First Amendment, Religious freedom, and the military

[03_SHOOTER]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html)

By Randi Kaye
AC360° Correspondent

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (CNN) -- Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was raised Baptist.

Like many Christians, he said grace before dinner and read the Bible before bed. Four years ago when he was deployed to Iraq, he packed his Bible so he would feel closer to God.

He served two tours of duty in Iraq and has a near perfect record. But somewhere between the tours, something changed. Hall, now 23, said he no longer believes in God, fate, luck or anything supernatural.

Hall said he met some atheists who suggested he read the Bible again. After doing so, he said he had so many unanswered questions that he decided to become an atheist.

His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.

Watch why Hall says his lack of faith almost got him killed » (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)

In March, Hall filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others. In the suit, Hall claims his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment were violated and suggests that the United States military has become a Christian organization.

"I think it's utterly and totally wrong. Unconstitutional," Hall said.

Hall said there is a pattern of discrimination against non-Christians in the military.

Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. In another incident, when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, "Do you believe in Jesus now?"

Hall isn't seeking compensation in his lawsuit -- just the guarantee of religious freedom in the military. Eventually, Hall was sent home early from Iraq and later returned to Fort Riley in Junction City, Kansas, to complete his tour of duty.

He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.

Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is suing along with Hall. Weinstein said he's been contacted by more than 8,000 members of the military, almost all of them complaining of pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity.

"Our Pentagon, our Pentacostalgon, is refusing to realize that when you put the uniform on, there's only one religious faith: patriotism," Weinstein said.

Religious discrimination is a violation of the First Amendment and is also against military policy. The Pentagon refused to discuss specifics of Hall's case -- citing the litigation. But Deputy Undersecretary Bill Carr said complaints of evangelizing are "relatively rare." He also said the Pentagon is not pushing one faith among troops.

"If an atheist chose to follow their convictions, absolutely that's acceptable," said Carr. "And that's a point of religious accommodation in department policy, one may hold whatever faith, or may hold no faith."

Weinstein said he doesn't buy it and points to a promotional video by a group called Christian Embassy. The video, which shows U.S. generals in uniform, was shot inside the Pentagon. The generals were subsequently reprimanded.

Another group, the Officers' Christian Fellowship, has representatives on nearly all military bases worldwide. Its vision, which is spelled out on the organization's Web site, reads, "A spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform empowered by the Holy Spirit."

Weinstein has a different interpretation.

"Their purpose is to have Christian officers exercise Biblical leadership to raise up a godly army," he says.

But Carr said the military's position is clear.

"Proselytizing or advancing a religious conviction is not what the nation would have us do and it's not what the military does," Carr said.

The U.S. Justice Department is expected to respond to Hall's lawsuit this week. In the meantime, he continues to work in the military police unit at Fort Riley and plans to leave as soon as his tour of duty expires next year.

Let's look at the salient part of the First Amendment again; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

So, given that Congress has made no law "respecting an establishment of religion", and that there are no military regulations "respecting an establishment of religion", given what we know from the available information, does Hall have a case? Has the military attempted to compel him to subscribe to a particular "establishment of religion", or is this simply another case of someone whining? He has claimed that he was denied promotion for refusing to pray with his fellow Soldiers, something that, at this point, we only have his word for. He has also claimed that his life was endangered because he's an Atheist, and that the Army assigned him a body guard and sent him home early from Iraq for "his own safety", but again, at this point we only have his word for it, and even in the video he failed to express exactly how his life was allegedly endangered because of his faith.

We also need to deal with the fact that SCOTUS has already ruled in Torcaso v Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (http://vftonline.org/TestOath/Torcaso.htm) that Atheism is fact a religion, and is therefore protected, so if in fact he was discriminated against because the "tenets" of his faith in "Secular Humanism" do not include prayer to God, is that a violation of the Constitution just as it would be for a Taoist, or a Buddhist to be compelled to pray to God?

