Comment: Again and again, that is not the issue

You misread the article completely.

He was not "offended" by the religious people - he was punished, discriminated against, in other words he was not evaluated on his skills and abilities - it is called prejudice. He didn't "walk away" because he was "offended" - he no longer wanted to be a part of religious instruction and propaganda under the guise of the US Military.

I agree it was not "his right to force that environment to be free from religion" - that is a gross fallacy, and has zero to do with the issue. It wasn't that religious people were around him. It was that his education, his career, was being hampered and effected because of the prejudice - and that he would not receive favorable treatment and rewards that others did because they were Christian.

If the military was not part of the government, it wouldn't be an issue. As they are an agency of the government, they cannot give preferencial treatment to Christians and punish non-Christians for not being Christian. That is, defacto, establishing a religion.

It happens daily in the military - it is just rare that someone finally had enough.

You are using the old "...not freedom from religion" BS. That is true I guess in a wide sense in general public (you cannot shut down a church or a street preacher because someone doesn't like it). But, when it is a government agency, religious expressing is fine as long as religion itself is not used in the treatment of an individual.

Trust me, atheists have to deal with a religious environment everywhere, the US is the most religious nation on Earth. And, at least in my point of view but I'm guessing this holds true for a huge majority of the nonreligious, it doesn't "offend" me. I find it silly and constantly hypocritical, but neigther I, nor the soldier in the article, have a right to not be offended. That is not the point.

I know you don't get it. That's OK - have fun with your brainwashing.