Competent leadership is fundamental to military effectiveness. Although there are countless definitions of leadership, the simple truth is that leadership is merely influencing others to act in concert toward achieving a goal that they might not have achieved on their own. The art of leadership speaks to a leader’s ability to appropriately influence subordinate behavior in a given situation. To do so, leaders can invoke several forms power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/01/3106334

Professor Fagin and Lt.Col. Parco in “A Question of Faith” propose that all command officers be required to “attest to the truth” of the “Oath of Equal Character” from The Humanist, the body of which deftly manages to violate both the First Amendment and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Though the authors affirm that ”Beliefs remain a right and a privilege, and freedom of conscience is among the oldest and most precious freedoms enshrined in the history of America’s founding,” they dismiss these to the back of the bus with an oath replete with coercive ideology of totalitarian pluralism, compulsory uniformity of belief and mythical moral neutrality, the one-way-multiculturalist purveyors of which are often more intolerant, exclusivist and persecutory than those they criticize.
The problem with moral equivalency arguments is that things are rarely equivalent.* In effect, their article insists one pledge that one is no more upright of character than one who espouses white supremacy, human sacrifice, holocaust denial, polygamy, or marijuana use, all of which are tenants of minority faiths. The moral and factual premise of the authors and the Oath of Equal Character quickly falls apart.
The case they make against Christians abusing their office suffers from selection bias as well as relying on well-dressed mud flinging, no doubt knowing well that if enough is flung some always sticks.
The Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution we all took as officers includes a First Amendment that protects the 5 freedoms (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition) precisely because of how unpopular they may be or become. The conclusion that “Those who believe that those who don’t share their religious beliefs are less likely to have good character should leave the military and seek another career,” demonstrates Maoist thought policing with the obvious contradictions -- in being certain about the error of certainty, absolutely opposed to absolutes, and morally superior to the morally superior, do they now disqualify themselves from service?
I find the authors’ remedy to peaceful yet offensive excesses of zealous faith to be what is “subversive to our constitutional values” and worse than the problem itself. People rarely understand their own motivations -- time for these authors to reassess their own. Gentlemen, next time go with the decaf.

André Van Mol, MD

While the authors made several excellent points, I was disappointed with two of their basic arguments. After conceding that character is the "internalization of values" and that, for many, religion is considered a source of values, the authors suggest that leaders who speak openly about their religion are merely attempting to increase their "referent power". In other words, leaders who speak openly about their religion are playing to the needs of their subordinates in order to gain more influence over them. By making this argument, the authors simultaneously attack the underlying values of the hypothetical "religious" leader and his character. They suggest that the leader is referring to his religion to somehow manipulate or coerce his subordinates, and they have entirely ignored the possibility that he really does credit his religion as a source of values. This is a bitter and pessimistic view, and is, my opinion, an entirely undeserved criticism of men who are dedicated to both their country and their faith.

The second argument I found disturbing is that a subordinate's perception of religious discrimination is proof of religious coercion. Perceptions are important, and it is a leaders responsibility to ensure that he does not create a poor perception through his own actions. However, perception is not the same as coercion. Perceptions can be, and often are, incorrect. They are often based on individual experiences, interpretations, and fears rather than actual events. To equate perception to coercion is harmful to leadership itself. It suggests that a leader must pay more attention to his subordinates perceptions of his character than to his actual values system.