Posted on Sep 4, 2014
Who else thinks the AF is going to get burned on this one? - Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say "so help me God"
96.7K
1.36K
750
30
30
0
I think the AF is going to get burned bad by this. While 10 USC 502 may include the four words "so help me god" and the AFI no longer states that it is optional; Article VI, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution trumps US Code:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I have never forced anyone to say those words when administering the oath nor have I had anyone require me to say them when I was reciting the officer's oath of office at my commissioning ceremony and subsequent promotions.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-
EDIT:
The AF ended up changing course (rightly so according to the DoD legal review).
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140917/NEWS/309170066/Air-Force-nixes-help-me-God-requirement-oaths
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I have never forced anyone to say those words when administering the oath nor have I had anyone require me to say them when I was reciting the officer's oath of office at my commissioning ceremony and subsequent promotions.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-
EDIT:
The AF ended up changing course (rightly so according to the DoD legal review).
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140917/NEWS/309170066/Air-Force-nixes-help-me-God-requirement-oaths
Posted in these groups: 
Oath
Re-enlistment
Oath Re-enlistment
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 96
10
10
0
It looks like this will be coming to a resolution pretty soon. http://www.stripes.com/news/us/air-force-seeks-dod-ruling-on-re-enlistment-oath-1.302225
"“I’ll tell you that there is no legal requirement to say ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath/affirmation by a person taking the oath,” the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said in an email. “That is, saying ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath (not the person administering the oath).”
"A host of Supreme Court and lower court cases support the airman’s right to opt out of calling on a deity, as does as the text of the U.S. Constitution itself, said military legal expert Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale University."
Despite opinions to the contrary, from the standpoint of Constitutional law this is pretty close to a slam-dunk. The Constitution requires both that affirmation be an option and that no religious test be employed. The Federal statute *also* says that an affirmation be required. In law, an affirmation is equivalent to an oath but without reference to religion in any form (outside of law it is not so specific), so an affirmation with "so help me god" still required is a contradiction in terms. Even outside of the affirmation point, the courts consider "so help me god" a religious test. There's really no way around this, the Air Force has departed from the requirements of the Constitution, while the other services *are* complying.
MSgt Lowell Skelton | TSgt Joshua Copeland | Maj Matt Hylton
"“I’ll tell you that there is no legal requirement to say ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath/affirmation by a person taking the oath,” the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said in an email. “That is, saying ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath (not the person administering the oath).”
"A host of Supreme Court and lower court cases support the airman’s right to opt out of calling on a deity, as does as the text of the U.S. Constitution itself, said military legal expert Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale University."
Despite opinions to the contrary, from the standpoint of Constitutional law this is pretty close to a slam-dunk. The Constitution requires both that affirmation be an option and that no religious test be employed. The Federal statute *also* says that an affirmation be required. In law, an affirmation is equivalent to an oath but without reference to religion in any form (outside of law it is not so specific), so an affirmation with "so help me god" still required is a contradiction in terms. Even outside of the affirmation point, the courts consider "so help me god" a religious test. There's really no way around this, the Air Force has departed from the requirements of the Constitution, while the other services *are* complying.
MSgt Lowell Skelton | TSgt Joshua Copeland | Maj Matt Hylton
Air Force seeks DOD ruling on re-enlistment oath
The Air Force said Tuesday it was awaiting a legal opinion from the Defense Department’s top lawyer on whether an enlisted airman who’s an atheist can opt out of the phrase “so help me God” in his re-enlistment oath.
(10)
(0)
Sgt Don Davis
Junior Officers should never ignore a senior NCO's wisdom and field grades officers may but do so at their own peril. I agree with everything the SMSgt has said (including with due respect )and think anyone who works for him is lucky to the extreme. Barnes ANGB is lucky to have this SR. NCO!!!
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MAJ Carl Ballinger I'm sorry you feel that way. The nature of our disagreement being what it is I'm not surprised my words seem disrespectful to you. For my part in that, I truly apologize. I feel strongly that if we were face to face our conversation would feel very different. All the best to you in your most recent assignment and for the remainder of your career.
Sgt Don Davis Thanks for the kind words, but I do tend to think that disrespect - like an insult - is in the eye of the recipient, and in any case our conversation here is not private and text is easily misconstrued.
Sgt Don Davis Thanks for the kind words, but I do tend to think that disrespect - like an insult - is in the eye of the recipient, and in any case our conversation here is not private and text is easily misconstrued.