Then there is the issue touched on earlier about the fact that service members do in fact give up certain Civil Rights when they enter the military, and as such, along with the surrender of some "freedom of speech" Rights, is it also logical to conclude that compelling a service member to at least attend, but not to participate, in religious services could be construed to be in the interest of "good order and discipline" as well as necessary for unit morale, esprit de corps, and cohesion?

[SlightlyCatholic]

We also need to deal with the fact that SCOTUS has already ruled in Torcaso v Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) that Atheism is fact a religion,

And how exactly does one "practice" atheism? Atheism no more of a religion than nonbaseball is a sport. This guy is whining, and needs to realize that there are faith traditions of his fellow soldiers that need to be taken seriously and provided for. The chaplains and religious services are there for people who want it and are not there to be assaulted by people who don't. Either take advantage of what's being offered or maintain silence.

[03_SHOOTER]

And how exactly does one "practice" atheism?
How does one practice Taoism or Buddhism?
Atheism no more of a religion than nonbaseball is a sport.
Tim, did you even bother to read the decision from SCOTUS that I cited and provided a link to?
This guy is whining, and needs to realize that there are faith traditions of his fellow soldiers that need to be taken seriously and provided for.
Nobody is questioning the faith traditions of the other Soldiers Tim, the question is whether or not they have the Right to impose their faith traditions on those who do not share those faith traditions.
The chaplains and religious services are there for people who want it and are not there to be assaulted by people who don't. Either take advantage of what's being offered or maintain silence.
Nobody has even suggested denying the Right of those who wish to participate in the various services from being allowed to do so, what is in question however is whether or not the military has the Right to compel anyone to participate in services at all. Also, it would appear that the only Rights being "assaulted" here are the Rights of someone to not participate.
Do you not agree that a Taoist or Buddhist might not wish to participate in any of the "traditional" religious services that are available to military personnel? Would you compel a Jew or Muslim to participate in a Christian service? And for what possible reason would you even suggest that someone remain "silence" (sic) when they have allegedly been denied a promotion, or had their life threatened simply for having a religion that is different than his fellow Soldiers?

[CAPSmith]

And how exactly does one "practice" atheism? Atheism no more of a religion than nonbaseball is a sport.


Religion: noun: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

So atheism is the belief that there is no god. That fits the definition of a religion.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Tim, did you even bother to read the decision from SCOTUS that I cited and provided a link to?

Yes, and I think it's wrong. Then again, I'm not SCOTUS...

How does one practice Taoism or Buddhism?

Meditation is one way of doing this.

Do you not agree that a Taoist or Buddhist might not wish to participate in any of the "traditional" religious services that are available to military personnel? Would you compel a Jew or Muslim to participate in a Christian service? And for what possible reason would you even suggest that someone remain "silence" (sic) when they have allegedly been denied a promotion, or had their life threatened simply for having a religion that is different than his fellow Soldiers?

There are Buddhist Chaplains in the military, and no, I wouldn't compel a Jew or Muslim to participate in a Christian service. That's what Rabbis and lay leaders are for. Btw, I've never heard of a lay leader for the "atheist community". In regards to the individual in question, "allegedly" is the key word. People, especially militant atheists, try to find any reason to get religion out of where they work, play, etc. Until/if this guy's allegations are substantiated, he's just an atheist with a chip on his shoulder.

So atheism is the belief that there is no god. That fits the definition of a religion.

If anything, it fits the definition of a philosophy (I guess you could call it cynicism if you had to call it something) but theologically it's nothing. If you belong to a "religion" whose tenet is to reject the tenets of religion, you're a protester and that's what this guy is doing.

