Atheist Soldier Stands Ground in Spite of Threats for Refusing to Participate in Military Graduation

[cleanhippie]

Yesterday morning, at a rehearsal for their AIT graduation at Fort Jackson, which was being held in a chapel, the graduating soldiers were ordered to bow their heads and clasp their hands in front of them while an invocation was being given. One soldier refused to do this, and immediately shot of an email from his iPhone to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) while the rehearsal was still going on. The email began: “I graduate tomorrow from AIT, and an invocation is being given in which I am a captive audience and am being ordered to bow my head and clasp my hands in front of me.”

Mikey Weinstein responded by sending the soldier his cell phone number. The soldier responded, “Will call when able. May be pulling me from graduation. Have to see commander and 1SG.”

--snip--

I was then sent to see my company commander and 1st SG. I told them my issue and was again told it was unfounded. I was told that if I did not bow my head and clasp my hands that I would be subject to UCMJ punitive action. As I refuse to compromise on my beliefs, the idea that my military career could be cut short due to standing up for my beliefs frightened me. I was told I could do it or call the inspector general.

When I returned to the chapel, I asked my cadre if I could call IG. He told me to wait until after practice. I was then again ridiculed by my peers, however I stood my ground. Shortly thereafter, my commander came to me and told me that bowing was now suddenly ‘optional’ and that I could remain at attention.

Mr. Weinstein moved remarkably fast on this, and I believe that my cadre’s knowledge that I already had a lawyer from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in the loop is what caused them to change their blatantly unconstitutional order.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2011/10/20/atheist-soldier-stands-their-ground-in-spite-of-threats-for-refusing-to-participate-in-military-graduation-prayer/

---------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't understand. What is so damned difficult about NOT FORCING PEOPLE TO PRAY????????? Why do we have to go through this nonsense day after day after day.....

[NMMNG]

1. "What is so damned difficult about NOT FORCING PEOPLE TO PRAY?"

Don't you understand? It's a violation of their religious freedom, and an insult to their beliefs, if you don't participate in their rituals along with them.

[msongs]

2. if they are gonna kill in violation of their religious teaching, you can at least pray with them lol

[mzteris]

3. it makes them uncomfortably aware

that others have acted on that little niggling doubt they always have and are brave enough - smart enough - to say ENOUGH! I don't HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS FANTASY ANYMORE!

[haele]

4. The issue in this case was uniformity. All cadets had to move in unison.

So if this meant the command wanted everyone bowing one's head in prayer for the invocation, that was a command decision.
When I was at bootcamp back in the 1970's, they had us stand at ease, so we could bow our heads for the invocation if we wanted to. None of the "ordered to pray" business. Yeah, we were captive for the chaplin's little speech, but it was pretty much non-denominational and very short because the chaplin knew that not all the recruits were Xtians.

Haele

[cleanhippie]

5. The issue in this case is unconstitutional.

It is an unlawful order to command someone to bow their head for a prayer. Period.

[haele]

18. The military is unique in that some portions of the constitution are superceded by the UCMJ

That being said, I don't disagree with you that it was unconstitutional. I'm just pointing out where the US Military's position on this is.
If a sailor or soldier wants to claim an order is unconstitutional, they have to go through the UCMJ system, even if they bring in a lawyer or the ACLU - and the command has a say as to whether or not a hearing is warranted.

I've experianced this before, where the ACLU was called in to represent 19 female sailors that were being kicked out on just on the rumor they were Lesbian back before the old DADT era. What may be unconstitutional has to go through a military hearing before it can be ruled to be unconstitutional. And "Good Order and Discipline" tends to be the catch-all phrase -
This cadet was not ordered to pray directly, this cadet was ordered to act in unison with his company. And that's what the military school will claim.
Right or Wrong.

Haele

[ChadwickHenryWard]

22. I've always thought that the UCMJ was bullshit.

Why should people in the military have fewer rights than civilians, particularly when it comes to due process? We call the rights we cherish natural rights because they apply to everyone equally, arising naturally from one's humanity. Why should those in the military be denied those rights? Why should they have a special, peculiar set of protections that are bare bones compared to what civilians enjoy?

[cleanhippie]

36. It was an unlawful order.

I spent 20 years in the Navy. This soldier dis the exact right thing. One is not required to follow an order one KNOWS to be unlawful.

[Kurmudgeon]

6. A soldier does not get to choose when he does and does not obey orders.

He's in the wrong place if he wants to play that game, it doesn't matter how religious or irreligious he is.