MSgt Lowell Skelton
"... it all just amounts to a bunch of children not getting their way"
Mmmmm, yeah, a bunch of children shouting "say 'god' or we'll destroy your career!" Constitutional rights apply to everyone, or no one.
Mmmmm, yeah, a bunch of children shouting "say 'god' or we'll destroy your career!" Constitutional rights apply to everyone, or no one.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Another ignorant liar. The Constitution (which IS law, unlike the Declaration) says absolutely NOTHING about a "creator", no matter how hard you try to spin it.
So no, I did not, nor will I EVER swear to uphold ANY "creator". And anyone who tries to force me to do so is an enemy of the Constitution.
So no, I did not, nor will I EVER swear to uphold ANY "creator". And anyone who tries to force me to do so is an enemy of the Constitution.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
MAJ Ballinger, I'll take each of your three points in turn:
1. Nothing I've said is a temper tantrum. Please stop gaslighting me. Disagreement, and even offense taking is not a temper tantrum, nor is it disrespect.
2. You're half right and half wrong. The half you were right about is that I did abandon the argument in the "Should a 2LT salute a 1LT thread". It became clear to me that you would continue to refuse to argue honestly and admit that the "no rank among Lieutenants" custom is a CUSTOM, supported by O-grades but unsupported by regulation, so much so that you'll insist that 2LTs and 1LTs are peers, but insist that you are not saying they're the same rank. You keep using the word 'peer'. I do not think it means what you think it means. (50 cool points and an automatic up-vote to anyone who gets that movie reference). In any case, yes I did abandon that field. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. When I saw I was banging my head against a wall, I stopped.
3. You're half right and half wrong. Reference THIS thread, I'm currently on active duty at my WOAC at Fort Gordon. My wife flew in this week to spend time with me because we celebrated our 23rd anniversary this weekend. My life not only does not revolve around RallyPoint, it doesn't revolve around ANY of the social media sites I frequent. I get to them when I get to them. I am no one's trained monkey, and I answer on MY timetable. I also don't whine, don't gripe, and don't resort to smug condescension when I don't get an answer from someone when *I* want the answer.
Now having said that, my wife just left for the Atlanta airport to fly home, so here's my answer in THIS thread: Yes, it is offensive. Rights are being clearly violated here, and to say "Oh, that's for the courts to decide if they're doing anything wrong". basically says that none of us are intelligent enough to read and understand the Constitution. And if by some miracle you're NOT saying that, you're basically saying "Doesn't matter if your rights are being violated, just go along to get along, you want the reenlistment, say the oath".
Not. Going. To. Happen.
An oath is a solemn promise. For someone who is either an atheist who doesn't believe in God, or someone like me whose religious beliefs prohibit them from swearing to God, to go along with it is to make a mockery of the oath. Saying "So Help Me God" in an oath is thought to remind the one taking the oath of the seriousness of it. Another aspect of insisting that one say "So Help Me God" in the oath is an assumption (mostly on the part of my fellow Christians) that you can't be a good, moral person without some kind of religion. That is patently false.
And as far as "The law says X"....there are plenty of laws that have been found to be unconstitutional. My own marriage would have been illegal where I now live when my mother was a child (Look up Loving v. Virginia - my wife and I flipped that script). Would you then tell me "Oh, you can't say it's unconstitutional, that's for the courts to say"??
Basically anyone arguing FOR the Air Force in this is basically okay with violating someone's freedom for the process, and the paperwork, and that is NOT okay.
I'm sure if they were violating someone's 2nd Amendment rights though, plenty here would be allllll over it.
I will leave you all with this:
"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all."
That applies to ANY freedom, and the freedom of religion is the freedom to believe what you want, which directly implies the freedom not to have a religion.
1. Nothing I've said is a temper tantrum. Please stop gaslighting me. Disagreement, and even offense taking is not a temper tantrum, nor is it disrespect.
2. You're half right and half wrong. The half you were right about is that I did abandon the argument in the "Should a 2LT salute a 1LT thread". It became clear to me that you would continue to refuse to argue honestly and admit that the "no rank among Lieutenants" custom is a CUSTOM, supported by O-grades but unsupported by regulation, so much so that you'll insist that 2LTs and 1LTs are peers, but insist that you are not saying they're the same rank. You keep using the word 'peer'. I do not think it means what you think it means. (50 cool points and an automatic up-vote to anyone who gets that movie reference). In any case, yes I did abandon that field. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. When I saw I was banging my head against a wall, I stopped.
