implications for the Army, the Department of 

Defense, and the larger national security community.

In addition to its studies, SSI publishes special reports on topics 

of special or immediate interest. These include edited proceedings 

of conferences and topically oriented roundtables, expanded trip 

reports, and quick-reaction responses to senior Army leaders.

The Institute provides a valuable analytical capability within the 

Army to address strategic and other issues in support of Army 

participation in national security policy formulation.

iii

Strategic Studies Institute

and

U.S. Army War College Press

A SOLDIER’S MORALITY, RELIGION, 

AND OUR PROFESSIONAL ETHIC:

DOES THE ARMY’S CULTURE FACILITATE 

INTEGRATION, CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, 

AND TRUST IN THE PROFESSION?

Don M. Snider

Alexander P. Shine

April 2014

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the 

Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. 

Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and 

U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Press publications enjoy full 

academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified 

information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent 

official U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers them to 

offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for 

public release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, 

Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not be 

copyrighted.
iv

*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should

be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. 

Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, 47 Ashburn 

Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5010. 

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and U.S. Army War

College (USAWC) Press publications may be downloaded free 

of charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of this report may 

also be obtained free of charge while supplies last by placing 

an order on the SSI website. SSI publications may be quoted 

or reprinted in part or in full with permission and appropriate 

credit given to the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. 

Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA. 

Contact SSI by visiting our website at the following address: 

www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil.

*****

The Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War

College Press publishes a monthly email newsletter to update 

the national security community on the research of our analysts,

recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides 

a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you 

are interested in receiving this newsletter, please subscribe on the 

SSI website at www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/newsletter.

ISBN 1-58487-619-0
v

FOREWORD

This monograph is the 6th in the Professional Military Ethics Series; it addresses an issue about which 

little has been written. It intentionally plows new and 

difficult ground. 

The larger issue it addresses is the cultures of the 

military professions which currently serve our Republic and the role of the Stewards of the Profession in the 

evolution of those cultures, in particular their moral 

and ethical core. Since our Armed Forces exist as military professions only by the trust they earn from the 

society they serve and the trust they engender among 

professionals who voluntarily serve within them, 

this issue is of no small import. If the Stewards are 

unable to lead the professions such that both the external and internal trust relationships are maintained, 

then the military institution reverts to its alternative 

organizational character of a big, lumbering government bureaucracy. Since there is no historical record 

that such government bureaucracies are able to create 

the expert knowledge or expert practice of a modern, 

military profession—such as we have enjoyed in the 

post-Vietnam era—such a situation does not bode 

well for the future security of the Republic.

Thus, the larger issue has to do with the evolution 

of the ethics of America’s military professions. Those 

ethics, however, do not exist nor evolve in isolation of 

other influences external to the professions. Scholars 

have established for some time that there are three major influences on the ethics of the military professions: 

1) the changing nature of warfare and the associated 

imperative to prosecute it effectively; 2) the evolving 

values of the society being defended [both their beliefs 

as to what is moral or ethical in warfare, and more 
broadly what they value as a society]; and, 3) the international treaties and conventions to which the United 

States is a party. It is the second of these influences 

that is of interest in this monograph—the evolving 

values of the American society being defended. 

Among the evolving values of American society, 

this research seeks to address the perennial issue of 

religion, its role in the moral character of individual 

volunteers, and how, amid a secularizing society, the 

Stewards of the Professions can maintain an ethical 

culture that facilitates, indeed fosters, both correct 

religious expression and military effectiveness. Since 

the military represents a microcosm of American society, the cultural wars raging outside the professions 

for several decades on such issues as racial integration, abortion, the service of gays in the military, gender roles, etc., have each migrated in their own time 

into the military sub-society. This research explores 

the extent to which that is now the case with religious 

expression and how the military professions can, once 

again, lead in overcoming such cultural dysfunction, 

in this case by facilitating soldiers’ individual integration of diverse personal moralities, faith–based or not, 

with their profession’s ethic.

vi
vii

Since this is an initial effort in this area of research, 

we expect that it will serve its intended purpose—to 

start a dialogue within our military professions on this 

vital and urgent issue.

 

 DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR.

 Director

 Strategic Studies Institute and

 U.S. Army War College Press

 

 

 EVERETT DENTON KNAPP, JR.

 Colonel, Infantry, U.S. Army

 Director

 Center for the Army Profession 

 and Ethic (CAPE)

 Combined Arms Center

 U.S. Army Training and 

 Doctrine Command

ix

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

DON M. SNIDER is a Professor Emeritus of Political 

Science at West Point, NY, from which he retired in 

2008. He is now a Senior Fellow in the Center for the 

Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE) at West Point and 

an Adjunct Research Professor in the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, 

PA. In a previous military career, Dr. Snider served 

three combat tours in Vietnam as an infantryman; 

after battalion command, he served as Chief of Plans 

for Theater Army in Europe, as Joint Planner for the 

Army Chief of Staff, as Executive Assistant in the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on 

the staff of the National Security Council in the White 

House. He retired from the Army in 1990. Dr. Snider’s 

research examines American civil-military relations, 

the identities and development of the American Army 

officer, military professions, and professional military 

ethics. He was research director and co-editor of The 

Future of the Army Profession, (2d Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), and Forging the Warrior’s Character 

(2d Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008). More recent 

publications include, “Dissent and Strategic Leadership of Military Professions” (Orbis, 2008), The Army’s 

Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict 

(co-author, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 

U.S. Army War College, 2008) and, co-editor with Suzanne Nielsen, American Civil-Military Relations: The 

Soldier and the State in the New Era, (Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009). His opinion 

editorials appear on the website of the Strategic Studies Institute; his most recent contribution was, “What 

Our Civilian Leaders Do Not Understand about the 

Ethic of Military Professions: A Striking Example of 
x

the Current Gap in Civil-Military Relations.” Dr. Snider holds M.A. degrees in economics and public policy 

from the University of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Maryland.

ALEXANDER P. SHINE is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and educator. His military service included tours 

of duty in Korea and Vietnam, infantry command at 

the company and battalion level, and teaching assignments at the U.S. Military Academy, New York (U.S. 

History); Wheaton College, IL (Military Science); and 

the U.S. Army War College (National Security Strategy). Following retirement from the Army, he served 

a decade as Commandant of Cadets and Professor of 

History at Culver Military Academy in Culver, IN. 

Colonel Shine currently does contract editing for the 

Strategic Studies Institute and teaches about World 

War II and the Civil War for a travel agency. His articles have appeared in Command, Infantry, Air Power 

Journal, Parameters, and Armed Forces Journal. Colonel 

Shine holds a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy and 

an M.A. in history from Harvard University.
xi

SUMMARY

The context for this monograph lies in the trust relationships that American military professions must 

retain with the society they serve if they are to remain 

professions. Of course, the alternative without such 

trust is for the Services simply to revert to the character and behavior of a government occupation, a big 

bureaucracy like the Internal Revenue Service or the 

Department of Agriculture. But to remain professions, 

one of the constant challenges the Stewards of the Professions must address is “how different and how separate” they are to be from the society they serve. Stated 

differently, as the values and mores of American society change, the ethics of its military professions must 

also evolve, but never so much that such evolution 

diminishes their military effectiveness—their raisond’être and the source of the trust relationship in the 

first place.

As noted in the Foreword, as the values of American society have changed in the past, in most cases, 

e.g., racial integration, abortion, smoking as a health 

issue, the service of gays in the military, gender roles, 

etc., those changes have eventually had a strong influence on the culture of the military professions 

and, in particular, on the core of those cultures—the 

Services’ Ethics.

