Associated Press
Topeka, Kan. – A soldier claimed Wednesday that his promotion was blocked because he had claimed in a lawsuit that the Army was violating his right to be an atheist.
Attorneys for Spc. Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation refiled the federal lawsuit Wednesday in Kansas City, Kan., and added a complaint alleging that the blocked promotion was in response to the legal action.
The suit was filed in September but dropped last month so the new allegations could be included. Among the defendants are Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Hall alleges he was denied his constitutional right to hold a meeting to discuss atheism while he was deployed in Iraq with his military police unit. He says in the new complaint that his promotion was blocked after the commander of the 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley sent an e-mail post-wide saying Hall had sued.
Fort Riley spokeswoman Alison Kohler said the post “can’t comment on ongoing legal matters” and offered no further statement.
According to the lawsuit, Hall was counseled by his platoon sergeant after being informed that his promotion was blocked. He says the sergeant explained that Hall would be “unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops” and would have trouble bonding with them if promoted to a leadership position.
Hall responded that religion is not a requirement of leadership, even though the sergeant wondered how he had rights if atheism wasn’t a religion. Hall said atheism is protected under the Army’s chaplain’s manual.
“It shouldn’t matter if one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist,” said Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney whose firm filed the lawsuit. “In the military, all are equal and to be considered equal.”
Maj. Freddy J. Welborn was named in the lawsuit as the officer who prevented Hall from holding a meeting of atheists and non-Christians. It alleges that Welborn threatened to file military charges against Hall and to block his re-enlistment. Welborn has denied the allegations.
The lawsuit alleges that Gates permits a military culture in which officers are encouraged to pressure soldiers to adopt and espouse fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and in which activities by Christian organizations are sanctioned.
Hall’s attorneys say Fort Riley has permitted a culture promoting Christianity and anti-Islamic sentiment, including posters quoting conservative columnist Ann Coulter and sale of a book, “A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam,” at the post exchange.
The Pentagon has said that the military values and respects religious freedoms, but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.
Mikey Weinstein, president and founder of the religious freedom foundation, said the lawsuit would show the “almost incomprehensible national security risks to America” posed by the military’s pattern of violating the religious freedom of those in uniform.
“It is beyond despicable, indeed wholly unlawful, that the United States Army is actively attempting to destroy the professional career of one of its decorated young fighting soldiers, with two completed combat tours in Iraq, simply because he had the rare courage to stand up for his constitutional rights,” Weinstein said in a statement.
Weinstein previously sued the Air Force for acts he said illegally imposed Christianity on its students at the academy. A federal judge threw out that lawsuit in 2006.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted March 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I would say denying someone a promotion based on their desire to pray is a pretty cut-and-dry example of discrimination.
posted March 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I obviously agree, the fact that he “wouldn’t be able to pray with the troops” is not enough of a reason to deny a promotion. I can’t help but wonder if the lawsuit was more of the reason, though.
Two things occur to me, though. One is that this may not really be so much about his atheism as his previous lawsuit—I imagine anyone who sues the Army (or for that matter anyone who sues the institution they work for) is suddenly going to find less promotions. And I also note this:
“Maj. Freddy J. Welborn was named in the lawsuit as the officer who prevented Hall from holding a meeting of atheists and non-Christians.”
Now, he should be allowed to hold a meeting of atheists. But I note the specific addition “and non-Christians.” It’s a subtle distinction, but isn’t that kind of a problem right there? I can’t help but wonder if the Army may have been right to try to block this meeting, if it was specifically a “No Christians Allowed” Club, which would be discrimatory in itself.
God bless.
posted March 6, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Joey, I don’t think that Jeremy Hall was trying to start a “No Christians Allowed” Club. The Universal Unitarian Church have members and attenders who are Atheists, Buddists, and other non-christian religions, and Christians that want to attend also. What Hall wanted to do doesn’t sound any different than UUC. He has a right to worship as he wants; he’s an American with freedom of religion even in the Service to his country. Sure will be good to have new leaders in the White House and elsewhere in our government that will respect this again.
posted March 6, 2008 at 8:09 pm
A meeting of atheists and other non-Christians is not the same as a meeting of atheists and anti-Christians. I presume the purpose was to provide a group for people not being served by other meetings. It may have been stated poorly, which would be a shame.