3. You're half right and half wrong. Reference THIS thread, I'm currently on active duty at my WOAC at Fort Gordon. My wife flew in this week to spend time with me because we celebrated our 23rd anniversary this weekend. My life not only does not revolve around RallyPoint, it doesn't revolve around ANY of the social media sites I frequent. I get to them when I get to them. I am no one's trained monkey, and I answer on MY timetable. I also don't whine, don't gripe, and don't resort to smug condescension when I don't get an answer from someone when *I* want the answer.
Now having said that, my wife just left for the Atlanta airport to fly home, so here's my answer in THIS thread: Yes, it is offensive. Rights are being clearly violated here, and to say "Oh, that's for the courts to decide if they're doing anything wrong". basically says that none of us are intelligent enough to read and understand the Constitution. And if by some miracle you're NOT saying that, you're basically saying "Doesn't matter if your rights are being violated, just go along to get along, you want the reenlistment, say the oath".
Not. Going. To. Happen.
An oath is a solemn promise. For someone who is either an atheist who doesn't believe in God, or someone like me whose religious beliefs prohibit them from swearing to God, to go along with it is to make a mockery of the oath. Saying "So Help Me God" in an oath is thought to remind the one taking the oath of the seriousness of it. Another aspect of insisting that one say "So Help Me God" in the oath is an assumption (mostly on the part of my fellow Christians) that you can't be a good, moral person without some kind of religion. That is patently false.
And as far as "The law says X"....there are plenty of laws that have been found to be unconstitutional. My own marriage would have been illegal where I now live when my mother was a child (Look up Loving v. Virginia - my wife and I flipped that script). Would you then tell me "Oh, you can't say it's unconstitutional, that's for the courts to say"??
Basically anyone arguing FOR the Air Force in this is basically okay with violating someone's freedom for the process, and the paperwork, and that is NOT okay.
I'm sure if they were violating someone's 2nd Amendment rights though, plenty here would be allllll over it.
I will leave you all with this:
"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all."
That applies to ANY freedom, and the freedom of religion is the freedom to believe what you want, which directly implies the freedom not to have a religion.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
mil·i·tant -- /milətənt/ -- adjective
Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme or violent methods.
I can see how an atheist -- vigorously defending one's rights from the religious people who constantly try to encroach upon them -- can fit the first part, but I think you'll have quite a bit of trouble matching damn-near any of us on the second part. Meanwhile, examples abound of that second part in religion. To a rational mind, that would seem to be a deliberate mis-framing of atheists, their intent, and their methods.
It is not rabble-rousing or ego to demand one's rights. Like cries of "political correctness," this is a way of shutting down legitimate dissent. I care not whether history remembers me for my activism; I care that my children, and theirs, have a more free and tolerant society than religious powers-that-be will yet permit.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Frederick Douglass)
Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme or violent methods.
I can see how an atheist -- vigorously defending one's rights from the religious people who constantly try to encroach upon them -- can fit the first part, but I think you'll have quite a bit of trouble matching damn-near any of us on the second part. Meanwhile, examples abound of that second part in religion. To a rational mind, that would seem to be a deliberate mis-framing of atheists, their intent, and their methods.
It is not rabble-rousing or ego to demand one's rights. Like cries of "political correctness," this is a way of shutting down legitimate dissent. I care not whether history remembers me for my activism; I care that my children, and theirs, have a more free and tolerant society than religious powers-that-be will yet permit.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Frederick Douglass)
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Really? How does Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion' and his almost manic diatribes against Christians and other religions not an over the top attempt to ram his views down people's throats? That is pretty militant and hey let's not carp over the word.. 'Militant' is usually used to describe a person engaged in aggressive verbal or physical combat (e.g. an activist, revolutionary, terrorist or insurgent.
His takes and that of his fights with Deepak Chopra are lengendary if not embarrassing. I reserve the right to my beliefs and I do not obsess over atheists and agnostics because I cannot control others and do not want to. It's just I know there are the casual atheists and those more militant types who are at times, very offensive.
His takes and that of his fights with Deepak Chopra are lengendary if not embarrassing. I reserve the right to my beliefs and I do not obsess over atheists and agnostics because I cannot control others and do not want to. It's just I know there are the casual atheists and those more militant types who are at times, very offensive.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
So, writing a book (which nobody is required to read) or being deemed offensive are sufficient qualifiers to earn the label "militant." It seems notable that atheists are one of the few groups people so casually attach a label most often associated -- as you acknowledge -- with violence to over having the temerity to debate their point of view in the public sphere and stand up for their rights.