The authors of this monograph argue that another 

such issue has now arisen and is strongly, and not 

favorably, influencing military cultures—a culture of 

hostility toward religion and its correct expressions 

within the military. Setting aside the role of Chaplains 

as a separate issue, the focus here is on the role religion may play in the moral character of individual 

soldiers, especially leaders, and how their personal 
xii

morality, faith-based or not, is to be integrated with 

their profession’s ethic so they can serve in all cases 

“without reservation,” as their oath requires.

The authors assert, with cogent examples, that 

Service cultures have become increasingly hostile 

to the correct expressions of religion, perhaps to the 

point that soldiers of faith are now intimidated into 

privatizing their beliefs . . . and thus serving hypocritically as someone other than who they really are. 

If the Services really want leaders “of character” as 

their doctrines so plainly state, then they must maintain professional cultures that allow, indeed foster, 

authentic moral character whether faith-based or not, 

and its development as soldiers volunteer and serve. 

The Services can ill afford to lose the irrefutable power 

of soldiers’ personal moralities as they serve in both 

peace and in war, providing an additional motivation 

and resilience to prevail in the arduous tasks and inevitable recoveries inherent in their sacrificial service. 

After advancing this hypothesis and viewing it 

from several perspectives, the authors then move 

downward in hierarchy to address the service they 

know best—the U.S. Army—and offer recommendations for both Soldiers and the Stewards of the Army 

Profession as to the best way to maintain such a professional culture. The intent clearly is to start a discussion within the profession on an issue that the Army, 

at least, has placed for too long in the “too hard” box.
1

A SOLDIER’S MORALITY, RELIGION, 

AND OUR PROFESSIONAL ETHIC:

DOES THE ARMY’S CULTURE FACILITATE 

INTEGRATION, CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, 

AND TRUST IN THE PROFESSION?

INTRODUCTION

In October 2013, the Secretary of the Army directed a halt to all “briefings, command presentations, 

or training on the subject of extremist organizations 

until that program of instruction and training has 

been [re]created and disseminated.” The Secretary 

acted because:

On several occasions over the past few months, media 

accounts have highlighted instances of Army instructors supplementing programs of instruction and including information that is inaccurate, objectionable, 

and otherwise inconsistent with current Army policy.1

Of interest is the fact that during those briefings, 

Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and several apolitical religious advocacy groups in Washington, DC, had 

been labeled by Army instructors as “hate groups.” 

News of this drew negative reaction from members 

of Congress who strongly addressed their concerns to 

the Secretary.2

How could such unprofessional conduct on the 

part of Army instructors happen “on several occasions over the past few months” without, apparently, 

corrective action being taken by uniformed leaders at 

each location, or even at some higher uniformed level? 

Why did they stand on the sidelines so long that it 

took the Secretary of the Army to act? Why did they 

not recognize what the Secretary did—that such rep-
2

resentations are “inaccurate, objectionable, and otherwise inconsistent with Army policy,” not to mention, 

common sense?

On November 18, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) commended the Secretary by letter 

for his action noting that: 

. . . to the extent these trainings served to dissuade 

personnel from engaging in lawful associational or expressive activities, they raise serious concerns under 

the First Amendment . . . jeopardize[ing] other important Army goals and values.

 In an accompanying news article, the same ACLU authors further noted:

The Army did the right thing in halting these trainings 

until it can get a handle on the curriculum to prevent 

inaccuracies and ensure that they properly further 

the program’s goals of treating everyone with dignity 

and respect. No soldier should fear repercussions because of their personal beliefs. The men and women 

who volunteer to defend the Constitution deserve its 

protections, including freedom of association and religion and belief, as well as fair treatment and equal 

opportunity for everyone.

3

 (bold added by authors of 

this monograph)

We contend that this example, one of several that 

we shall discuss, highlights a much larger issue—that 

the Army’s professional culture, as well as those of 

the other Services, has become increasingly hostile to 

almost any expression of personal moralities—and 

particularly those based on religion—so hostile that 

citizens can rightly wonder whether the conduct of 

the institutions continues to reflect the legal and moral 

foundations of the professions’ own ethics. Put another 
3

way, in a national culture and political milieu wherein 

an individual’s personal morality, particularly when it 

is based on religion, is increasingly contested, can the 

Services maintain professional cultures that foster the 

legitimacy of service and sacrifice by men and women 

of religious faith—or, indeed of no faith—who choose 

to think, speak, and act, within prescribed limits in accordance with their own personal morality? Can they 

serve, as noted by the ACLU, without “fear of repercussions because of their personal beliefs . . . enjoying 

freedom of association and religion and belief as well 

as fair treatment and equal opportunity?”

It is our understanding that every Soldier 

has a personal morality that starts with what he 

or she believes to be good, right, and just. More 

specifically, it is: 

. . . the worldview component of one’s human spirit, or 

personal essence. This system of beliefs defines who a 

person is, what the person stands for, serves as a guide 

for determining behavior—especially in ambiguous 

and chaotic situations—and also provides the courage 

and will to act in accordance with one’s beliefs and 

values.4

In the doctrines of the Army, this is known as 

the Soldier’s character, a leader attribute that is to be 

marked by integrity, consistently “doing what is right 

legally and morally.”5 At a time in the Army’s history 

when failures caused by lack of individual and institutional character abound—with sexual assault and sexual harassment at the top of the list—this issue could 

hardly be more important to our leaders.

Understood this way, we believe this issue now 

presents a direct challenge to the Stewards of our military professions: Can they adapt professional cultures 

to attract, motivate, and retain volunteers of moral 
4

character—including those religiously based—that 

are compatible with the professions’ ethics, thus enabling our armed forces to remain militarily effective 

and ethical, earning the trust of those serving as well 

as that of the American people? 

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 

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 to peaceably assemble, and 

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to 

change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone 

or in community with others and in public or private, 

to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, 

worship and observance.

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

 Article 18, United Nations, 1948

The two epigraphs above provide context for this 

monograph. As they indicate, Americans are privileged, indeed. They enjoy human rights and history 

teaches us that, elsewhere in the world, others have 

only aspired to this level of privilege. Among those, as 

the First Amendment to our Constitution states, they 

are free to enjoy the priceless liberty of conscience, 

and with it, the choice of what belief system to follow, religious or nonreligious. Further, as the second 

epigraph notes, this is not just an American ideal; it is 

our aspiration in concert with like-minded nations for 

all of mankind.
5

Soldiers6 of the nation’s military professions have 

sacrificed much blood, indeed life, over the 2+ centuries of the Republic’s existence to safeguard its liberty, and with it, the exercise by its citizens of these 

individual liberties of conscience and belief, including 

those that are founded on religion. They have also 

sacrificed in the cause of extending these liberties to 

citizens of other nations, increasingly so in the last 

several decades. Because of these sacrifices, military 

professionals have an abiding interest in the exercise of these liberties, both by themselves and those 

they defend. 

However, it is also true that soldiers in service to 

the Republic give up some of their rights as American 

citizens for the necessities of an effective and ethical 

military profession. The regulations of the Departments of Defense (DoD) and the Army state the applicable policies:

The U.S. Constitution proscribes Congress from enacting any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

The Department of Defense places a high value on the 

rights of members of the Military Services to observe 

the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy 

that requests for accommodation of religious practices 

should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on mission 

accomplishment, military readiness, unit cohesion, 

standards, or discipline. 