[03_SHOOTER]

Yes, and I think it's wrong. Then again, I'm not SCOTUS...
Well, they have been known to be wrong before.
Meditation is one way of doing this.
And do Atheists not meditate as well?
There are Buddhist Chaplains in the military, and no, I wouldn't compel a Jew or Muslim to participate in a Christian service. That's what Rabbis and lay leaders are for.
And what are they to do when a suitable clergy is not available for them?
Btw, I've never heard of a lay leader for the "atheist community".
That's because they don't have "lay leaders" Tim.
In regards to the individual in question, "allegedly" is the key word.
Correct, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, as this is the only report we have, would it not be prudent to, for the purposes of a CONSTITUTIONAL discussion, consider the possibility that what he is saying has some merit?
People, especially militant atheists, try to find any reason to get religion out of where they work, play, etc. Until/if this guy's allegations are substantiated, he's just an atheist with a chip on his shoulder.
Ahhh, the old "guilty until proven innocent" argument. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
If anything, it fits the definition of a philosophy (I guess you could call it cynicism if you had to call it something) but theologically it's nothing.
Doesn't philosophy fit all religions, and as such is not Atheism a religion as well?
If you belong to a "religion" whose tenet is to reject the tenets of religion, you're a protester and that's what this guy is doing.
No, their religion rejects the tenets of YOUR religion, but that does not make it any less a religion. As far as his protesting, if, and I use that word advisedly, his allegations are in fact substantiated, he has every right to protest.

[SlightlyCatholic]

And do Atheists not meditate as well?

You tell me. What do they meditate on, the unlikelihood of God's existence?

Correct, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, as this is the only report we have, would it not be prudent to, for the purposes of a CONSTITUTIONAL discussion, consider the possibility that what he is saying has some merit?

If by this you're asking if it's prudent to consider the possibility that the military is imposing faith on servicemembers, I suppose it could be. Then again, we'd just be dealing in hypotheticals because all we have is this report (with no judgment either way on the case).

Ahhh, the old "guilty until proven innocent" argument. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm not judging him, I'm citing a tendency. A lot of these "I'm an atheist, people are shoving God down my throat" cases are bogus and grounded in intolerance for religion in general. Whether he fits into this tendency or he has a legitimate gripe is up to the person or persons ruling on the case.

Doesn't philosophy fit all religions, and as such is not Atheism a religion as well?

Philosophy does not fit all religions, as the two are not entirely overlapping. For example, Machiavellian political philosophy flies in the face of many codes of morality engrained in many religions. Logic, the study of arguments, cannot be perfectly applied to such things as the belief in the Bible as the word of God (or another such deity). Another example would be Hegel's historio-philosophical theories involving the link between human experience and chronological history. This does not fit into any religion as it is more closely linked to pure epistemology. I would say that Eastern thought has influenced Eastern religions greatly, but this is not the case across the board. Philosophy can fit into some religions, but the two are not entirely overlapping.

No, their religion rejects the tenets of YOUR religion, but that does not make it any less a religion. As far as his protesting, if, and I use that word advisedly, his allegations are in fact substantiated, he has every right to protest.

Well, if he doesn't believe in a God, that would rule out all the Judeo-Christian religions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, Judaism, Islam, Baptist, Methodist, Church of Latter Day Saints, Episcopal, Anglican, etc.) along with other such religions as Hinduism (which is polytheistic) and Wicca which is duotheistic. Get my drift? My faith is a small piece of a much larger religious pie.

As to the legitimacy of atheism as a religious belief, that has nothing to do with my faith. It has to do with the fact that atheists deny any transcendent reality, something that is exclusively outside of religion's scope of meaning.

As far as his protesting, if, and I use that word advisedly, his allegations are in fact substantiated, he has every right to protest.

I agree with you, as long as he goes after the people who imposed their religious beliefs on him and not religious practice in the military. It is certainly possible that a few people were overzealous but that can't be turned into an excuse to throw chaplains out of the military (which is the next slide on the slippery slope). He has religious freedom in the military, he just didn't have it with a particular person or command (if some abuse was actually committed).

