Atheist Soldier Sues Military for Religious Discrimination
Claudia wrote yesterday about the highly discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Thus, we know how gays are doing with military matters, but how about other groups? Say…atheists?
CNN is running a report on Spc. Jeremy Hall, a former Baptist who converted to atheism between tours of duty in Iraq. Since his conversion, Hall says he’s been the target of discrimination and ridicule:
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?”
…
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.
Obviously, there’s not much the military can do if another soldier is ridiculing another for their beliefs, I suppose. Yet, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen a story like this in the past couple years. Some might say that it’s indicative of a Pentagon-directed Christianization of the U.S. military, like Michael Weinstein:
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.
I’m a little skeptical about this. It warrants more research of course, but if this was really happening at the rate Weinstein says it is, wouldn’t there be more coverage? I only see this story popping up every so often, and Jeremy Hall has actually been featured on CNN twice now; the last time was in March, with the first report of his claims of harrassment.
So, until I see some more proof, I’m skeptical that this is a systematic problem within the military. However, one thing I am not skeptical about is that his story probably has happened as he says it. I’m having trouble finding statistics on the political leanings of military members (any help?), except for a Zogby poll in 2006 stating that a majority of soldiers wanted to get out of Iraq by the end of 2006. If you go by that, the majority of soldiers are liberal in their politics, but I’m not sure that’s the case. So, evidence of a widespread emergence of evangelicals among military members is ambiguous without anything to back it up.
However, about promotions, I think it is much easier to see that happening, even without numbers. Just consider the administration that’s in power. Commanders appointed to key positions are more likely to match the administration’s foreign policy objectives. Anything else just wouldn’t make sense in terms of political goals for a President’s term. After having read John Ashcroft’s book, “Never Again,” I am comfortable in saying that I think Bush would appoint more evangelical leaning or strongly religious commanders.
There’s nothing wrong with that at its core, but if these commanders are using religion as a basis in determining which of their soldiers gets promoted through the ranks, I think that’s pretty wrong. In a time when the military should be using the brightest minds possible to lead units, commanders should be promoting those who have proven themselves, regardless of relgious affiliation or non-affiliation. Now, I already know some of the arguments I’m going to see here, “But a unit leader needs to able to unite, not divide, his soldiers. A leader who’s not ready to do what’s needed to provide unity by praying with his troops is not a good choice.”
It’s true that a unit leader needs to be able to provide morale and unity among all the soldiers under his command, but I argue that he can do this without also being the prayer-in-chief. The “they’ll disrupt the unity” argument is the same one used by supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and we’ve seen how untrue that is. If the unit wants to pray, fine, they can pray. If they want someone to lead it and the unit leader doesn’t want to do it, the answer is simple. Find another member to do it.
The military is not some kind of religious order and it should not be treated as such. The military should be promoting people based on their proven leadership in military matters, not how good of a pastor they are.
I’m skeptical too that this is a major problem. I could see how soldiers might be uncomfortable being led by an atheist, but I don’t think that someone should be denied promotion for that reason. Not for belief, that is. Behavior is a different matter.
test
Seem to be some technical problems with Poligazette today…
" I could see how soldiers might be uncomfortable being led by an atheist"
Do you think an atheist would be more wreckless in battle than a Christian? If anything, I would think the atheist would be more careful, believing when he’s dead.. he is nothing more than worm food. Isn’t it religion that gives comfort and solace to dying? I would be less comfortable following someone who is very religious, because he thinks he’s heading for the pearly gates. (or to claim his 72 virgins)
A few comments:
"a former Baptist who converted to atheism"
Do you convert to atheism?
when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, “Do you believe in Jesus now?”
Is that really "discrimination"?
he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist. AND
Just consider the administration that’s in power.
Are we really going to assume that the influence of the Bush administration filters down to the promotion of an enlisted man?
Bob-
I meant that because many soldiers are highly religious, having a CO who wasn’t might create tensions. But again, as I said it comes down to behavior; unless the atheist in question was proselytizing I don’t think it would be a problem.
As to who would be more reckless in battle, you can make the argument that in fact it would be the atheist, because he doesn’t believe in a higher power. Thus, for him there is ultimately no purpose to life and therefore losing one’s life wouldn’t be a big deal to him.