It is entirely reasonable to point out that a double-standard is in play, where atheists are treated with disdain and given a label implying violence for the act of not shutting up about discrimination, while the religious can often avoid that label even when they *are* violent (especially if they are of the dominant religion). People get up in arms over calling literal armed militia groups "militant" but don't bat an eye when it is applied to a disliked group whose worst offense is arguing over the internet.
Dawkins is not, however, some magic point of light to which all atheists gaze. He is right now in the middle of an argument over how inclusive atheism and skepticism should be toward women, and he (along with several other well-known names) have come down on the side of what I can only call "pro-sexism." Of course, atheism has no gods, but also no masters, so no matter what others think he is not automatically a movement leader by name recognition.
As for Chopra, anyone arguing with him usually comes out of it quite embattled, no matter how much they wipe the floor with that charlatan. The problem with debating Chopra is that, like with any idiot, they will as the old line goes "drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that someone as ridiculous as Chopra be used as a measurement for anyone else...
It is entirely reasonable to point out that a double-standard is in play, where atheists are treated with disdain and given a label implying violence for the act of not shutting up about discrimination, while the religious can often avoid that label even when they *are* violent (especially if they are of the dominant religion). People get up in arms over calling literal armed militia groups "militant" but don't bat an eye when it is applied to a disliked group whose worst offense is arguing over the internet.
Dawkins is not, however, some magic point of light to which all atheists gaze. He is right now in the middle of an argument over how inclusive atheism and skepticism should be toward women, and he (along with several other well-known names) have come down on the side of what I can only call "pro-sexism." Of course, atheism has no gods, but also no masters, so no matter what others think he is not automatically a movement leader by name recognition.
As for Chopra, anyone arguing with him usually comes out of it quite embattled, no matter how much they wipe the floor with that charlatan. The problem with debating Chopra is that, like with any idiot, they will as the old line goes "drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that someone as ridiculous as Chopra be used as a measurement for anyone else...
(2)
(0)
What kills me is that this issue is going on in the Air Force while in the Army we let Bradley Manning, or Chelsea Manning, get gender reassignment treatment.
(9)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
1LT(P) Michael Barden Just for you
Some officials have said privately that keeping Chelsea Manning in a military prison and unable to have treatment could amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
His gender crap was denied, I'm pretty sure. Found it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28900415
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28900415
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
9
9
0
I am glad that I read the article before I responded. As of the time I retired, "So help me, God" was optional (in the Army, anyway), and you had the choice whether to 'swear' or 'affirm'.
According to the article, Title 10 USC 502 requires the phrase. IF the article is correct (emphasis on IF) then the USAF is correct (by law) but I don't think I'd fall on my sword over enforcing the letter of the law in this case. This one, I believe, will ultimately be overturned as unconstitutional. I also have to wonder if the verbiage in the USC is intentional or if something was just overlooked like so much other verbiage in all the piles of paper that comes out of the Congress.
According to the article, Title 10 USC 502 requires the phrase. IF the article is correct (emphasis on IF) then the USAF is correct (by law) but I don't think I'd fall on my sword over enforcing the letter of the law in this case. This one, I believe, will ultimately be overturned as unconstitutional. I also have to wonder if the verbiage in the USC is intentional or if something was just overlooked like so much other verbiage in all the piles of paper that comes out of the Congress.
(9)
(0)
PO2 Tony Casler
I have my "V" as well, that command was a terrible experience that drove me from being career minded when I arrived to desperate to get out just to get away. After an 8 year break I decided I miss the Navy life enough that I am reenlisting in the reserve, I just hope I don't have to deal with another command as toxic as my last one.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Tony Casler
Another gem from that command was before the 2004 election when we were told that if we voted we were required to vote for President Bush or we could be punished under article 94 for mutiny against the CIC. There was no enforcement action taken of course, but I wonder how many Sailors who didn't know any better were afraid to vote their conscience.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
PO2 Casler - If you need an example of a whiny, disrespectful troublemaker, look no further than former chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt. It's people like him in positions of influence or command who are spurring atheists to make noise and demand the military abide by the Constitution and EO regulations.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Jennifer Mohler
Oh yes! That is a frightening display and abuse of power! Not voting for the incumbent does not qualify as mutiny (though I could see it being twisted that way in an exercise in the slippery slope fallacy).