[03_SHOOTER]

OK Tim, I think you've missed the entire point on this post. I put it in the Constitutional Discussions thread in order to discuss the CONSTITUTIONAL aspects of this case, not the religious ones, so how about if we try and limit the discussion to that, OK? :)

[SlightlyCatholic]

Well, the word "religion" is in the First Amendment of the Constitution as you quoted in the Opening Post. Good luck having a "constitutional" (read: secular) discussion about a topic intimately linked with religious views and beliefs. However, since you're the captain of this ship, I'll let you chart the course.;)

[03_SHOOTER]

Well, the word "religion" is in the First Amendment of the Constitution as you quoted in the Opening Post. Good luck having a "constitutional" (read: secular) discussion about a topic intimately linked with religious views and beliefs. However, since you're the captain of this ship, I'll let you chart the course.;)

Tim, I was under the impression that we were all mature enough to be able to discuss the First Amendment RIGHTS of someone who happens to be a practicing Atheist without dragging the doctrines of other religions into the discussion. Was I mistaken?

[Javelin66]

I have no doubt that SPC Hall experienced some sort of discrimination, probably in the form of verbal taunts from his fellow soldiers. The merit of his case will rely on the question of whether or not the Army (as represented by the leadership of his unit) sanctioned, condoned, or in any way tolerated this discrimination.

His squad/team/section/whatever is full of young guys, most of whom have dearly held but poorly thought out views, opinions, and beliefs on a wide variety of topics, to include politics, religion, girls, the best masturbation techniques, and cars. The fact that they gave him a hard time about being an atheist does not surprise me. The allegation that his chain of command did not support him does, and frankly I have a hard time believing it.

I would be interested to learn the full context of this bit of advice:

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader,"

Was that in a formal setting (part of a counseling session or during a promotion board), or some informal advice given by a more seasoned NCO?

I can envision a scenario where a squad leader or platoon sergeant took him aside after the HMMWV incident and told him that part of being a leader was supporting the men spiritually. When 90% of your troops are wearing rosaries, scapulars, reading bibles, and holding hands to pray before a mission, you had better think twice about not participating in it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Tim, I was under the impression that we were all mature enough to be able to discuss the First Amendment RIGHTS of someone who happens to be a practicing Atheist without dragging the doctrines of other religions into the discussion. Was I mistaken?

The two are linked. We need to discuss the doctrines of other religions in order to establish the fact that atheism isn't a religion but the denial of religion. This guy is not on the same level as other religious individuals, as he himself is not a "religious" individual. He belongs to a reactionary movement, not a religious body of believers. He's in the same camp as Cynics or Stoics, both of which are purely philosophical in nature.

Maturity? This is coming from a Moderator who spent fourteen pages (in this thread) (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=814)arguing with another member about a bumper sticker investigation on a Marine Corps base after being repeatedly asked to stop by another Moderator. My wanting to talk about the religious implications of an amendment (that has the word "religion" explicitly in it) has nothing to do with my own maturity level.

[03_SHOOTER]

The two are linked. We need to discuss the doctrines of other religions in order to establish the fact that atheism isn't a religion but the denial of religion.

Sorry Tim, but as I already said, Atheism isn't the denial of religion, it's the rejection of YOUR religion.

This guy is not on the same level as other religious individuals, as he himself is not a "religious" individual. He belongs to a reactionary movement, not a religious body of believers. He's in the same camp as Cynics or Stoics, both of which are purely philosophical in nature.

Again, you fail to acknowledge that Atheists DO in fact have a belief system, you just don't like the fact that their belief system includes a belief that there is no "all seeing" God just as in Taoism and Buddhism. Is it your position that Buddhists and Taoists are "reactionaries", or that they're not "religious"? Just because you don't like, or apparently understand Secular Humanism doesn't make it any less a religion.

