April 29, 2008
ONCE YOU'VE GIVEN THEM GUNS, SWORN THEM TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY, AND TAUGHT THEM TO KILL THE ENEMY... (via Lisa Huang Fleischman):
Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats (NEELA BANERJEE, 4/26/08, NY Times)
When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.
...it's too late to ask them to be nice to the Godless. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 29, 2008 10:02 AM
Nevertheless, it is not unconstitutional to be an atheist. Nor is it against army regulations. Major Welborn is just a bigot.
Posted by: Brandon at April 29, 2008 10:39 AMNo, it isn't too late to ask an officer to act like one, nor is it too much to ask that he not engage in religious discrimination.
Posted by: Mikey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 29, 2008 11:59 AM
Rule of thumb: when one side in a lawsuit goes running to the press, their case has holes in it,and what they tell you may be the truth, but it's been told selectively if not creatively.
If anything, it sounds as if some free-speech troublemaker and martyr wannabe is getting his intended publicity. Mission Accomplished!
It's anticonstitutional. Even their oath is worthless.
Posted by: oj at April 29, 2008 5:52 PMIt's anticonstitutional. Even their oath is worthless.
Could you point out where in the Constitution you are getting this from?
Posted by: Mikey at April 30, 2008 7:23 AM
As it states, a purpose of the Constitution is to secure the Blessings of Liberty, a reference to the Declaration of Independence. If you don't believe in the Blessings you're an inherently unreliable defender.
Posted by: oj at April 30, 2008 8:31 AMThat's the preamble. It isn't dispositive or enforcable.
The Constitution also states there aren't to be any religious tests. And establishing a national church was prohibited.
Just because you want something to be one way, Mr. Judd, doesn't make it that way.
Posted by: Mikey at April 30, 2008 12:17 PM
The Preamble is the point. The rest is mere detail of how to achieve the Preamble.
Religious test? No one cares which denomination they are.
Posted by: oj at April 30, 2008 6:38 PM