[NMMNG]

7. So you approve of coerced religion?

Nice. :puke:

[cleanhippie]

9. Patently false.

A service member is under no obligation to follow an unlawful order. In fact, if a service member DOES follow an unlawful order, they can be held accountable for their actions. See the Abu Graib courts martial for more detail on just how this works.

I taught the Navy Rights & Responsibility course for more that 15 years, and this topic had 5 hours of it own time.


And it is noted how you have NOTHING to say about the unlawful order that was given. Could it be because you agree with it?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

17. That's flat out not true.

A soldier may disobey any order that he believes to be unlawful. In fact, they're required to. In this case, the order was unconstitutional.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Holy shit.

You have no problems with forced prayer? Yeah, no problems with theocracy.

[sakabatou]

30. So you're forced to participate in a religious ceremony in the military?

Really?

[LAGC]

48. Ah yes, and some wonder why "liberal" Christians get called enablers of forced piety.

You disgust me.

:puke:

[westerebus]

8. Really?

" I already had a lawyer from MRFF in the loop. "

Hope that phone is good to go in AF-PAK, in case he needs some support with that other religious element.

[cleanhippie]

10. Really?

did you really miss the point here?

[westerebus]

11. The irony?

No, I don't think so. But, thanks for asking.

[cleanhippie]

12. What irony?

It's late, I'm tired, maybe I'm not seeing it. What irony?

[NMMNG]

13. You're not the only one

:shrug:

[westerebus]

14. He's in the friggin ARMY.

On his cell phone and has a lawyer in the loop.

You don't see that as ironic?

[NMMNG]

15. Soldiers aren't allowed to have lawyers or cell phones? n/t

[westerebus]

21. Apparently in the army it's not a problem.

I think there may be some regulations as to where and when and to whom you may converse with thought.

Middle of a fire fight? May be not the best time?

Calling home Sunday morning from inside a secure base? Priceless.

[westerebus]

16. AIT

Advanced Infantry Training.

Guess where he's going?

As in Pashtun speakers who hold very strident beliefs completely unconcerned about who's lawyer is on call.

And the mission of the army?

And you do not see the irony?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Oh. I get it. In order to combat religious intolerance we must be

equally intolerant.

Got it.

[westerebus]

23. If that works for you...

Then you got it.

Some how, however, I don't think you get it.

The irony here is you misconstrue the nature of the military's mission and the actions the soldier will find himself in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. And his mission is to pray upon command?

What the FUCK?

[westerebus]

25. So where in the OP was he ordered to pray?

Bow his head and clasp his hands, looks like the parade rest position, only your hands are in front of your body.

I've stood in that position more times that I'd like to remember.

Most times at funerals or wakes.

Honor Guard duties during a prayer service for the deceased, you bow your head.

I wasn't praying.

No one ever order me to pray.

With the sole exception of basic training.

The DI would give the command: Prepare to pray! Ready, pray!

The response was: God bless the Marine Corps!

And god bless the next sorry son of a bitch who comes down range for he shall surely met his maker!

Brings a tear to your eye don't it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Being forced to present a public semblance of prayer IS being ordered to pray.

And when I was in boot, praying was done at 10:00am Sunday morning, and my DIs didn't engage in any of that Hollywood bullshit - John Wayne was a fucking civilian.

[westerebus]

27. I guess your DI didn't have the sense of humor mine did.

Parris Island 1968. You?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. San Diego, 74. nt

[westerebus]

29. Figures.

That's why you have no sense of humor. Earthquakes. Messes people up. lol

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Yep. That's probably it.

Yeah, well, what'r ya gonna do?

Semper fi.

[westerebus]

34. No biggie.

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children ring any bells?

It's not like we got to vote on what we wanted to do.

They said go, we went.

That's all I'm saying here.

We may have been there physically, mentally? Not even close.

I don't know about you, we got high at any thirty on the dot. When ever and where ever we could. Free fire zones excluded.

There's a time and a place for some things.

If he didn't want to appear he was praying, well he had his say.

I don't think that's gonna fly in bandit country or what ever they call it these days.

He is in the army infantry. I wish him luck and I wish him well.

May be some San Diego grunts will keep him warm and safe.

The one's I know are some outstanding people.

It ain't easy being green.

Semper Fi.

[cleanhippie]

40. No, I see it as a prudent course of action given the circumstances.

Hardly ironic.

[humblebum]

31. Where else would he stand but on the ground? nt

[mwrguy]

33. He's not being forced to pray

He's being forced to position his body a certain way, just like if he was ordered to parade rest or eyes right.