Maturity? This is coming from a Moderator who spent fourteen pages (in this thread) (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=814)arguing with another member about a bumper sticker investigation on a Marine Corps base after being repeatedly asked to stop by another Moderator. My wanting to talk about the religious implications of an amendment (that has the word "religion" explicitly in it) has nothing to do with my own maturity level.

As far as the previous thread, it's apparent you're not familiar with legal arguments, otherwise you'd know that opposing attorneys going back and forth, presenting case law after case law, and filing motion after motion in support of their client is how it is done, and you NEVER stop until the Judge renders his ruling.

As for the present discussion, you're making the exact same error in judgment that wukong did by attempting to demonize the Plaintiff just because you "don't like" him, and that's just as irrational and immature as it was the first time. It's also completely intellectually dishonest of someone who is proposing to take the Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution..." as an Officer in the Armed Forces of the United States, or do you consider the Constitution to be a list of "suggestions" rather than the Supreme Law of the Land? The next thing you know, you'll start saying that hookers "deserve" to be raped because of the way they dress.

[armysc_25b]

Here's my un-PC take. I'm myself not a man of religious nature (call it one of my faults should you so desire, many have), but I don't go around making it a priority to ensure that other's don't force religion on me. If you want to discuss God, the church(es), and what-not, it's fine by me and I won't feel offended until you cross the line I have drawn, which for me is that religion is not forced upon me (should the time come that I start to follow His word, I will do so on my own accord without the "unwelcome assistance" of another individual). When prayers are said in formations, such as the numerous Change of Command ceremonies I've attended, I take no offense to it. I am also respectful to it, and do take the appropriate action for the setting without argumentative thought.

Seeing this post reminds me of a story that broadcasted today on Headline News. It was the one about the guy who is suing to have "so help me God" removed from the Oath of office of the President of the United States. That'll go far, since legally the phrase isn't included in the oath, even though it has been said by numerous presidents. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but our country was founded by men who were of a religious nature, and they did not have to deal with a populace as diverse as the one we have today, which includes a large group of people who are not religious and are offended by the inclusion of religion in official activity.

[03_SHOOTER]

Here's my un-PC take. I'm myself not a man of religious nature (call it one of my faults should you so desire, many have), but I don't go around making it a priority to ensure that other's don't force religion on me. If you want to discuss God, the church(es), and what-not, it's fine by me and I won't feel offended until you cross the line I have drawn, which for me is that religion is not forced upon me (should the time come that I start to follow His word, I will do so on my own accord without the "unwelcome assistance" of another individual). When prayers are said in formations, such as the numerous Change of Command ceremonies I've attended, I take no offense to it. I am also respectful to it, and do take the appropriate action for the setting without argumentative thought.

A completely sensible stance. Thank you.

Seeing this post reminds me of a story that broadcasted today on Headline News. It was the one about the guy who is suing to have "so help me God" removed from the Oath of office of the President of the United States. That'll go far, since legally the phrase isn't included in the oath, even though it has been said by numerous presidents. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but our country was founded by men who were of a religious nature, and they did not have to deal with a populace as diverse as the one we have today, which includes a large group of people who are not religious and are offended by the inclusion of religion in official activity.

The FF's were undoubtedly religious men, to one extent or another, and to varying degrees at various points in their lives. As far as the diversity of views, I cannot say one way or the other, but what I do know is that they were respectful of each others belief (or even non-belief as the case may be), and specifically strove to ensure that the government could not even attempt to impose any religious beliefs on anyone, or to deny the ability of anyone to practice their faith as they saw fit. President John Adams famously stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” What people like the individual you mentioned consistently fail to understand is that that "freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom from religion", as to do so would be a clear violation of the Constitution as well as being incompatible with our form of government. However, at the same time we cannot deny them their Rights simply because they have chosen to adhere to a religion that is antithetical to the Judeo/Christian tradition.

As it applies to the primary case in question, the young Soldier hasn't sued to prevent any religious observation, only to be prevent the military from compelling him to attend the aforementioned activities, which to me is a totally reasonable request.