 Department of Defense Instruction

 Number 1300.17, February 10, 20097

The Army places a high value on the rights of its Soldiers to observe tenets of their respective religious 

faiths. The Army will approve requests for accommodation of religious practices unless accommodation 
6

will have an adverse impact on unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline, 

safety, and/or health. As used in this regulation, these 

factors will be referred to individually and collectively 

as ‘military necessity’ unless otherwise stated. Accommodation of a Soldier’s religious practices must 

be examined against military necessity and cannot be 

guaranteed at all times.

 Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command 

 Policy, September 2012, para 5–6, 

 Accommodating religious practices8

So the enduring challenge facing the leaders of the 

Army and the other Services is how to balance the 

restrictions placed on soldiers’ practice of their liberties—due to what the Army in its regulation calls 

“military necessity”—with their constitutional rights 

to hold religious beliefs as the basis of their personal 

morality and to exercise those beliefs as acts of conscience. How do the Stewards of the Professions establish that necessary balance within the professions’ 

cultures such that uniformed leaders actually lead 

with confidence and sensitivity on issues of religion 

and its expression within their units and commands? 

Serving under oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” it is logical that young 

professionals expect their leaders to achieve such balance within the culture of the military professions in 

which they have volunteered to serve.

Two additional points of perspective need to be 

included in this section. First, we note that there exists in military professions a mutual responsibility for 

the moral development—or character development, 

in doctrinal language—of individual professionals. 

On the one hand, it is the responsibility of individual 
7

leaders within the profession of arms to integrate their 

personal morality, faith-based or not, with the ethic 

of their vocation such that they can always execute 

their military duties “without reservation,” as their 

oath states. In our own case at least, this was not too 

difficult, including for each of us who participated in 

multiple combat tours as leaders in the infantry. But 

we served at a different time, one where there was less 

concern than there is today about a Soldier’s personal 

morality, and there was not the undercurrent of hostility to religious expression that we address in this 

monograph.

On the other hand, as we will more fully explain in 

subsequent sections, the profession shares responsibility for a leader’s character development, including 

his or her successful integration of personal morality 

with professional ethic. It does so by ensuring that the 

culture and practices of the institution are not hostile 

to, or intimidating of, the leaders’ correct expressions 

of his or her personal morality, whether faith based 

or not. This is the “. . . no soldier should fear repercussions because of their personal beliefs . . .” of the 

ACLU discussed earlier. We will discuss this shared 

responsibility further in Section II.

Second, we note that, while we will address this 

issue of cultural intimidation within the context of 

America’s military professions, their ethics, and their 

leaders, it is also of current interest to other disciplines 

whose inquiries are germane to our discussion. In particular, among political theorists, moral philosophers, 

and military ethicists, there has been a lengthy debate 

over the applicability of the doctrine of religious restraint to decisionmaking within liberal democracies. 

Originally construed to address the proper public role 

of religion—and more particularly the role religion 

should play as citizens and elected political officials 
employ their modicum of political power within a 

pluralistic, liberal democracy—the doctrine held that 

religion should not play a decisive role in their choices 

as to which candidates or policies to support. In short, 

it is fair to say the doctrine advocates, in essence, that 

citizens and their elected politicians privatize their 

religious convictions in their roles as voters or public 

servants.9

Over the years, the doctrine of religious restraint 

has remained contentious because many Americans 

do not accept a distinction between what is morally 

correct and what is religiously correct; to them, the 

two are not separable within their world view. They 

dispute the claim of the doctrine toward privatization 

of their religious views on the grounds that, in fulfilling their public roles, they (citizens and politicians) 

should not be denied the grounds (religious) on which 

to decide the best (morally best) policies and positions 

to take.

More recently, this debate has been extended to 

the applicability of the doctrine to the role of military 

professionals, and particularly to uniformed leaders 

with command authority. Of interest to our discussion here, two members of the faculty at the U.S. Naval Academy have recently argued against extension 

of the doctrine of religious restraint to military decisionmaking. They argue that, just as a citizen ought 

to support those public policies that he or she believes 

to be morally correct, so a soldier has a role-specific 

moral obligation to make only those professional 

judgments that he or she sincerely believes to be morally correct. And if, for a particular leader of religious 

faith, the most morally correct discretionary judgment 

is one based on his or her personal, faith-based morality, then it should be made on that basis. They offer a 

new doctrine:

8
9

Call this understanding The Doctrine of Conscientious 

Action (DCA): where the relevant legal and statutory 

constraints leave room for a soldier’s discretionary 

judgment, then he should use his discretion in a morally responsible manner. He should try to use his discretion in such a way as to get right moral, legal, and 

operational results. Given the lack of a principled normative difference between the religious and the moral, 

it follows that he should use his discretion to get the 

right religious result as well. Given the demographics 

of the United States, a ‘moral’ military is at one and the 

same time a religious military.10

 As we shall see, given the increases in ethnic diversity and religious pluralism amid a larger trend 

of secularization that is American society today, the 

challenge to maintain within our military professions 

a culture in which personal moralities can be motivational, including those which are religion based, is a 

challenge of increasing intensity and importance. Our 

intent in this monograph, then, is to articulate perspectives, analyses, and recommendations that will help 

civilian and military leaders within the Army and the 

other Services address this challenge. 

We will proceed from here in five sections: First, 

we will highlight further the growing culture of hostility toward religious expression within the Services.

Second, narrowing the focus of the monograph to the 

Service we know best, the U.S. Army, we will place 

this issue in the context of the profession’s meritocratic ethic and its use by leaders of all ranks to selfpolice the military’s culture and behavior. Third, we 

will offer our perspective of how leaders within the 

Army whose personal morality is based on religious 

faith see this growing issue. Fourth, we will present 
10

a brief analysis of options to address the issue; and 

then, fifth, we will offer brief recommendations from 

an Army perspective.

I. THE EVOLVING CULTURE OF HOSTILITY 

TOWARD RELIGIOUS PRESENCE AND 

EXPRESSION

As discussed briefly in the introduction, we believe 

that over the past 2 decades, coincident with the growing secularization of American society, the culture of 

our Armed Services has become more hostile to many 

things religious, including religious expression by individuals in uniform and the application of any sort 

of religious basis for decisionmaking. This has created, in perception or reality, a culture hostile to, and 

perhaps even intimidating for, serving soldiers of 

religious faith. 

We also note that this trend of increasing hostility 

to religious expression within our Armed Services is 

not an isolated trend and is not surprising since there 

are at least three well-recognized societal trends that 

are occurring along with it:11 First, the general secularization of American society and the cultural wars 

that this has created over the past several decades; 

second, the activism of several legal advocacy groups 

specifically hostile to religious expression within the 

military; and third, the advancement of America’s cultural wars into the military, particularly by political 

advocates/reformers focused on individual issues.

Turning now to examples of such hostility to religious expression, we offer the following instances:12

• September 2011: Air Force Chief of Staff General

Norton Schwartz issued a Service-wide memo 

entitled, “Maintaining Government Neutral-
11

ity Regarding Religion.” It states, “Leaders at 

all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of 

religion.” For example, they must avoid the 

“actual or apparent” use of their position to 

promote their personal religious beliefs to their 

subordinates. “Commanders . . . who engage 

in such behavior may cause members to doubt 

their impartiality and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, 

good order and discipline.” General Schwartz 

also warned commanders against open support of chaplain-run events, stating that they 

“must refrain from appearing to officially endorse religion generally or any particular religion. Therefore, I expect chaplains, not commanders, to notify Airmen of Chaplain Corps 

programs.”13 Finally, Schwartz advised anyone 

who has concerns “involving the preservation 

of government neutrality regarding religious 

beliefs” to contact a military attorney.