If you think an atheist believes there is no purpose to life, think again. Some of Americas (and the worlds) most important and influential people were atheists, including Benjamen Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei to name a few. Apparently, atheists are capable of having a purpose and thinking outside the box..which is more than I can say about any (overly) religious leader or person. In fact, I find your statement on atheism very narrow minded, which makes my point..
Atheists don’t fly airplanes into buildings.
Chris:
1) Eh, semantics. I don’t know if ‘convert’ is the right word, but it conveys my meaning.
2) I didn’t say it was. I believe his suit is related to the promotion issue. It is ridicule, however.
3) Like I say, I don’t think it’s a systematic problem. But, you might have some commanders who think that a unit cannot be lead by someone who isn’t prepared to lead in prayer, and I don’t think that’s right.
Connor:
I’m going to have to side with Bob. Don’t many highly religious people believe they have something good waiting for them after death?
Bob:
That’s not entirely true on the religions of the founders. Jefferson, for example, is one of the most well known deists. Deists do believe in a God, but do not believe he has much to do with the universe. Franklin had his own brand of deism not too set apart from Jefferson’s. Adams was a Unitarian (which is different from today’s Universalist Unitarian church).
Edison was also a deist. Einstein was an agnostic. Sagan, from what I can tell, is a little ambiguous, but seems closest to an atheist. And Galileo Galilei is the furthest on that list from an atheist. He was a Roman Catholic.
What kind of a pussy christian needs his squad leader to pray along? If you are so frigging tender and hissy about your CHOICE of religion then get out of the army - you’re a liability who lets his/her performance be hampered by BS factors, endangering the rest in your unit.
The idea that atheism implies nihilism is typical of those who can’t imagine life having a purpose without god. Newsflash, to an atheist it does. Atheism is ONLY not believing in a god or gods. You can’t say "an atheist doesn’t believe that there is no purpose to life" because that, quite frankly, is total BS. Atheism is not a belief system in itself, it merely describes someone who lacks religious faith. Beyond that atheists come in all colors, ideologies and motivations. Equating atheism to nihilism is one of the many aspects of anti-atheist prejudice in America.
As to the allegations, they are not isolated. I’ve been reading for years about harassment and pressure recieved by atheists for not participating in religious ceremonies or, even worse, trying to seek out other atheists for discussions (not trying to convince anyone, just to get together to talk). I would say it is a problem, but that it’s not an isolated one. I’ve read about similar things happening to Muslims (and worse, since Islam = terrorist to some dimwits) and even Jews. Usually the story is very similar: atheist/jew/muslim doesn’t want to participate in prayer to jesus and is ostrasized, or is publicly ridiculed by a superior for their beliefs or lack thereof, or has to put up with public meetings where the commander says "You all just need to trust in Jesus and you’ll be alright" (Imagine how you would feel if you were told "Just trust in Allah and all will be well" by your superior at an obligatory meeting).
Many evangelicals are taught to "share there faith" with others, and for many it’s probably hard to simply turn off that instinct, no matter what the rules say. Add a sympathetic higher command and a situation where uniformity is encouraged and it’s no surprise that people of other faiths or no faith feel the pressure.
Michael, a plurality of the founding fathers were deists, though Thomas Paine was most certainly an atheist. What the religious right loves to forget these days is a plurality of the founding fathers had a deep distaste of organized religion and some found the religion of a personal god to be laughable superstition (this is certainly the case for Jefferson).
Einstein is a little more tricky, since it’s hard to say what he meant when he was saying "god". His personal descriptions of his religious belief lend very little support to the idea that he was religious:
Mr. Merritt - How many years did you spend as a unit commander in the military? Unit cohesion, especially in combat does not just come from rank. It is also greatly dependent on leadership skills and personalities. A unit draws its confidence and moral from its leader. The truth is that faith is a great way to have greater unit cohesion, it encourages the proper restraint in soldiers and it helps to overcome fear of death. The burdens of command require that if the unit wants to pray, then the commander of the unit leads the prayer. If someone else leads the prayer, by power of personality that person will start to lead the unit because the men respect and identify with him more. This is why people are never given command of the same unit for too long as the same place, because after a time rank means less and power of personality means more. When you are in command you do what best for your unit even when you don’t feel like doing it. So that means if you need to suck up your pride and lead your men in prayer you do it and you make it darn convincing, to do otherwise is selfish, foolish and dangerous. You are entitled to your opinion, but as someone who has been there, I can tell you with confidence that you are wrong, and with all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn’t matter if you believe it or not or are willing to accept it or not. It simply is.