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
I think there has to be more to this story, or someone high up in chain where this Airmen is from (Creech AFB?) has lost their mind. I have never sworn in with "So help me God" and I am not about to do it now. If no other military service is requiring this, I do not understand why the AF is.
But, as an atheist, I am glad that this is getting recognition. I do feel that there is way too much emphasis on religion in the military and ceremonial practices are too focused on Christian beliefs. The only way to ensure that all religions are represented equally is to not have any religions represented at all. Its a private matter and should stay private. "So help me God" should be an optional inclusion, not something that Airmen have to fight for to take out.
But, as an atheist, I am glad that this is getting recognition. I do feel that there is way too much emphasis on religion in the military and ceremonial practices are too focused on Christian beliefs. The only way to ensure that all religions are represented equally is to not have any religions represented at all. Its a private matter and should stay private. "So help me God" should be an optional inclusion, not something that Airmen have to fight for to take out.
(8)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
And Quakers! :-) which is where the wording for affirmation in our Constitution come from. To force people to swear on god would have actually eliminated some religious sects from holding office in the early days of our nation's history. While we have more atheists than Quakers now, the same principle applies.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Of course the branches have the authority to omit it. The Army certainly allows the re-enlistee to say or not say it.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MAJ Carl Ballinger: It is the option to affirm that allows him to omit those words. An affirmation - as legally defined - is designed to be an alternative for those who don't swear oaths, and those who don't swear to supreme beings.
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Article VI, Paragraph 3 gives them the authority to omit it. "No religious test" means just that, and it is the highest law of the land.
(1)
(1)
7
7
0
A lawyer explains why the Air Force is wrong to deny this airman's re-enlistment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/08/should-atheists-who-refuse-to-say-so-help-me-god-be-excluded-from-the-air-force/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/08/should-atheists-who-refuse-to-say-so-help-me-god-be-excluded-from-the-air-force/
Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?
Yes, the Air Force seems to say. Yes, says former Rep. Allen West. No, say the Constitution and federal statutes.
(7)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Ballinger: "that is a pervasive myth. There were a few Deists, but the vast majority were Christian, with Jefferson being the only notable Deist."
In the interests of honesty, I want you to know I agree. It is a myth, and it is a fairly common one. The majority were Christian, and no serious historian doubts it. Some were deist, some were other varied theistic forms (despite other claims, Franklin's own letters in the immediate months before he died denied the claim of divinity for Jesus).
Of course, what matters has never been their personal beliefs, but the form of Government they set up, which was deliberately secular and had overt checks on the meddling of religion and Government as well as on the ability of religions to dominate over others not of that religion.
In the interests of honesty, I want you to know I agree. It is a myth, and it is a fairly common one. The majority were Christian, and no serious historian doubts it. Some were deist, some were other varied theistic forms (despite other claims, Franklin's own letters in the immediate months before he died denied the claim of divinity for Jesus).
Of course, what matters has never been their personal beliefs, but the form of Government they set up, which was deliberately secular and had overt checks on the meddling of religion and Government as well as on the ability of religions to dominate over others not of that religion.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Considering that I didn't say anything about that phrase (clarification: anything about it in this thread within the topic), it seems weird to bring it up. That said, are you aware that the *concept* of "separation" that Jefferson spoke of doesn't necessarily mean the document must use that exact line? Even Jefferson himself knew that; he explained what the Constitution required, then simplified it into a short-hand phrase.
And if you're going to quote one section of the two religion clauses of the first amendment, it might be worth at least quoting it accurately. That's aside from the convenient ignoring of the *other* clause...
And no, nobody has to accept even the existence of any god to defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention a creator at all, in even the most nebulous context.
And if you're going to quote one section of the two religion clauses of the first amendment, it might be worth at least quoting it accurately. That's aside from the convenient ignoring of the *other* clause...
And no, nobody has to accept even the existence of any god to defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention a creator at all, in even the most nebulous context.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
"...for Americans, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, while serving slightly different purposes, are synonymous."
Only to idiots. They are both historically relevant, yes, but "synonymous" is a hell of a way to attempt to brush past your repeated statement of "creator" in the Constitution, which is false.
The difference is one is our founding *law* and one is not. One is what our oath is *swearing to* and the other is not. When you mix those two, you look ridiculously foolish.