 From our perspective, the threatening tone 

of the final comment is obvious. So is the excessive concern over “apparent” use of commanders’ positions to promote their religious 

beliefs, and the concern that commanders who 

are known to be religious may, more than those 

with other world views, cause subordinates to 

doubt their impartiality and objectivity. Further, we believe that by precluding commanders from even speaking about the “Chaplain 

Corps programs” in their own units, such activities, as well as the silenced commanders, 
12

are marginalized in the eyes of the very Airmen 

they have sworn to lead and develop. Ironically, commanders may advertise, and indeed encourage attendance at any number of voluntary 

functions but not those of a religious nature, 

even in cases where they personally believe the 

function would be desired by, and could be of 

significant developmental benefit to, many of 

their Airmen. Such “over the top” reactions by 

senior military leaders to the cultural intimidation they are facing serve, sadly, as the basis for 

construal by junior professionals that if they 

“lead-up” in such situations, they will be seen 

as insubordinate. Intimidation begets intimidation, eviscerating professional culture.

• September 2011: Walter Reed National Military

Medical Center, the leading medical institution for the U.S. Armed Forces, issued an official patient and visitor policy banning Bibles 

(to our understanding the ban was imposed 

only on Bibles, rather than such authoritative 

writings of all major faith groups). It stated, 

“No religious items (i.e., Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given 

away or used during a visit.” The policy was 

revoked after a political firestorm erupted in 

the House of Representatives,14 but its intent 

cannot be missed. Neither can the fact that such 

intent runs utterly contrary to decades of understanding within the military professions of 

the positive role that religion and its various 

expressions play in the fitness of soldiers for 

mortal combat and subsequent recovery from 

combat-related sacrifices.15
13

• May 2013: The DoD issued the following

statement: 

The U.S. Department of Defense has never 

and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. 

. . . Service members can share their faith 

(evangelize), but must not force unwanted, 

intrusive attempts to convert others of any 

faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).16

 If religious expression within military cultures 

was not at issue, then why was such a directive 

needed?

• June 2013: The House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment by Representative John Fleming (R-LA) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Fleming 

Amendment seeks to ensure protection of the 

rights of Armed Services members to hold, act 

upon, and practice freely their religious beliefs 

as long as they do not interfere with any constitutional liberties of others. As Representative 

Fleming notes in his press release: 

. . .troubling reports indicate that the military may be focused only on protecting 

beliefs of service members and not the 

exercise or expression of those beliefs. My 

amendment is necessary to ensure that men 

and women of faith will not be discriminated against in the Armed Forces, and will be 

free to exercise their religious beliefs.17

• June 2013: President Barack Obama objected to

the Fleming amendment. On June 11, after the 
14

House Armed Services Committee approved 

its version of the NDAA (H.R. 1960) with Representative Fleming’s language, a White House 

Statement of Administration Policy was issued, 

indicating that the President’s senior advisers would recommend a veto because they 

strongly objected: 

to section 530, which would require the 

Armed Forces to accommodate, except in 

cases of military necessity, ‘actions and 

speech’ reflecting the ‘conscience, moral 

principles, or religious beliefs of the member.’ By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic 

speech and actions within their units, this 

provision would have significant adverse 

effect on good order, discipline, morale, 

and mission accomplishment.18

 But, why would the President’s advisors recommend he veto legislation based exactly 

on the “military necessity” language in the 

DoD and Service policies; unless, that is, they 

did not want accommodation of such actions 

and speech?

We conclude from these examples that the institutional behavior of our military professions within the 

DoD manifests cultures that can fairly be described as 

increasingly hostile to personal moralities and their 

rightful expression, especially when based on religion. While this is deleterious today to ethical military 

professions, we must also be mindful of the second 

order effects occurring in the current development 

of junior professionals. Simply stated, they take their 
15

cues from those above them, making their decisions 

based on their construal of senior leaders’ priorities, 

values, guidance, etc. They correctly see the need for 

everybody in the organization to get on board with 

current policy. But our concern is that they may then 

equate dissent or difference in belief with insubordination. If junior leaders make that type of construal 

regarding their obligations to senior officers and lack 

the experiences to see the value to the profession of 

a rich array of personal beliefs (even those that may 

lead to conflict between soldiers), then they will be 

more likely to establish in the future their own command climates wherein religion and its influences on 

character development are not encouraged and perhaps not even welcomed. 

While much of the hostility has been directed at the 

Chaplains’ Corps of our Armed Services, we have excluded all such examples (which are, in fact, far more 

numerous than those offered here) since the Chaplains’ Corps are not the focus of this monograph. We 

focus instead on the challenge this cultural hostility 

presents to the Stewards of our military professions 

as well as to both uniformed and civilian leaders of all 

ranks within them whose personal morality is based 

on one of the world’s major religious faiths.

II. THE ARMY’S PROFESSIONAL MILITARY 

ETHIC

While we have addressed the culture of hostility 

toward religious expression as it exists throughout the 

DoD, our focus now shifts downward in hierarchy to 

the Department of the Army. Here our analysis will 

focus on the Army as a military profession that, like 

all professions, uses its ethic as the primary means of 
16

social control over institutional policies as well as over 

its personnel and their professional work.

Fortunately for this discussion, the Army has 

very recently (June 2013) officially articulated for 

the first time its understanding of itself as a military 

profession: Army Doctrine Reference Publication No. 1, 

(ADRP1), The Army Profession.19 Included in the new 

doctrine is a significant discussion on the leader’s 

role in building and maintaining trust—the central 

organizing principle of the profession—by adherence to the Army’s Ethic. That discussion includes a 

framework for integrating and understanding the 

many different components of the Army’s Ethic.20 (See 

Figure 1.)

NCO - noncommissioned officer 

U.S. - United States

UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice

Figure 1. The Framework of the Army Ethic.

Legal Foundations

(codified) Moral Foundations

Army as Profession 

(Laws/values/norms for 

performance of collective 

institution)

Legal-Institutional

The U.S. Constitution 

Titles 5, 10, 32, U.S. Code 

Treaties of which U.S. is party 

Status-of-Forces Agreements 

Law of Armed Conflict

Moral-Institutional

The U.S. Declaration of 

 Independence 

Just War Tradition

Trust Relationships of the 

 Profession

Individual as Professional

(Laws/values/norms for 

performance of individual 

prodessionals)

Legal-Individual

Oath of: 

 Enlistment 

 Commision

 Office

U.S. Code - Standards of 

 Exemplary Conduct

UCMJ

Rules of Engagement

Soldier's Rules

Moral-Individual

Universal Norms: 

 Basic Rights

 Golden Rule

Values, Creeds, and Mottos:

 "Duty, Honor, Country"

 NCO Creed, Civilian Creed 

 7 Army Values

 Soldier's Creed 

 Warrior Ethos
17

While it is beyond the scope of this monograph to 

present the Army Ethic completely, four aspects of it 

are of interest to the issue we are addressing:

1. The Ethic has two foundations—legal and moral. Since the inception of the Army in 1775, its ethic 

has had both legal (codified) and moral foundations. 

War, the practice of the Army Profession by its brutal nature, has long been viewed as a vexing moral 

challenge. Over the centuries, nations have sought to 

legitimize some acts of war under certain conditions 

and to delegitimize others, to constrain the horrors of 

war as well as the peacetime behavior of martial institutions, by legal code. As the framework shows, these 

constraints apply today to the Army as an institution, 

as well as to individual Soldiers, in peace and in war. 