[Javelin66]

It is a reasonable request, and his chain of command should have supported him.

The question really comes down to whether or not this was sanctioned by the Army as represented by the chain of command. Was this a few knuckleheads giving him a hard time (and subsequentially disciplined by the leadership), or did the chain of command participate, condone, or otherwise support it?

This creates a tough situation for leaders, because the vast majority of men in combat will want to participate in prayers, religious services, etc. After a while, they will start to view with suspicion (or, some would say, superstition) anyone who does not participate, especially if it is part of the 'roll-out ritual'. How do you deal with a guy who is becoming the unit's 'Jonah' because he insists on setting himself apart by not praying with the squad?

[03_SHOOTER]

It is a reasonable request, and his chain of command should have supported him.

The question really comes down to whether or not this was sanctioned by the Army as represented by the chain of command. Was this a few knuckleheads giving him a hard time (and subsequentially disciplined by the leadership), or did the chain of command participate, condone, or otherwise support it?

This creates a tough situation for leaders, because the vast majority of men in combat will want to participate in prayers, religious services, etc. After a while, they will start to view with suspicion (or, some would say, superstition) anyone who does not participate, especially if it is part of the 'roll-out ritual'. How do you deal with a guy who is becoming the unit's 'Jonah' because he insists on setting himself apart by not praying with the squad?

It is a rather complex issue isn't it? That's why I thought it would make an interesting topic. If his CoC chose to "retaliate" (for lack of a better word) because he didn't want to participate, it is, in my mind, a clear cut constitutional violation. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the original post, I don't think that his decision was very well thought out because by refusing to participate, he did set himself apart from the support structure of his unit, which led to the problem to begin with by causing stress in the esprit de corps and morale of his unit. Having to deal with individual personalities has always been one of the, if not the biggest challenge in the military, because the military by it's very nature relies on uniformity, and anything that isn't automatically draws unwanted attention (the nail that sticks out gets hammered down).

IMNSHO, the best way to deal with this is to explain to the individual in question that his non-uniformity (whatever it might be) is, to one degree or another, disruptive to the unit, and to explain to the rest of the unit that part of growing up is understanding, and being tolerant of (but not necessarily "accepting" of) peoples differences and eccentricities. You don't have to "accept" his belief system, but you do have to understand, and be tolerant of his eccentricities, because if you can't do that, then you have no right to expect anyone else to be understanding or tolerant of yours.

[wukong]

As for the present discussion, you're making the exact same error in judgment that wukong did by attempting to demonize the Plaintiff just because you "don't like" him, and that's just as irrational and immature as it was the first time.

Just another example of your infamous characterizations. I never demonized GSgt Neito. In fact I previously posted, I felt sorry for him. I supported Col. Richard Flatau as a matter of how I understand the law as Neito has admitted that he has engaged in unlawful entry onto MCB Legeune. I know neither Flatau or Neito.

Just because I have little regard for you as a homo sapian does not constitute transference to any other individual.

[03_SHOOTER]

Just another example of your infamous characterizations. I never demonized GSgt Neito. In fact I previously posted, I fell sorry for him. I supported Col. Richard Flatau as a matter of how I understand the law as Neito has admitted that he has engaged in unlawful entry onto MCB Legeune. I know neither Flatau or Neito.

Just because I have little regard for you as a homo sapian does not constitute transference to any other individual.

No, you attempted to falsely indict GSgt. Nieto in a vain attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Col. Flatau and his crew got caught screwing the pooch in front of God and everyone else, and I called you on your completely disingenuous and utterly intellectually bankrupt assertions.

As far as your regard for me, it is a matter of complete indifference, to me or anyone else for that matter. Now, why don't you crawl back into one of your colorful umbrella adorned drinks, and leave intelligent discussion to sober and rational people.

