Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There are a couple of new developments in the lawsuit filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation against the Pentagon on behalf of an atheist soldier who has experienced harassment in Iraq from Christian superior officers. The first one was certainly predictable; that soldier is now getting threats and even worse treatment from his "brothers" in arms:
On Friday, Mikey Weinstein, the foundation's founder and president, released to The Associated Press copies of e-mails from Hall in which the soldier said he had been harassed and threatened on blogs with being killed by friendly fire for filing the lawsuit.
Some details:
Hall wrote in a series of e-mails to Weinstein that he feared for his safety after being "hallchecked" -- being shoved against the wall in a hallway -- by fellow soldiers who objected to his lawsuit. Bloggers on the Internet have also referred to "fragging" Hall, or killing him by friendly fire."I hope I am not the victim of a hate crime while I sleep tonight. I do not want to die for my country this way," wrote Hall, who said a non-commissioned officer was threatening to beat him. "I'm doing my best right now. But I am still afraid that I might be harmed or worse."
And it sounds like he has good reason to fear:
Some postings on military-related blogs have been critical of Hall, with some people wondering how atheists can claim religious freedom if they practice no sanctioned faith.One individual, posting under the name "Hidog," suggested Hall put on an orange vest and carry a sign "Bong hits 4 Allah" through the streets of Iraq, "because apparently, your Bill of Rights trump your CO's (commanding officer's) orders."
Well yes, the bill of rights does trump the orders of a commanding officer when those orders violate the bill of rights. A superior officer does not have the authority to order a soldier to say a prayer, nor does he have the authority to forbid a soldier from forming a discussion group among his peers about atheism any more than he would have the authority to prevent Christians from forming such groups. This is pure Christian supremacy, plain and simple, and it is a clear violation of the Constitution.
The second development is that the original complaint got the name of the Major who broke up Hall's meeting wrong. Jason Leopold reports:
An Army major who was sued last week for allegedly threatening to retaliate against a soldier, and whom Pentagon officials said could not be located, has been tracked down through his MySpace page.Freddy J. Welborn was identified in a federal lawsuit filed last week by Army Spc. Jeremy Hall, 22, and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog organization. Because his name was mistakenly listed in the complaint as Paul Welborne, the Army said it was unable to locate him.
However, Mikey Weinstein, the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said researchers working for his group discovered Welborn's MySpace page on Sunday morning. Weinstein said the complaint his organization and Hall filed against Welborn, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will be amended and refiled in US District Court in Kansas City, Kansas on Tuesday to reflect Welborn's proper identity.
I'm going to get a copy of the complaint so I can report on this in more detail.
Comments
You think the Army might be getting a much needed recruitment boost out of all this?
Join the Army and get fragged for Jesus.
Posted by: Dr X | September 27, 2007 9:33 AM
Just raises more questions about what happened to Tillman, doesn't it? Too bad they destroyed his diary.
Posted by: Bad | September 27, 2007 9:57 AM
I'm not surprised at all by the threats, but I'll go into that in more detail later.
Regarding Tillman's diary: yes, plenty of awful things about the entire incident and not one of the Army's finer moments to be sure (been a fair number of them lately, haven't there?). With the diary though, the interesting wrinkle isn't that the Army might have destroyed it, but that Tillman kept a diary 'down range' in the first place. The 2nd Ranger Battalion is a SOCOM unit. SOF personnel aren't supposed to be keeping diaries in combat zones. It's a pretty basic point of SOF operational security. Regardless of anything else involved with the diary or Tillman's death, he really shouldn't have been keeping a diary down range in the first place; and he should have known that.
Posted by: Josh | September 27, 2007 11:39 AM
...not one of the Army's finer moments to be sure (been a fair number of them lately, haven't there?).
Be fair, Josh - who's gonna report the heroic stories, and who'd believe them if they did? Even Fox doesn't do a good job of acknowledging heroes, except for those the DoD Public Affairs Office spoon-feeds them. We need another Audie Murphy (or Chesty Puller for you jarheads)...but even if we had one (and we might, out there somewhere), the PAO would screw it up.
Posted by: BobApril | September 27, 2007 1:28 PM
Bob,
Nope...you're right. I retract that cynical comment, including the parenthetical. Sorry...cranky today.
-J
Posted by: Josh | September 27, 2007 1:41 PM
Tillman himself was pretty heroic.
It's just that his heroism doesn't reflect very well on the military establishment. The Pentagon apparently only likes heroes that make the Pentagon look good. If a soldier's heroism isn't of the type that makes Glorious Leader look more glorious, then why should the military brass call attention to it?
Posted by: Wes | September 27, 2007 6:32 PM
I love the smell of Christian death threats in the morning.
WWJF
(Who Would Jesus Frag)
Posted by: khan | September 27, 2007 7:05 PM
Here's the military blog mentioned in the article.
Posted by: BruceH | September 27, 2007 11:09 PM
Holy cow. There are some first class fucking morons on that site. With guns. How comforting.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 27, 2007 11:52 PM
Yes, there are some morons on the site. But there are also plenty willing to take the time to discuss the meaning behind the Constitution, and afford the soldier the benefit of any doubt.
This seems to be an isolated incident, with an over zealous superior AND subordinate, not indicative of a widespread problem. I base this on my 20 years in, and the fact that I was outspoken about my atheism. The bible thumpers had a much harder time than I did, if they chose to speak of it at all. Nobody wants to hear others touting that crap, religious or otherwise. A military member's intelligence, efficiency and work ethic is still regarded much more than, and usually to the exclusion of, their religious preferences, as long as it is left alone.
Posted by: Steve | September 28, 2007 6:45 AM
And to think this is the military that's supposed to be fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq.
Posted by: Dene Bebbington | September 28, 2007 8:27 AM
Hey, Dene, back up a minute - remember what we're discussing here? Remember SPC Hall? HE'S part of that military, too. So's the chaplain who agreed to let him post the fliers and hold the meeting. So are several of the people posting on that Military.com discussion board that are refuting the fundamentalist arguments. Don't judge us all by this one example.
Posted by: BobApril | September 28, 2007 8:58 AM
BoBApril, I'm not judging all the US military by those intolerant people, but at the same time I wonder if many are like them. I also wonder if those intolerant members of the military are the types who'd be vigorously applauding Bush when he talks of freedom.
Posted by: Dene Bebbington | September 28, 2007 5:51 PM
Steve - "not indicative of a widespread problem"? You must be reading something different than I am. Did you see the part about verbal and physical harassment by other soldiers, and public threats against his life?
And where do you get the idea that the subordinate was somehow "overzealous" and that this was part of the problem? Do you really find it appropriate to imply by your phrasing that the behavior of the harassing superior and the harassed subordinate were somehow equivalent?
I'm glad your individual anecdotal experience as a military atheist was so lovely, but how about basing your opinion about this current case on the facts of the current case? When were you in uniform? Maybe things have gotten worse since then, or maybe you were just lucky.
Posted by: MPW | October 1, 2007 8:19 AM
I'm glad your individual anecdotal experience as a military atheist was so lovely, but how about basing your opinion about this current case on the facts of the current case?
This situation appears to have been getting much worse. there was a little freedom for vietnam soldiers and more accpetance that they would have differing beliefs but an army supported by a fundiecrat president is a completely different monster. i hope this guy survives but i dont trust the xians not to frag him.
Posted by: yoyo | May 3, 2008 3:27 AM