TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - An atheist soldier who claims the military violates religious freedoms should have complained through the chain of command instead of civilian courts, the government said in arguing that his lawsuit should be dismissed.
Justice Department attorneys who filed the federal court motion this week also said the military has ample policies to protect service members from religious discrimination.
Spc. Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, also participating in the lawsuit, claim the military permits religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians who try to force their views on others, especially subordinates.
Hall alleges that while serving in Iraq, Army Reserve Maj. Freddy J. Welborn violated his religious rights when Hall tried to hold a meeting with other atheists and freethinkers. The lawsuit alleges Welborn prevented the meeting and threatened to take action against Hall.
Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka attorney representing Hall and the foundation, said the soldier couldn't complain to commanders because of fear of reprisal. Hall says that other soldiers have threatened him and that he was sent back to Fort Riley from overseas because the Army couldn't protect him.
Welborn has denied Hall's allegations. In arguing further for dismissal, the government said there was no indication that any injury caused by Welborn would likely recur.
The more than 300-page government filing included the Army's command policy and unit equal opportunity training guide, arguing that the military, rather than civilian courts, was the appropriate venue and that Hall has failed to exhaust military remedies.
"Judicial review would significantly interfere with Army operations and intrude on disciplinary and personnel decisions entrusted to military judgment," the government wrote. "The Army was deprived of the opportunity to promptly investigate the alleged misconduct and take appropriate disciplinary action."
Hall is assigned to a military police unit at Fort Riley and due to leave the Army next year.
RSS
Patriotism is not limited to Christians. It does sound like there was a Major mistake (pun intended) and there are military channels for dealing with this.
If that area of law is anything like education law due process must be followed which has clearly not been done. Just as long as the case isn't in the California Courts....
daniel and viking, from what I've read it sounds like the adage two wrongs don't make a right fits this scenario. The major who raised the fuss at this meeting that had been given the permission of the chaplain to be held and the soldier not using the proper channels within the military system to address his grievences. My hope is that it will be sent back to the military and then I will be very interested in seeing the outcome.
Hi DP, I don't know all the details of course but here are some answers to your questions. The meeting was set up according to proceedure by the soldier's chaplain. The meeting was during off duty time for those requesting participation. The meeting was not closed. A major decided to attend and during the meeting began denouncing those others attending for their lack of faith and patriotism. Among other things he reportedly threatened to ruin this soldiers military career and later instigated others to threaten him as well. Where I see this soldier as going wrong is that he did not use the established administrative and judicial proceedures available within the armed services. If he had attempted those first and been denied redress then an appeal to the civilian courts would have been appropriate. In this case it would seem the request for dismissal is appropriate and he should be refered back to the military justice system.
What a crock! My son has been in the Army for almost 2 years. There must be WAY more to this story than is being told. This guy sounds like someone who didn't get his way and now is crying to the civil courts because he knows what happened wasn't discrimination.
When did he want to have the meeting? Would they have allowed another group to meet at that time? Did they follow proceedure for having said meeting? (We all know the military has a proceedure for even their own proceedures....)? So many questions, so few answers....
"Hall says that other soldiers have threatened him and that he was sent back to Fort Riley from overseas because the Army couldn't protect him."
The Army couldn't protect one of their own soldiers from Christian thugs. Interesting.