But there are also the moral foundations of our ethic, 

which apply in similar manner to both the institution 

and individual professionals. Of importance to this 

monograph is the recognition that Soldiers are to be 

aware that their personal morality, their views on the 

“Universal Norms”—what they personally believe 

to be good, right, and just—are to be considered and 

integrated with other legal and moral norms of interpersonal behavior as they live their lives and fulfill 

their professional responsibilities. Army professionals 

are to live and act each day based on both the legal 

and moral foundations of the profession’s ethic, and a 

part of those moral norms is their personal morality. 

No Army professional is ever asked to give up his or 

her personal morality to become a Soldier; rather their 

task is integration with the profession’s ethic in order 

to serve and lead with personal integrity (see further 

discussion on Aspect 4 later in the monograph).

2. The Motivations of the Army Ethic. As the new 

doctrine explicates, each of these sets of ethical founda-
18

tions, legal and moral, tend to produce different forms 

of motivation in Army professionals. The legal norms 

produce the motivation of obligation (I have taken an 

oath and I must do my duty, or I am in violation of my 

oath and will be punished under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice for dereliction of those duties). In contrast, the motivation produced under the moral norms 

is that of aspiration (I want to do what is right, both 

legally and morally, because that is what I believe in; 

it is who I am now and who I am becoming in the 

future; it authentically reflects my personal character 

and values and reflects why I am an Army professional).21 While both forms of motivation have their uses, 

it is common sense, as well as Army doctrine, to prefer 

transformational leadership that draws on the moral 

foundations and inspires Army professionals to honorable service over motivation that is based punitively 

on law and regulations.22

3. The Meritocratic Essence of the Army Ethic 

based on Certifications by the “three C’s” of Competence, Character, and Commitment. All professions 

seek to create and maintain a culture, with their ethic 

at its core, that places extremely high value on the institution’s behavior as a meritocracy. For the Army, 

this means advancement based on individual merit 

alone, with no partiality shown to any individual or 

group. Professions thus ensure that only practitioners 

fully qualified in competence, character, and commitment are advanced to positions of higher responsibility and service to their client. This is how professions 

remain effective in their expert work, which in turn 

maintains the trust of their client—which is the lifeblood of the profession’s existence. Maintaining this 

essence of their cultural and ethical foundation explains why all professions, including the Army, place 
19

such importance on repetitive certification of their individual professionals. Preferential treatment in certifications, or any other benefit of being a member of the 

profession, is taboo; all must be earned strictly on the 

basis of individually demonstrated merit.

4. Integration of personal morality with the ethic 

of the profession is required for Army leaders to be 

self-aware and integral, and thus authentic leaders 

“of character.” Army doctrine on leadership is informative here:

Leadership is affected by a person’s character and 

identity. Integrity is a key mark of a leader’s character. 

It means doing what is right, legally and morally. . . . 

Leaders of integrity adhere to the values that are a part 

of their personal identity and set a standard for their 

followers to emulate. Identity is one’s self-concept, 

how one defines himself or herself. . . . 23

This understanding of authentic leadership—leading by accurately reflecting in words and actions who 

you are holistically as a person—places the responsibility on the individual professional to integrate his 

or her personal morality with the other components 

of the Army’s Ethic, legal and moral, and then to lead 

consistently from that identity. Army leaders may not 

identify themselves as one person on duty and another off duty; their character, if authentically displayed, 

will vary little from situation to situation. Living and 

leading from an identity that is not integrated, meaning one that places one’s personal morality outside the 

scope of professional ethics, drawing then on each one 

on a situational basis, does not comport with Army 

leadership doctrines and will quickly be recognized 

by followers as inauthentic. In stark contrast, recent 

research from Iraq again establishes that in combat, 
20

authentic military leaders have high impacts on their 

followers.24

We conclude this section by noting again that 

new Army doctrine reaffirms a mutual responsibility, shared between individual professionals and the 

Army Profession for the development of professionals 

and their adaptation and implementation of the ethic 

as a means of social control.25 Put simply, to be an authentic person of character, the individual Soldier and 

leader must live, on and off duty, consistently with 

his or her understanding of right and wrong—the individual integration of personal morality and the professional ethic. If it becomes impossible for a Soldier to 

do so because of hostility to liberty of conscience and 

legitimate religious expression, then he or she must 

make a choice (which we will discuss in Section IV). 

Before that occurs, however, to fulfill its part of the 

mutual responsibility, the institution—the Stewards of 

the Army Profession—must make every effort consistent with mission effectiveness to avoid such individual-institutional ethical conflicts. Thus, to reiterate the 

challenge we are discussing in this monograph: The 

enduring challenge facing the leaders of the Army 

and the other Services is how to balance the restrictions placed on soldiers’ practice of their liberties—

due to what the Army in its regulation calls “military 

necessity”—with their constitutional rights to hold 

religious beliefs as the basis of their personal morality and to exercise those beliefs as acts of conscience.
21

III. THE CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITIES 

TO THE LEADER OF RELIGIOUS FAITH

As discussed briefly in the introduction and in the 

previous paragraph, the challenge to the leader of religious faith, regardless of rank, is that of integrating 

one’s personal morality with the profession’s ethic in 

order to be a leader of authenticity, not compartmenting a life of faith from a life of service to the Republic.26

Challenges arise because personal moralities based 

on a religious faith are considered by most adherents 

to be the higher calling, and thus to take precedence 

on occasion over a vocational or professional ethic 

or directive, whether actual or perceived. They can 

also arise because such moralities generally prohibit 

compartmentalization of one’s life into personal and 

vocational spheres, just as Army leadership doctrine 

requires authenticity and wholeness of one’s character (as discussed in Section II). Instead, integrity and 

authenticity as a person of faith is required in all roles 

in life, often requiring a religious presence and expression. Thus, in the event of a clash between a Soldier’s 

personal morality and his or her understanding of responsibility under the Army’s Ethic or directives, he 

or she cannot in good conscience simply jettison the 

personal ethic to support that of the Army.

Even with these two conditions, however, actual 

clashes have until recently been rare. But the growing hostility towards religious expression or religiousbased ethical decisions has, unfortunately and largely 

unnecessarily, brought such clashes to the fore. In this 

section, we present a few specific, recent examples of 

real or potential clashes emanating from the culture of 

hostility to religious expression.
22

January 24, 2013, Army Removes Cross and Steeple 

from Chapel.

The U.S. military ordered Soldiers to take down a 

steeple and board up the cross-shaped windows of a 

chapel at remote Forward Operating Base Orgun-E in 

Afghanistan. The Soldiers were told the chapel must 

remain religiously neutral. In 2011, a similar situation 

occurred where Soldiers were forced to remove a cross 

at a chapel at Camp Marmal, Afghanistan.27

While there may have been legitimate concerns 

that Christian symbols visible to the outside could 

be unnecessarily inflammatory in the context of the 

particular conflict in Afghanistan, what is particularly 

disturbing in this instance is the rationale given for 

the decision; this example highlights how far a policy of “neutrality” toward religion can overstep into 

traditional and legitimate expression of a particular 

religious faith group. Historically, houses of worship 

built with appropriated dollars within the military 

services have accommodated the need of the JudeoChristian faith groups, and they are now expanding 

to accommodate the religious expression of other faith 

groups, e.g., Muslim. At the time of a religious service 

of a particular faith group, should not the house of 

worship reflect the essential icons and artifacts of that 

particular group? 

Conflict between the Leader of Faith’s Commitment to Objective Truth and Truth-Telling and the 

Institution’s Tendency to Sacrifice such Truth and 

Truth-Telling for Perceived Positive Outcomes for 

the Army.