[Murray B]

...Secular Humanism doesn't make it any less a religion.

Sorry 03_SHOOTER, but I am confused. The modern meanings of the word "religion" is discussed at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

The gist of it is, ...no single definition will suffice to encompass the varied sets of traditions, practices, and ideas which constitute different religions.

Is this what your constitution means by "religion"?

[03_SHOOTER]

Sorry 03_SHOOTER, but I am confused. The modern meanings of the word "religion" is discussed at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

The gist of it is,

Is this what your constitution means by "religion"?

Not to be crude, but to me the term "religion" is just as vague as "pornography", as your source points out, so to quote Justice Potter Stewart in his concurring decision in Jacobellis v Oho, "I know it when I see it". As such, people of good character may come to differing opinions as to what it is when they observe the same thing, in this case Secular Humanism, which is why I defer to the judgment of SCOTUS, as well as the other courts, when they determined that it is in fact to be considered a religion and therefore granted First Amendment protection.

As to my own personal interpretation, I don't recognize the average Atheist to be "religious" in the traditional sense of the word, meaning "a belief in (a) God, or some other spiritual being or beings, an acceptance of a specific set of recognized and established tenets, and the struggle to lead a moral life" but I will not attempt to impose my own interpretation of what "religious" is on them out of my deference and respect for my belief in Liberty, so long as what they are doing in pursuit of their "religion" doesn't abridge or infringe upon anyone else's rights, which is not what has happened in this case. The young man in question simply does not wish to participate in religious services, or to be compelled to pray, and that is his choice, and one thing I do know is that the Constitution specifically precludes the government, or in this case a segment of that government, specifically the Army, from "respecting an establishment of religion" by compelling anyone to participate in any religious activity that they do now wish to participate in.

[SlightlyCatholic]

As far as the previous thread, it's apparent you're not familiar with legal arguments, otherwise you'd know that opposing attorneys going back and forth, presenting case law after case law, and filing motion after motion in support of their client is how it is done, and you NEVER stop until the Judge renders his ruling.

You seem to have forgotten that this is a forum and not a courtroom. Also, I don't believe counsel is able to employ ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel. You must have been out sick the day they taught law at law school.

The young man in question simply does not wish to participate in religious services, or to be compelled to pray, and that is his choice, and one thing I do know is that the Constitution specifically precludes the government, or in this case a segment of that government, specifically the Army, from "respecting an establishment of religion" by compelling anyone to participate in any religious activity that they do now wish to participate in.

When we talk about "respecting an establishment of religion", is the Army forbidden to respect an establishment of any and all religion or is it forbidden to respect an establishment of one religion over another? If it's the former, then I guess all the Chaplains need to pack up and go home. Also, when we talk about compelling someone to participate in an activity, what exactly do we mean? Can a platoon sargeant say the rosary out loud on a patrol without his atheist subordinates complaining to their respective Congressmen? Does participation mean speaking or can it be extended to hearing as well?

[03_SHOOTER]

You seem to have forgotten that this is a forum and not a courtroom.

No I haven't, but when legal arguments are part of the discussion, as will happen often in the Constitutional Discussions Forum, it is important that the PROPER legal arguments are made, and that Red Herrings are to be discredited as such.

Also, I don't believe counsel is able to employ ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel. You must have been out sick the day they taught law at law school.

If that's what you think, you've obviously never even been in a courtroom. Ad homs fly in a courtroom, especially when one of the lawyers tries to get away with the ridiculous sophistry of attempting to wrongfully incriminate the victim in order to divert attention away from the offenses of the perpetrator, as occurred in the previous discussion. Saying that the hooker deserved to be raped because of the way she was dressed in order to try to mitigate the fact that the defendant did in fact rape her is a non sequitur of the worst kind.