[laconicsax]

35. That's the weakest excuse I've ever read. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

41. Yeahhhhhhhhhhh, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And if the officer had ordered a christian soldier to participate in a ceremony where god and the holy spirit are denied, everyone would be just fine with that.

Privilege. Plain and simple.

[cleanhippie]

37. Is anyone AMAZED at how much tolerance there is on this board for forced prayer?

:wtf:

[NMMNG]

38. Would the apologists still be defending the Army

if they'd ordered a Christian to bow towards Mecca, or to do this




as part of the uniform group exercise? I doubt it. But apparently anything is acceptable when it's Christianity.

[cleanhippie]

39. IOKIYAC

[NMMNG]

47. Indeed

[Goblinmonger]

42. I'm not amazed at all.

I am amazed that our of our usuals hasn't been on her to descry militant atheists.

[haele]

43. I think you're mistaking tolerance for understanding the way the system works.

I know you were in the military, and having been in the military, you should remember that it's very difficult to use the claim you are disobeying an "unlawful order" to not participate in unit activity at the time of that activity.
Any soldier, sailor, or cadet - anyone without power in the hierarchy - is required to either follow orders or go to a hearing to explain why they aren't following orders.

As for the forced religion component, when this has happened before, most of the times it was dealt with fairly after the fact when complaints were made up the chain of command. And there have been cases were an officer who made such a requirement had a reprimand put in his jacket (which is a career killer) or removed from his position of authority when he or she was coercive. We got an XO canned for that once, making the people who went to his pre-mast investigation hearings kneel down and pray for forgiveness for their sins.

The UCMJ does not allow for coercion when it comes to religion, legal issues, or affecting someone's career in a negative or positive way, however, if it does happen, there are steps that the members are supposed to take.
The cadet in this article had already lawyered up and was ready to fight it, because he knew it was going to happen. That was the correct response.

If he didn't know it was going to happen and hadn't prepared for it, then he would be screwed - he'd be abused into participating (which means he would have to complain after the fact), or he would be punished - rightfully, according to the UCMJ for not participating, and would have to wait for a hearing to clear his record.

And again, that's the way it is in the military. The military organization takes the view that they can't afford for someone to just disobey orders and possibly get quite a few of their fellow soldiers killed, because that soldier felt the orders might have been unlawful.

This isn't tolerance, this is the system is set up. And if we want to change it, we need to go through Congress.

Haele

[cleanhippie]

44. Generally, you are right. But in THIS case...

a clear cut unlawful order, not a "combat" scenario, no pressing need for immediate compliance, the soldier did the exact right thing. Its standing up for the little things, like this, that let the chain of command know that they cannot get away with the bigger things, like what is going on at the Air Force Academy.

I was taught, and taught the sailors in my charge, to be THINKERS, not just robots. You need robots during combat, or flight operations, etc, not during a graduation ceremony,

[ChadwickHenryWard]

46. No.

You must be new here.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

50. Unfortunately, there's the 1987 United States v. Stanley (483 US 669), which seems to say

that the US can treat soldiers pretty much however it wants

I really can't see much of a state interest in forcing soldiers to pretend to pray at ceremonies, so I would see little reason to side with the military in the case described in the OP, assuming the facts there are correctly described (an assumption which one should, however, always be willing to question when one doesn't have multiple independent reports)

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the issue of soldiers' rights:

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Stanley
No. 86-393
Argued April 21, 1987
Decided June 25, 1987
483 U.S. 669

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

In February, 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered to participate in a program ostensibly designed to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses against chemical warfare. He was released from his then-current duties and went to the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Four times that month, Stanley was secretly administered doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), pursuant to an Army plan to study the effects of the drug on human subjects. According to his Second Amended Complaint (the allegations of which we accept for purposes of this decision), as a result of the LSD exposure, Stanley has suffered from hallucinations and periods of incoherence and memory loss, was impaired in his military performance, and would on occasion "awake from sleep at night and, without reason, violently beat his wife and children, later being unable to recall the entire incident." App. 5. He was discharged from the Army in 1969. One year later, his marriage dissolved because of the personality changes wrought by the LSD.

On December 10, 1975, the Army sent Stanley a letter soliciting his cooperation in a study of the long-term effects of LSD on "volunteers who participated" in the 1958 tests.

This was the Government's first notification to Stanley that he had been given LSD during his time in Maryland ...

... In our view, the court took an unduly narrow view of the circumstances in which courts should decline to permit nonstatutory damages actions for injuries arising out of military service ... For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment that Stanley can assert an FTCA claim on remand to the District Court and reverse its judgment refusing to dismiss the Bivens claims against petitioners ...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html