The “can’t pray with the troops” thing is pure bs. If he thought the troops needed a prayer he could ask someone to lead one. And no officer, including an atheist should make a deal about his religion or lack thereof to his troops.
I hope and shall for now assume Hall is the good guy in this.
posted March 6, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I feel Spc Hall was looking for fellowship and intellectual stimulation. It’s gotta be frightening to be with people who think they are fighting a religious war.
Fundamentalist Christians think the after-life is a better place than the world we’re in. If a believer is casual with their life because they do believe, will they be just as casual with the life of a non-believer?
Perhaps the military prefers soldiers who believe in an afterlife!
posted March 6, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Major Freddy Welborn has a public myspace page. It’s easy to find, then you can get a perspective on the Major.
myspace.com/freddywelborn
posted March 6, 2008 at 9:05 pm
AHHH religion…isn’t it wonderful?? Even some in the Army feel that soldiers should be in an “acceptable” religion. The Army Chaplin’s manual protects atheism, according to Hall. If that is the case, then there should be no reason why Hall should be treated any differently than the men and women who are in “acceptable” religions.
posted March 6, 2008 at 9:28 pm
DollyD, thanks. That seems kind of freaky but it’s the first myspace page I’ve visited. Am I hip or what?
Freddy sure doesn’t look like an objective person to decide whether Hall could be a leader.
posted March 6, 2008 at 10:53 pm
From I can read on these postings. People tend to have a liberal view of the world and relgion and non-religion.
I am for one wouldn’t want an atheist in command of a military unit, if the majority of those in the unit, espouses a Christian belief, rather than atheistism or some other religion. Freedom od speech is for everyone, not just the polically left in this country, even in the name of religion.
posted March 6, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ain’t it ironical that you have to be religious in order to train to kill. Ah, religion, I love its multitude of self-contradictions.
There has been many other reported instances of military officers using religion as a way to restict and control their subordinates. I guess they leave out all the lessons on mutual respect. This culture of religious obstinance and arrogance will likely bring more and more trouble to the Pentagon and its franchises. I am sure this will not be the last.
posted March 7, 2008 at 10:50 am
Dude, any officer, Christian atheist or whatever, who denies freedom of speech (except when jabbering would be dangerous or hate speech) should be spat out of the service. I sure hope that’s not a problem.
posted March 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Georgia Dude08 since when did believing in the U.S. Amendments, esp. the one on “free Speech” become a marker for being liberal and left?
The service member Hall has the right to be anything he wants to be religiously or not. If he was an officer in charge of his troops he wouldn’t be a clergyman, if a Chaplin was needed he would get one for his troops. So it’s a silly argument on the officers who denied him a rise in rank in Iraq. When one is a service member it should be understood that these are adults and the main thing is to be in unity with each other, that means getting along with each other, not all be the same religious persuasion.
posted March 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Dude:
There is or at least shouldn’t be a military rule that a person has to be a certain religion to command troops! The Army is made up of a variety of religions AND those who don’t need a religion! Atheists are people too….and no less capable because they don’t follow a God fearing religion!
posted March 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Dolly D and Nnmmns, I checked out Myspace, too, for the lst time. Seems to go with the article’s situation. Have either of you ever watched Betty Butterfield’s satires on religion and everything else? Very funny! Goggle Betty Butterfield-election 2008.
posted April 27, 2008 at 8:11 pm
From what I’ve read, I’m a little confused. From what I understand Mr. Hall handed out fliers advertising the meeting. Mr. Welborn attended and passionately debated his strong belief vs. Mr. Hall’s atheism. IF Mr. Welborn threatened Mr. Hall’s re-enlistments status, that would be stupid for an officer to do so and not expect reprimand. BUT ~ if this was an open meeting, is this lawsuit simply over Mr. Hall being upset over the debate? If another soldier at the same rank of Mr. Hall were to debate with him, would he be included in the lawsuit? Or is it because it was an officer who debated with him and he didn’t like it? I wasn’t there, and neither were the majority of people writing all over the internet about it. We don’t know the facts. Basically ~ as I see it ~ it’s a “He said, He said” argument. Only we haven’t heard Mr. Welborn’s side of it so people are “pre-judging” him as well. We are all AMERICANS regardless of color, religion, food choices, etc. Can’t we all get along? The rest of the world is taking care of the hating us part, we don’t need to join in.