There has always been pressure within the military as well as other large institutions to sacrifice ob-
23

jective truth for expediency, a storyline more palatable but less than the full truth.28 Clearly, the culture 

extent in the Army today that requires extensive use 

of the Article 15-6, UCMJ, formal investigations, feeds 

this pressure.29

In a recent example reported by an officer in Afghanistan, two Army majors were found, via Article 

15-6 investigations, to be responsible for the deaths 

of Soldiers in their units even though the investigator of the incident had not even queried the majors 

before passing his conclusions up the chain of command.30 To believe in objective truth suggests that the 

report should have stated that, though mistakes had 

been made, they were honest mistakes in a complex 

and chaotic situation and most likely were made by 

one of the dead Soldiers, and the actions (or inactions) of the majors were, at worst, a minor contributing factor. However, the culture of the command 

led the investigating officer to conclude that such a 

finding would be insensitive to the surviving family 

members of the dead NCO, and therefore the command sought to find someone else accountable amid 

the complexities of the situation. Finding someone responsible (other than one of the dead Soldiers) got the 

command off the hook and presumably kept the issue 

from blowing up into something bigger, which could 

have been damaging to the Army and distracting to 

the larger mission. Such situations are not uncommon, 

and there are sometimes apparently good reasons for 

sacrificing objective truth for a “spin” that seems to 

serve broader strategic or institutional purposes in the 

short term. 

However, as the incident of Army Specialist Patrick Tillman and so many others have shown over the 

past decade of war, the short-term gain from sacrific-
24

ing objective truth for some perceived higher good 

is inconsistent with the Army’s Ethic and most often 

causes much bigger problems later.31 Because of the 

strong admonitions against dishonesty in religious 

teachings, Soldiers of religious faith will find it particularly difficult to sacrifice objective truth even for 

short-term expediency, unit morale, or perceived institutional gains.32 As such, their approach of “wait a 

minute, never be content with a half-truth when the 

whole can be won,” may be just what is needed to 

check the institutional temptation to sacrifice truth for 

a more palatable institutional spin.

Supporting an Annual DoD-Sponsored 

Gay Pride Month.

In simple terms, the DoD report for implementation of the repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) 

policy recommended that soldiers be treated as soldiers, with dignity and respect based on performance 

without regard to their sexual orientation.33 But, in 

making their recommendations, the report authors 

(Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson and Army General 

F. Carter Ham) were also careful to note the sincerely 

held “moral and religious objections to homosexuality” of a significant number of service members.34 Regarding these beliefs, they stated: 

In the course of our review, we heard a large number of 

Service members raise religious and moral objections 

to homosexuality and to serving with someone who is 

gay. Some feared repeal of [DADT] might limit their 

individual freedom of expression and free exercise of 

religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. The views 

expressed to us in these terms cannot be downplayed 

or dismissed.35
25

In a later part of the report, the authors further 

made it clear that “We do not [emphasis in original] 

recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a 

class eligible for various diversity programs. . . .36

In their recommendations, the authors were recognizing something that we believe is now being ignored in the follow-on designation by the DoD in June 

of each year as “Gay Pride Month.” Not all religious 

Americans consider homosexual behavior to be in violation of their own moral understandings, but many, 

including within the military, do so for reasons arguably consistent with the theology of their religion. In 

finally allowing gay soldiers to serve openly without 

prejudice, the DoD is rightly saying to all soldiers and 

their leaders that they must accommodate gay soldiers 

without prejudice regarding their nonduty-related 

behavior. But in establishing an officially sponsored 

“Gay Pride” month with related publicity and public 

functions, the DoD is requiring (or at least strongly encouraging) those soldiers who object on moral grounds 

to homosexual practices to not just accommodate gay 

soldiers, but to join in the institutional endorsement 

and celebration of homosexual behavior. That, many 

soldiers of religious faith cannot in good conscience 

do, and we argue they should not be asked to do so. 

As can be seen from these examples, for many individuals, their reaction to an increasing number of 

situations may be particularly intense because of the 

strength of their personal faith-based beliefs. This can 

be expected to create critical moral dilemmas for these 

Soldiers, especially those responsible for leading and 

developing others, when conflicts arise between their 

personal conscience and the orders or ethical demands 

of their work. However, experience has taught us that, 
26

for every challenge, there is also an opportunity. In 

this case, it is the opportunity that is available to all 

leaders, regardless of personal morality, to leverage 

Soldiers’ personal beliefs and practices in their professional development and in the development of the 

climate and culture of the entire organization. We 

address how the leaders of the Army Profession can 

address these opportunities in Section IV.

IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEADERS OF 

RELIGIOUS FAITH

Some have responded that there should be no moral dilemma for Soldiers in such circumstances. Simply stated, in their view, the law rules—volunteers, 

religious or not, should park their personal morality 

at the door when they take their oath. We designate 

this as the legalist view, one which holds that all Soldiers, regardless of personal morality, should simply 

reconsider their legal obligations as laid out in the 

Constitution, Federal statutes such as Title 10, their 

Oath of Service and their Service’s regulations, and do 

what the law requires. In this view, the Army has no 

responsibility to preclude or attempt to resolve moral 

dilemmas other than to keep the legal foundations of 

its ethic current to the official mandates of the public 

it serves.37

Perhaps too narrowly characterized, there are 

nonetheless two obvious difficulties with this view. 

First, it does not address the dilemma created by recent policies and orders that the leader of religious 

faith believes to be immoral; in other words, it fails to 

understand, as discussed in Section II, that the profession’s ethic has moral as well as legal foundations, and 

that the moral foundation is an essential element of 
27

the character of every Soldier and leader of Soldiers. 

Second, it fails to recognize, also discussed earlier, that 

the institution does have developmental responsibilities, shared with the individual professional, for preclusion of such moral dilemmas to the extent possible 

and for their prompt resolution, should they occur.

Contrary to the legalist view, as we see it, there are 

three opportunities for Soldiers of religious faith when 

facing what they perceive to be a conflict between 

their religion-based personal morality and what the 

institution is expecting of them:

1. They may choose to compromise their religionbased convictions so as to go along with the prevailing institutional/cultural view. In doing so, however, 

they will be inauthentic to their core values and thus 

dishonest; they will be leaders without integrity. They 

become compartmented leaders and, by their actions, 

also encourage others to do the same. Lack of integrity 

in dealing with a known ethical dilemma, particularly 

by an Army leader, whose every decision and action is 

carefully watched by his or her followers, will lead to 

lack of integrity and/or trust by the followers.

2. They may continue to serve honorably within the 

Army Profession, but in order to maintain their integrity they will work within the institution to preclude 

and resolve such moral dilemmas. In other words, they 

are to get off of the sidelines and “lead-up,” actively 

engaging and assisting the Stewards of the Profession 

in their vital role of maintaining, over time, both the 

effectiveness and the ethical standing of the Army Profession.38 We will return to this theme in our recommendations section.

3. The Soldier of religious faith could leave the 

military profession, having decided, presumably, that 

the cost of compromising one’s personal integrity is 
28

too high a price to pay to continue in sacrificial service 

to the Republic. The tragic loss to the Army and to the 

Republic of such integrated men and women of character, many with well over a decade of distinguished 

service in combat, leads logically to a discussion of 

why this opportunity is to be earnestly avoided by 

both the individuals and by the Army.

Why Not Just Let Soldiers of Religious Faith 

Leave the Army? 

