Atheist Discrimination in the Army: A Firsthand Account

HumanistNetworkNews.org
May 16, 2007

Several weeks ago I found myself disturbed after reading an item in the American Chronicle headlined, "Army to EO Reps: 'Discrimination Against Atheists OK'".

The piece, authored by 1st Lt. Wayne Adkins, explained how he filed a formal Equal Opportunity complaint against a high ranking officer in the National Guard for making disparaging comments about atheists in the press. When he discovered how the Army was handling his complaint, he resigned.

I contacted Adkins to get a better understanding of the blatant discrimination against atheists in the U.S. military.

In my correspondence with Adkins, now a former "atheist in a foxhole", I found him to be a wonderful role model for atheists. As he explains in the interview, he resigned from the army due to his commitment to equality and justice. As one who once studied to become a Baptist preacher, Adkins became an atheist through a personal journey guided by reason and compassion --elements he found lacking in many institutions imbued with religion.

Can you briefly describe the events that led to your filing an EO (Equal Opportunity) complaint?

Since the deployments began after 9/11 there has been a rise in the instances of chaplains and other officers disparaging atheists in the press, primarily by perpetuating the old untrue negative stereotype that there are no atheists in foxholes. The increase in these instances is due to the increase in persons such as chaplains doing interviews with the press because of deployments, but the underlying prejudice that leads to these remarks has always been there.

These remarks are offensive to atheists because if taken literally it implies that atheists do not serve at all which is patently false. If taken figuratively, the way most intend them, these remarks imply that atheists are all liars and cowards who really do believe what others believe and will admit it as soon as they get good and scared.

Army Regulation 600-20 (PDF) says that disparaging soldiers on the basis of religion is unlawful discrimination. The regulation also defines prejudice as "a negative feeling or dislike based upon a faulty or inflexible generalization (that is, prejudging a person or group without knowledge or facts)." Claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes is both a "faulty" and "inflexible generalization."

On August 19th I filed a formal EO complaint with the Ohio National Guard EO office against Lt. Gen Blum [who had stated that there were no atheists in foxholes]. I had to spend an hour and a half explaining to the state EO officer and Sergeant Major what an atheist is, what an atheist isn't, why this is offensive, etc. Then I waited.

After not hearing anything for about six weeks (a very long time for a formal EO complaint), I called to find out what the disposition was.... Later that day [weeks later] I got a call back … and I was told that nothing was going to be done and that they had simply dropped it. I asked why I hadn't been given a written response to my formal complaint in accordance with regulation and I was told that none was coming. I was further informed that if I wanted anything in writing I should file for documents under the Freedom of Information Act, which I did. It was partially denied.

The few documents I received were mostly items I had submitted. The two-page complaint review memorandum had 28 areas blacked out including the names of everyone involved in preparing and reviewing the complaint. The discussion paragraph (two sentences) said that "Though perhaps insensitive, (Blum's) remarks regarding atheists did not rise to a level that violated a standard." The second sentence was about Blum's intent in making the comments which has nothing to do with wether they were offensive or not.

Since the complaint.... My EO rep returned from the state EO conference and said, "Sir, you have to see this." He produced some training documents from the EO binder they had been given at the conference. It contained several scenarios.... One was about a lieutenant who filed a formal complaint against a general officer for saying "there are no atheists in foxholes...."

At the end of the discussion Sergeant Major Henderson told the EO reps that this was not discrimination because atheism is not a religion and therefore atheists are not protected by the regulation.

Did you feel your only choice was to resign?

No. But I do believe that it is the only thing that will ultimately make a difference. The military cares about EO issues because EO issues affect numbers. The only thing that will get their attention is losing quality soldiers and officers at a time when they can’t really afford to lose anyone.

Atheists don't need anything from the Army. We don't have special dietary needs like some religions. We don't need copies of "holy" books printed and distributed to us at taxpayer expense. We don't need time off from work to attend services. We don't need chaplains to visit us or perform ceremonies for us. We would just really like it if our leaders wouldn't publicly disparage us for not believing in the supernatural. That's it. It's not too much to ask for.

In fact, it's the law.

Elaine Friedman is the editor of Humanist Network News, the weekly e-zine of the Institute for Humanist Studies.