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

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 »

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) 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]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

And how exactly does one "practice" atheism?

How does one practice Taoism or Buddhism?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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.

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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

Originally Posted by dictionary

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]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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

Well, they have been known to be wrong before.

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

Meditation is one way of doing this.

And do Atheists not meditate as well?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

Btw, I've never heard of a lay leader for the "atheist community".

That's because they don't have "lay leaders" Tim.

Originally Posted by Seminarian_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?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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".

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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?

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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?