Jefferson was a deist but he also regularly attended church services in the Capitol Building. He also signed a bill to have congress pay to teach Christianity to the Indians. Jefferson knew that the Judea-Christian ethic was essential for the country as a whole. By the way, of the 56 signers of the Deceleration of Independence, all but a handful were active members of their church. If you want me to post the evidence, I will be happy to. The whole "most of the founders were deists" nonsense is just that and is deliberate misinformation.
So if we are to believe Chuck, the allegation that non-believers are likely to encounter discrimination in the military is very likely true.
Tell me Chuck, does this mean that if a Muslim commander were in charge of a majority Christian troop he or she would have to suppress their beliefs and lead the soldiers in praying to Jesus? Would you, in the case of being in charge of a majority Muslim group, be willing to get on your knees and pray to Allah, and naturally pretend to be Muslim, since prayer won’t sound convincing if it’s known you aren’t really of that religion?
So according to you, religious diversity is bad for the military, certainly bad in command posts. Pity about that darned Constitution eh?
I would still argue that you can show leadership and proper morals without needing to pray.
No, I haven’t been a unit commander, and understand where you’re coming from, I just don’t think it’s right that a unit commander needs to be of or pretend to be of a certain faith to prove their ability to improve morale and provide unit cohesion. I don’t know the ratio of members of other religions in command positions, but are we to expect a person of the Jewish or Muslim faith to lead prayer to Jesus? Or can a commander get away with doing a non-denominational prayer? I tend to think not. Yet, I would no more demand that an atheist need to lead in prayer than I would a Christian lead in prayer to Allah.
I just would wish for a culture of looking to the commander for other leadership qualities and keeping prayer and religious activities to one’s own private space.
I can see where you’re coming from when you speak of keeping up troop morale and cohesion when times are tough on the battlefield, I just wish it didn’t have to be that way.
"The truth is that faith is a great way to have greater unit cohesion"
The truth is that this is irrelevant since there is no science behind it and a military should only draw from empiricism or betray its purpose. Also, I would much rather have a squad leader that fights excellently beside me than someone who makes me feel war and fuzzy inside. Seriously - unit cohesion? If you can’t fight perfectly well as a unit because you haven’t mumbled together then your training fails. True there are psychological factors to account for, but why introduce factors like "This guy here is similar to me in these respects" in the first place?! From what I hear having a person of faith next to me is dangerous in combat - fear of death can be as energizing and focusing as it can be destabilizing, and thinking of heaven and not focusing solely on the material world seems like escapism when you really should be there in the moment.
Maybe we should have a DADT on religious matters instead - keep it to the dogtags - unlike being gay it’s a choice.
"Jefferson knew that the Judea-Christian ethic was essential for the country as a whole."
In that case Jefferson settled for a flawed system of overarching morality and philosophy and I want to smack him with a rolled-up newspaper for damning another nation to something as inadequate as that.
"So that means if you need to suck up your pride and lead your men in prayer you do it and you make it darn convincing, to do otherwise is selfish, foolish and dangerous."
So prayer makes people fight wars better. Wow. Show your work. If I was an atheist who was forced to do that I would feel resentment and disrespect for my fellows, who need such silly rituals to fight for their survival. I thought conservatives cared for unintended consequences, but I guess if mores and the tried-and-tested is old enough they can’t have unexpected consequences.
Well guess what, conservatives, here it is - sometimes, what you got may be something you know you got, but it may contain a kernel of evil that mankind was previously too dumb to see, and a flawed solution to evil that does not contain any evil is the only viable alternative, because waiting for a better solution is to harm the world. Sometimes, worrying about the unintended consequences of change makes you blind or prone to censorship of the unintended consequences of the status quo, of the evil that is DADT, our deeply flawed perversion of decent capitalism or the gender roles of our society. I am a conservative about what works, and a liberal about what doesn’t - different degrees of scepticism and patience depending on the problem and investigations into which solutions have worked before, and why.
is it possible to make a post comprised of more "if’s"?
Interested, I was thinking the same thing. Take one statement by an atheist. Add another from a Jewish guy and admit it doesn’t sound right. String that together with reams of speculation and now we have some sort of trend that we believe in about the Christianization of the military by Evangelicals, and oh by the way it is probably true because just look at who the president is! Sorry, this was a very lame post.
Perhaps atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, but they’ve committed crimes too…just look at Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.
