http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_re_us/military_religion_lawsuit
This story tells how Army Sp. Jeremy Hall, an Atheist, is suing the Secy. of Defense and a Major Wellborn alleging "widespread violations of religious freedom".
I am a Christian, but agree with Hall if what he alleges took place then there was a violation indeed (who the heck would put Ann Coulter quotes anywhere? The woman is odd lol). But "widespread"? I know, everyone from the defense side of the story to the press will use the most damming powerful words they can to make the most of the case.
I also see the point of Hall that his "religion" is discriminated against; if he were truly threatened with military action for holding meetings of Atheists then that is wrong.
But ... is taking all religious symbols off military equipment (placed by the soldiers running the thing) going too far in the other direction? Why is it always either/or?
What do you think? Is there a happy middle for us?
2007-12-18
23:18:17
·
12 answers
·
asked by
arewethereyet
7
in
Religion & Spirituality