Sep 28 2008
Atheist soldier alleges discrimination by militar
An atheist soldier says in a federal lawsuit that his superiors required him to be present for Christian prayers, and that the military allows fundamentalist Christians to proselytize.Spc. Dustin Chalker, a combat medicwith an engineering battalion, alleges he was required to attend three events from December 2007 to May 2008 at Fort Riley in which Christian prayers were delivered. Chalker has served in Iraq and Korea.
Chalker and and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation filed the lawsuit against Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday in Kansas City, Kan. It alleges violations of the soldier’s religious freedoms.
The lawsuit alleges the military allows religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians who try to force their views on others, especially subordinates. Its examples include programs for soldiers, presentations by “anti-Muslim activists” and a “spiritual handbook” for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.
Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said Friday the department has received fewer than 50 complaints alleging religious discrimination in the past three years. The armed forces have more than 2.2 million active-duty and Reserve personnel.
Read more here.
[From me]
If the man is an atheist, what difference does it make? He doesn’t believe in God so the prayer won’t affect him. The military has less than 50 complaints out of 2.2 million personnel. Also, why should the majority have to give in to one person?
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
10 responses so far
Kevin,
Requiring him to participate against his will in religious activities of any kind affects him.
Sounds to me like you’re not too keen on minority rights, are you?
How many people did you say the majority is giving into, “one”? Jews, atheists, agnostics, Muslims and people of other faiths are a minority in the military. Would you like to see all of these people forced to pray to Jesus?
By the way, what is your opinion of the various disabilities rights acts which require your tax dollars to be squandered on things like special facilities in public buildings to make them more access to the disabled minority? What do you think of the Fair Housing Act which prohibits the majority from discriminating against minorities? Why should the majority of able-bodied Americans give in to the minority with disabilities?
Personally, one of the things that I think is particularly great about the U.S. is its self-directed journey: from a deplorable beginning that embraced slavery (the most egregious form of violation of individual rights), Americans have developed an unwavering respect for individual rights. We aren’t there yet but we (most of us) have come a very long way.
I don’t he should have to go to Christian prayer services, but I also don’t think that Christians (or any other religious or nonreligious people) should be restricted from talking about their faith to others. If they were proselytizing to an individual who asked them to stop yet they continued, then I could see some sort of punitive action being taken.
It’s not that I’m on the side of those that don’t believe. I’m on the side of the First Amendment. We have to work within the law except for when the law is in contrast with the Bible. I don’t think it is here.
Michael’s last blog post..2 John
If this fellow is, indeed, an atheist, then he has no religion … correct? He denies the very existence of any supernatural deity.
Therefore, if he professes non-religion, how can he have “religious freedoms?” Seems a bit oxymoronic.
Geoff Baggett’s last blog post..Answering Questions - Part 3
While I agree with you Geoff, I don’t think that is the point.
It is kind of like saying, “If you aren’t guilty, you won’t be worried about the government wire tapping your phone.” You have a right not to have your phone tapped (except in extreme circumstances regardless of whether or not you are a criminal). This gentleman has a right to not be forced to go to prayer regardless of whether or not he believes there is a God.
Michael’s last blog post..2 John
I think A3’s taking it to the extreme with his reaction. I pretty much agree with Michael here. And I see where Geoff is coming from.
My very first thought was it is “silly” to sue your own government over something like this. We are way to “sue happy”. Lawyers are ruining our country.
It’s probably the Democrat’s fault.
I blame Obama.
Or the French.
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..Oklahoma 35 - Texas Christian 10
Geoff and Michael & Rick (?) who agree,
Incorrect.
In 1878 (Reynolds v. United States) the U.S. Supreme Court said: “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.”
Now fast-forward to 1961 (Torcaso v. Watkins) where the Supreme Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
The the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Legally, atheism is a religion in the context of Freedom of Religion, and atheists enjoy equal protection.
I guess we all need lessons in the English language and should read what the Constitution actually says- not what the Supreme Court feeds us. There is nothing about freedom of religion or from religion in the Constitution- the ACTUAL wording is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,….”.
I guess the plain English of that esacpes us all- I don’t see a law by COngress anywhere in this news article.
A3,
That seems mighty “convenient” to me. And quite frankly, rather hypocritical.
Here’s how Merriam Webster defines religion:
A3, I’d like to ask an honest question: does it take faith to NOT believe in God? The reason I ask is because I have always heard it takes MORE faith to NOT believe in God than it does to actually believe in God. I understand that is based on all of the revelation of Himself in the world, nature, creation, etc which leads people to believe in Him rather than not.
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..Bailout fails
Lloyd,
I agree: we should all be more familiar with what our Constitution actually says. In addition, we should all be more familiar with how our judicial system actually works. We should understand that our country is governed by common law (in addition to constitutional law, regulatory law, and statutory law). In fact, it is not possible to know the law by simply reading the Constitution, no matter how many English lessons you have. You can only determine the legal boundaries of the Constitutional by consulting the common law.
Rick,
Don’t shoot the messenger, I’m only telling you what the law is regarding atheism as a religion. And since this discussion is about an individual’s freedom of religion, and this individual is an atheist, I find the legal definition to be apropos to the discussion.
It doesn’t matter how Merriam Webster defines religion in this case. For deciding how to interpret an American’s rights under the Constitution with regard to religious freedom, it only matters how religion is defined in the case law.
I frequently hear that said too. But no, I don’t find that to be true at all. To believe there is no God (at least the particular ones that people claim exist), one must simply be open to considering all of the available evidence about how the universe came into existence, and then compare that to all of the available evidence for the existence of the particular God in question. I find that the quantity and quality of evidence for a natural universe far exceeds the quantity and quality of evidence that the gods in question created it. So I find that it takes far less faith to accept a universe that naturally came into being than it does to accept the existence of a God.
This all seems very familiar. First, I have to say that we appreciate Spc. Chalker’s service. However, I would be curious to know exactly what happened. There have been times when some commanders or chaplains have gotten a bit overzealous, but their hands have been smacked enough by now that everyone should know better.
I know that there are many required military events where chaplains deliver “non-sectarian prayers.” These are generic invocations, and will reflect the faith of the one praying.
As to the emphasis of spiritual things, that cannot and should not change. The chaplains exist in order to provide for the exercise of all faiths. If the exercise of religion offends somebody, there’s not much you can do. The majority of soldiers happen to come from a Christian worldview, so naturally that may come through from time to time, but there are many in the military who are bending over backwards to not offend others.
Matt Knight’s last blog post..Ron Paul is Right about Government Bailouts