And yes, there are many types of atheists and they aren’t all nihilists. But if you don’t believe in God, what do you believe in that transcends this limited life of ours? Something that makes life matter, even if people, planets, and ultimately whole universes die? If you don’t believe in something transcendent than you have to conclude that ultimately there is no meaning in life, something that atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out. If you do believe in something transcendent then you’re not an atheist.
As somebody who knows how efficiently religion can be used and abused by state powers in waging war against the "enemy" (just think Jihad or Crusades, people), I am the kind of person who would believe these types of stories of Christianization of the U.S. military on the spot.
All of this for me is evidence of the "Clash of Civilization" mentality purposefully propagated by both sides, both Christian or Muslim, because a perpetuation of this conflict is a reason for the existence as well as survival of both polar opposites - Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists.
In fact, the same kind of "religious perpetration" has been the ultimate goal of Fundamentalist Muslims into the Turkish military, but almost all of it thus far has failed.
In fact, the Turkish military is so vigilant to any such "Islamization" that the moment they see a clue that somebody praying heavily or connecting with some religious groups, this person is OUT the door no matter how good of a soldier they may be. Of course, you have the exact polar opposites in Turkey who ask whether you pray five times a day during a job interview, or who will give you a promotion only if you have a "covered" wife, which is what AKP at the helm of government does nowadays.
So THAT’s what happens when religion is a big deal.
Coming to the U.S. foreign policy, in order to combat Communism during the Cold War era, the Pentagon has encouraged the heavy Islamization of the Middle East because religion was seen as an antidote to Communist philosophy and ideals. Via such Islamization of Central Asia as well as the Middle East, Communism could be more easily contained.
Thus I "religiously" subscribe to the story that Pentagon is NOW undertaking a Christianization of the military to combat Islamic Terrorism or Islamofascism. According to this idea, an atheist soldier will not be able to fight or cooperate as well as his Christian brothers, much less have the capacity to "lead" them during times of dire need. Because in theory, an atheist will not believe in the war against Islamic terror as much as a Christian may, thus making him or her a less effective soldier.
This is not my idea, I’m just breaking the hard-line Pentagon thought process to many who seem to be so puzzled by this story and thus find it very difficult to believe.
Sorry to break this to everyone, but America is and remains a Christian country in many ways. The reason why we don’t see much coverage about this may just be that people don’t really want to face up to it.
"Perhaps atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, but they’ve committed crimes too…just look at Stalinist Russia or Maoist China."
That was by communists who wanted their religion to be the only one - they did not kill those deists because they thought atheism was splendid. Atheism was not responsible for that crime - a person who rejects religion is philosophically just as prone to respect the sanctity of human life.
"Something that makes life matter, even if people, planets, and ultimately whole universes die?"
Happiness. The fact that man can’t cognitively appreciate the complete lack of significance to his life is beautiful and prevents nihilism.
"f you don’t believe in something transcendent than you have to conclude that ultimately there is no meaning in life, something that atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out."
Does it need a meaning? If all people felt constantly miserable no matter what we would perish. Happiness is the only self-sustaining reason in a universe of value-inert matter.
"Because in theory, an atheist will not believe in the war against Islamic terror as much as a Christian may, thus making him or her a less effective soldier."
In fact, that theory is sick in the head.
For those of you who think Christian discrimination might not be as bad as all that, consider this:The Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) released a 47-page document in 2007 that reported high-ranking Army and Air Force personnel were in violation of military regulations by participating in a video to promote a non-federally funded evangelical Christian organization, Christian Embassy. According to the report, military officers appeared as spokespersons for the military while in uniform and during active duty; however, they had not sought to obtain prior permission for their video appearance. The report states that they defended their actions by asserting that the ?Christian Embassy had become a ?quasi-Federal entity? … [and endorsed] Christian Embassy?s ministry to General Officers for over 25 years? (p. 3). The investigation uncovered other irregularities at the Pentagon as the report states: ? … we discovered that the Pentagon Chaplain authorized contractor badge status for 34 apparently religiously-affiliated volunteers, to include Christian Embassy employees. Of these 34 volunteers, 19 appear to be Christian clergy. … One is a Rabbi. Five are volunteers unaffiliated with a ?parachurch? group. The remaining nine pass-holders are affiliated with Navigators[, a Christian outreach ministry to college campuses and military bases], Campus Crusade for Christ (including Christian Embassy), or the Gideons[, an evangelical Christian organization]. source: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/Xtian_Embassy_072707.pdf