When we talk about "respecting an establishment of religion", is the Army forbidden to respect an establishment of any and all religion or is it forbidden to respect an establishment of one religion over another? If it's the former, then I guess all the Chaplains need to pack up and go home. Also, when we talk about compelling someone to participate in an activity, what exactly do we mean? Can a platoon sargeant say the rosary out loud on a patrol without his atheist subordinates complaining to their respective Congressmen? Does participation mean speaking or can it be extended to hearing as well?

The term "respecting an establishment of religion" means literally, giving any credence or special recognition to any religion over any other religion, so no, the Chaplins don't have to pack up and go home, and yes, a Platoon Sergeant can say the Rosary out loud if he wishes (although doing so while out on a patrol might not be the best time to do so), but what he cannot do is compel any of his Platoon members to PARTICIPATE in the recitation of the Rosary, or any other prayer if they do not wish to do so, which is precisely one of the charges that has been levied.

As far as "hearing", no, it does not, because that would imply an ability of the "hearer" to compel those who wish to participate from having the ability to do so, which is also a violation of the Constitution, but as this is not the case since this has not been proposed by the Soldier in question, that particular point is moot. Having said that, if the "hearer" doesn't wist to hear it, and there is nothing constraining the individual from voluntarily leaving the area so as not to hear it, then they should be allowed to depart, and then return once the prayers are finished. This is precisely why I have such a problem with some trying to disallow an invocation prior to a High School football game, or at any other public gathering. If you don't want to participate, and don't want to hear it, go get a hot dog and a Coke, or use the bathroom, and it'll all be over by the time you get back, but you do not have the right to deny everyone else their right TO participate or hear the invocation.

[Billyd]

Unfortunately, what has happened is that zealots on both side of the question at hand have tried force their will upon the rest of us.

A good example of this is that at a high school commencement, if a member of the staff, the principal or teacher, stands to give the invocation, somehow that has become the state establishing a religion. But, if a member of the student body does so, it isn't.

Now we have some of these same individuals that are claiming that the President's Oath of Office is Unconstitutional simply because Washington added the the words "So help me God" when he took the oath and most Presidents since have adhered to that tradition. Now, if one takes a look at Article 2 Section 1, there in black and white (at least in my copy) the Oath required of the President plainly does not contain those words. Now, if the Chief Justice of the United States includes those words as he administers the oath, does that now become a violation?

[03_SHOOTER]

Well Billyd, If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administering the Oath using the words "...so help me God." is a violation of the First Amendment, then every Chief Justice since at least Charles E. Hughes has been in violation, because they've all done it (I just looked at the video's and listened to the audio's on Youtube), and I seriously doubt that SCOTUS is going to admit that they've been THAT wrong, for THAT long, so I think we're safe. :D

Late Edit: OOPS, I forgot to mention that Chief Justice Hughes swore in FDR in 1933.

[Murray B]

...traditional sense of the word, meaning "a belief in (a) God, or some other spiritual being or beings, an acceptance of a specific set of recognized and established tenets, and the struggle to lead a moral life"

Thanks for the clarification, 03_SHOOTER. Your definition seems to be more in line with your founding fathers meant. It is somewhat disturbing that the SCOTUS uses a different definition. Changing the meaning of words could alter your Constitution by interpretation.

[03_SHOOTER]

Thanks for the clarification, 03_SHOOTER. Your definition seems to be more in line with your founding fathers meant. It is somewhat disturbing that the SCOTUS uses a different definition. Changing the meaning of words could alter your Constitution by interpretation.

Thanks Murray, I try, as much as I can, and as well as my understanding permits (shaped by decades of study), to be as closely aligned with the original meaning of the FF's as possible. As to SCOTUS and their ruling, I have a long history of "difficulty" with SCOTUS and their rulings, BUT, the present fact is that so long as the concepts of "Stare Decisis" and "Judicial Review" are the rules our legal system operates under, as opposed to what the FF's meant when they wrote the Constitution, then that's what we're stuck with, and as such, we have to operate under those rules (at least for a little while longer).