Our first response to this question is because it is 

right that the U.S. Army be an institution that as closely as possible reflects the values of the nation it serves. 

Stated differently, this is the issue of political legitimacy of the institution—Does the Army accurately reflect 

within its ranks the society that trusts it for security?39

One of the most fundamental of those values is our 

freedom of belief and conscience and the exercise of 

conscience which often springs from, and is informed 

by, a religious faith. American citizens should be 

free, and feel free, to join the Army, expecting rightly 

that if their personal morality is faith-based, that fact 

is not in any way a hindrance to service. When such 

freedoms are to be restricted by the Army for “military necessity” (see the discussion in the Background 

section), there should be strong, compelling reasons 

for doing so, reasons that go beyond current social 

and cultural trends or the fear that one Soldier’s beliefs may be in conflict with the beliefs or practices of 

another Soldier.40

Our second response is that the Army has now, 

once again, the opportunity to lead our nation. In the 

midst of the stifling cultural wars within American society, wars of mutual disrespect toward citizens who 
29

have strong differences on issues that matter to them, 

the Army can set an example as it has consistently—

if imperfectly—done on other issues. The example 

should be that, for purposes of military effectiveness, 

the Army is and will continue to be a professional 

meritocracy. In such a noble institution, Soldiers work 

together, treat each other with dignity and respect, 

openly express their deeply held views, and, regardless of differences, evaluate each others’ performances 

based on the certifications and other standards of the 

profession, not on their views about ideas and practices not directly related to those duties. This is pluralism, multi-culturalism, and diversity rightly leveraged for military effectiveness!

Further, we believe that a culture increasingly hostile toward religious expression will eventually cause 

some number of good Soldiers of all ranks to leave the 

Army. A Soldier seriously committed to his or her personal morality, whether grounded in a religious faith 

or not, is prone more than he or she would otherwise 

be to live up to the high ethical ideals of the Army 

Profession not in spite of, but because of his or her 

personal convictions. For those who ground their convictions in the tenets of the major religions, virtually 

all emphasize the values of altruism (selfless service); 

truth-telling; integrity; respect for others; personal humility; moral and physical courage; to mention only 

some of the personal virtues valuable, indeed necessary, in military professions.

As most all behaviorists agree (if they agree on anything), while it is sometimes difficult to know what is 

right, it is always far more difficult to do what is right. 

It is certainly true that the strength of character of an 

Army professional is always on display in the crucible of making decisions and taking actions to imple-
30

ment those decisions. In such situations, Soldiers of 

religious faith are motivated more by aspiration than 

by obligation; they have a strong intrinsic motivation, 

which reinforces that of the military, to be the leader 

the Services need them to be and whose actions manifest their personal character with integrity. Religious 

ethics, then, are a strong reinforcer of military ethics. 

In our view, it will be self-defeating for the Army to 

cause men and women imbued with this reinforcing 

ethical framework to leave the Army because it allowed a culture hostile or intimidating to their beliefs, 

conscience, and expression of those beliefs.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is simply indisputable that religion is often a key element in 

the emotional and psychological health of individual 

Soldiers. While the Army and the other Services have 

recently struggled with just how to understand and 

present this spiritual domain of the human, moral essence in all Soldiers, its force in the strength of their 

personal character and resilience, both on the battlefield and thereafter, is not questioned.41 As one noted 

researcher in this field recently concluded, “Religion 

is a tremendous source of strength, inspiration, wisdom, peace, and purpose for many people and religious speech is a vital component of the practice 

of religion.”42

V. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our recommendations are stated here in terse form 

as we believe they follow logically from the foregoing 

discussions. They are designed to reinforce the principles in the Army Ethic as discussed in Section II, in 

particular the understanding that moral leadership is 

best applied under mission command when the pro-
31

fession’s culture is meritocratic and self-policing at 

each level rather than imposed from above, and when 

a broad diversity of personal moralities is leveraged to 

the effectiveness of the profession.

For senior leaders, the Stewards of the Army 

Profession:

• By policy and personal leadership, maintain

the essential meritocratic nature of the Army’s 

Ethic and culture, while celebrating and leveraging the diversity of religious (as well as nonreligious) presence within the profession.

• By policy and personal leadership, rid the 

profession’s culture of any real or perceived 

hostility or intimidation towards religion and 

its correct expression. Maintain a culture in 

which Soldiers and their leaders can live and 

serve with individual authenticity consistent 

with “military necessity” as expressed in Army 

regulations. In most all cases, they should be 

free to express and apply their religious faith 

and the moral convictions that spring from 

that faith.

For Soldiers of religious faith, all ranks, uniformed 

and civilian:

• Be knowledgeable of, and scrupulously follow,

your rights to religious expression as well as 

the limitations to those rights. We recommend 

a remarkably helpful article by retired Army 

Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer and current faculty member at the Air Force Academy 

David Fitzkee, “Religious Speech in the Military: Freedoms and Limitations.”43
32

• At the same time, do not overstep your bounds.

While serving as integrated leaders of character, and including your moral understanding 

in all discretionary decisionmaking, remember 

that you are not called by the Republic in your 

role as military leader either to be an evangelist for your faith, or to insert your religiously 

based morality into situations where doing so 

is improper. So, effectively integrate your personal morality of faith with the profession’s 

ethic: be an integral, authentic leader of character; model the same and develop the same 

in your subordinates. You have no call to hide 

your faith or to ignore it in decisionmaking; 

but your professional call is to integrate your 

faith-based world view and morality with the 

Army’s Ethic, not to redefine the latter.

• Do not be intimidated in the current culture; do

not allow the Army’s Ethic and culture to be 

eroded. Get off the sidelines and get engaged. 

Challenge through official channels all policies/attempts that are hostile to the freedoms 

of thought, belief, conscience, and correct expression of those convictions, whether based 

on religion or not.

• Lead up: Expect, remind, and assist the Stewards of the Profession to be the Guardians 

of the Ethic and the profession’s military 

effectiveness.

ENDNOTES

1. Todd Starnes, “Exclusive: Army halts training program 

that labeled Christians as extremists,” Fox News, October 24, 2013, 
33

available from www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/24/exclusivearmy-halts-training-program-that-labeled-christians-as-extremists/.

2. Ibid., p. 2.

3. Dena Sher and Gabriel Rottman, “Army Right to Halt ‘Extremist’ Training,” Defense One, available from www.defenseone.

com/ideas/2013/11/army-right-halt-extremism-training-protect-firstamendment-rights/74102/#.Uouj2OK52HY.twitter?oref=d-interstitial-continue?oref=d-interstitial-continue.

4. Patrick J. Sweeney, Sean T. Hannah, and Don M. Snider, 

“The Domain of the Human Spirit,” Chap. 2, Don M. Snider 

and Lloyd J. Mathews, eds., Forging the Warrior’s Character: Moral Precepts from the Cadet Prayer, New York: McGraw Hill, 2008,

pp. 28-29.

5. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership, Washington, DC: HQ, Department of the Army, p. 6, 

paras. 5 and 6.

6. The term “soldiers” will be used to refer to all members 

of America’s military professions, regardless of Service or rank, 

uniformed or civilian. Later in the monogaph, a capitalized “Soldiers” will be used to refer to all members of the Army, uniformed 

or civilian.

7. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17, Washington, DC: DoD, available from www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/

pdf/130017p.pdf.

8. Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Washington, DC: Department 

of the Army, available from www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf.

9. See, Robert Audi, “Liberal Democracy and the Place of 

Religion in Politics,” Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolterstorff, 

eds., Religion in the Public Square, Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997; as well as his more recent book, Religious Commitment and Secular Reason, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press, 2000.
34

10. Christopher J. Eberle and Rick Rubel, “Religious Conviction in the Profession of Arms,” Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 11, 

No. 3, pp. 171-180, quotation from p. 179.

11. See Forum on Religion and Public Life, “Nones” on the 

Rise: One-in-five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation, Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, October 9, 2012, available from 

www.pewforum.org; and Charles Murray, Coming Apart: the State 

of White America 1960-2000, New York: Crown Publishing, 2012, 

particularly Chap. 11.

12. See Family Research Council, “A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military,” Washington, 

DC (undated report), available from www.frc.org.

13. Norton A. Schwartz, “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion,” memo published on September 1, 2011, 

available from msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_

Personal/Huus/gen_schwartz_letter_religion_neutralilty%5B1%5D.

pdf; and Markeshia Ricks, “Schwartz: Don’t Endorse Religious Programs,” Air Force Times, September 16, 2011, available 

from www.airforcetimes.com/article/20110916/NEWS/109160334/

Schwartz-Don-t-endorse-religious-programs.

14. Chief of Staff C. W. Callahan, Commander, Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center, “Subject: Wounded, Ill, and Injured Partners in Care Guidelines,” Policy Memo 10-015, September 14, 2011, p. 4; “Whoops! Walter Reed Temporarily Bans Bibles,” 

NBC Washington News, December 19, 2010, available from www.

nbcwashington.com/news/local/Whoops-Walter-Reed-TemporarilyBans-Bibles-135853463.html; and Liz Farmer, “Walter Reed Accidentally Bans Bibles,” Washington Examiner, December 18, 2011, 

available from washingtonexaminer.com/article/151247.

15. See John Brinsfield and Peter A. Batkis, “The Human, 

Spiritual, and Ethical Dimensions of Leadership in Preparation 

for Combat,” Chap. 21, Don M. Snider and Lloyd J. Matthews, 

eds., The Future of the Army Profession, 2d Ed., New York: McGraw 

Hill, 2005, pp. 463-490. 

16. Todd Starnes, “Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not 

Permitted,” Fox News Radio, April 30, 2013, available from radio.
35

foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pentagon-religious-proselytizingis-not-permitted.html.

17. Ken Klukowski, “Amendments Protecting Soldiers’ Religious Rights Approved by Committee,” Breitbart, June 7, 2013, 

available from www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/07/Congressional-Committee-Protects-Religious-Rights-of-Military-Members; and, 

Rep. John Fleming and Senator Mike Lee Press Release, “Fleming Applauds Passage of Religious Liberty Amendment in Senate 

Committee,” June 17, 2013, available from fleming.house.gov/news/

documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=339355.

18. Ken Klukowski, “Breaking: Obama Threatens Veto of 

Religious Protection for Military,” Breitbart, June 12, 2013, 

available from www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/12/

Breaking-Obama-Threatens-Veto-of-Religious-Protection-for-Military; and, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of 

the President, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1960—

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014,” Washington, DC: The White House, June 11, 2013, available from www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr1960r

_20130611.pdf.

19. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) No. 1, “The 

Army Profession,” Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of 

the Army.

20. Ibid., pp. 2-3.

21. Peter L. Jennings and Sean T. Hannah, “The Moralities 

of Obligation and Aspiration: Towards a Concept of Exemplary 

Military Ethics and Leadership,” Military Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 

5, 2011.

22. See ADP 6-22.

23. Ibid., p. 6, paras. 26 and 27.

24. See Patrick J. Sweeney and Sean T. Hannah, “High-Impact Military Leadership: The Positive Effects of Authentic Moral 

Leadership on Followers,” Chap. 5 in Snider and Mathews, Forging the Warrior’s Character, pp. 91-116.
36

25. ADRP1, p. 6-2, para. 6-8.

26. See Paul T. Berghaus, and Nathan L. Cartegena, “Developing Good Soldiers: The Problem of Fragmentation in the Army,” 

Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 4 (forthcoming); and, Paul T. 

Berghaus, “Developing Virtuous Soldiers: Mitigating the Problem 

of Fragmentation in the Army,” M.A. thesis submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University, August 2013.

27. Army Regulation (AR) 165-1, Army Chaplain Corps Activities, Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

December 3, 2009, available from www.chapnet.army.mil/pdf/165-

1.pdf; and Todd Starnes, “Army Removes Crosses, Steeple from 

Chapel,” Fox News Radio, January 24, 2013, available from radio.

foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/army-removes-crosses-steeplefrom-chapel.html.

28. Lieutenant Colonels Peter Fromm, Douglas Pryor, and 

Kevin Cutright, “The Myths We Soldiers Tell Ourselves,” Military 

Review, September-October 2013, pp. 57-68. 

29. Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 procedures generally govern 

investigations requiring detailed fact gathering and analysis and 

recommendations based on those facts. An “investigation” is simply the process of collecting information for the command, so that 

the command can make an informed decision. AR 15-6 sets forth 

procedures for both informal and formal investigations. Informal 

investigations usually have a single investigating officer who conducts interviews and collects evidence. In contrast, formal investigations normally involve due process hearings for a designated 

respondent before a board of several officers.

Definition available from www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/SJA/Documents/

15-6_IO_%20Guide.pdf.

30. Authors’ discussion with an anonymous Army Officer, 

September 2013.

31. See Mary Tillman and Narda Zacchino, Boots on the Ground 

by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman, New York: Rodale Books, 2008.
37

32. From the Judeo-Christian tradition, consider the 9th Commandment, and the Levitical basis of the West Point Honor Code 

[Lev. 19:11].

33. The Honorable Charles Johnson and General Carter F. 

Ham, “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with the Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’,” Executive Summary, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, November 30, 

2010, p. 2, available from www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_

dadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf.

34. Ibid., pp. 11-12. 

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., p 13.

37. We say “official,” meaning those policies of an ethical nature adopted by the Congress and the Executive under constitutional based processes, such as the repeal of DADT.

38. ADRP1, p. 2-2, para 2-8; and p. 6-2, paras. 6-5 to 6-8.

39. Ibid., Chap. 2, “Trust—The Bedrock of our Profession”; 

and James Burk, “Expertise, Jurisdiction, and Legitimacy of the 

Military Profession,” Chap. 2 in Snider and Mathews, The Future 

of the Army Profession, pp. 39-60.

40. Jay Allen Sekulow and Robert W. Ash, “Religious Rights 

and Military Service,” Chap. 6, James E. Parco and David A. Levy, 

eds., Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US 

Armed Forces, Montgomery, AL: Air University Press, pp. 99-138.

41. For one such effort, see Patrick J. Sweeney, Jeffrey E. 

Rhodes, and Bruce Boling, “Spiritual Fitness: A Key Component 

of Total Force Fitness,” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 66, 3rd Quarter, 

2012, pp. 35-41.

42. David E. Fitzkee, “Religious Speech in the Military: Freedoms and Limitations,” Parameters, August 2011, p. 66.

43. Ibid.
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Major General Anthony A. Cucolo III

Commandant

*****

STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE

and

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE PRESS

Director

Professor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.

Director of Research

Dr. Steven K. Metz

Authors

Dr. Don M. Snider

Colonel Alexander P. Shine, U.S. Army (Retired)

Editor for Production

Dr. James G. Pierce

Publications Assistant

Ms. Rita A. Rummel

*****

Composition

Mrs. Jennifer E. Nevil
This Publication SSI Website USAWC Website

FOR THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VISIT US AT

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/