"I notice you have a tendency of ignoring half of the history of the country you serve."
Really? Wow, you *are* desperately grasping at straws... I understand the difference between what is law and what is not. I know what my oath was to and what it was not. You seem to have a considerable amount of trouble with those.
"Shall we add the national anthem in with all of the "clearly non-religious" founding principles this country has?"
Oh *please*, yes. A poem, written in 1814 by someone who was not among the founders (a time when most of them had already died), of which only the first stanza (note: that's the part that doesn't talk about god) was made into our anthem in 1931. Care to try again, perhaps with the Pledge? Oh, right, *that* wasn't around until the 1890s...
Only to idiots. They are both historically relevant, yes, but "synonymous" is a hell of a way to attempt to brush past your repeated statement of "creator" in the Constitution, which is false.
The difference is one is our founding *law* and one is not. One is what our oath is *swearing to* and the other is not. When you mix those two, you look ridiculously foolish.
"I notice you have a tendency of ignoring half of the history of the country you serve."
Really? Wow, you *are* desperately grasping at straws... I understand the difference between what is law and what is not. I know what my oath was to and what it was not. You seem to have a considerable amount of trouble with those.
"Shall we add the national anthem in with all of the "clearly non-religious" founding principles this country has?"
Oh *please*, yes. A poem, written in 1814 by someone who was not among the founders (a time when most of them had already died), of which only the first stanza (note: that's the part that doesn't talk about god) was made into our anthem in 1931. Care to try again, perhaps with the Pledge? Oh, right, *that* wasn't around until the 1890s...
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - And even then, Deism was closer to theism than people now believe it to be. A clockmaker God is still God.
(0)
(0)
8
7
1
Until it's changed, then that's the oath! No exceptions have been made for the atheists, muslims, catholics, jews, christians, etc..... that took the oath that are currently serving. For many serving today, the oath of enlistment meant nothing to them anyway, so they had no issue in reciting it. Burned...don't think so...will it lead to changes, possibly, but hope not! It is what it is. It has been good for the country and the military thru today! It's time those who have issues with American traditions and customs either accept ours as they want us to accept theirs....or, go somewhere else or where they came from.
(8)
(1)
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sgt Don Davis Can you share with us what the outcome was. I did not know this. Thanks!
(0)
(0)
Sgt Don Davis
It's a deduction based on reading Air Force Instruction 36-2606 where the title page says "BY ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE" and the signature page says "DARRELL D. JONES, Lt General, USAF
DCS, Manpower, Personnel and Services"
In order to change it you need some serious horsepower Lt Gen Jones has since retired, His replacement is Lt Gen Samuel D. Cox.
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE" and the signature page says "DARRELL D. JONES, Lt General, USAF
DCS, Manpower, Personnel and Services"
In order to change it you need some serious horsepower Lt Gen Jones has since retired, His replacement is Lt Gen Samuel D. Cox.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Lots of people have made lots of good points here already on multiple sides of the issue, and I don't want to spend weeks getting sucked into a "no religion in the public sphere" argument - been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
However, I think one thing is worthy of clarification. A "religious test" is a requirement that you either do or do not belong to, or believe in, a specific religious creed (i.e. Catholics can't be mayors, only Baptists can be mayors, no Buddhists need apply, etc.).
Whether right or wrong, this is not what is at issue in this case. Cpl Christopher Bishop was on the right track. It is about the seriousness of the oath, and the seriousness with which you take it. Back in the day (and today, for that matter), there was an understanding that there are promises and then there are PROMISES. The thought process (it may be flawed, but that is a separate matter) went along these lines, someone wouldn't invoke the name of god unless they were REALLY serious. Also why the same construction is used when testifying in court. It HAS been allowed over the years to replace $DIETY_OF_CHOICE in the place of "god" in the oath. For the person who asked if "so help me Allah" be acceptable?", (leaving aside the fact that it is actually the same dude....) the answer would conceptually be yes. As for Odin, I don't know anybody who actually is a follower of any old norse faiths, so I would be skeptical.
That said, title 10 says what it says, and is the law until it is not. This means that the Air Force is correct in its following of the law. The Army is wrong, if title 10 states the wording is non-optional. It is the job of the courts and/or the legislatures (and the people!) to remove bad law. The one branch of government that should NOT be involved in deciding what the law is the executive (that's us!).
Personally, I will keep right on being wrong because I agree with CH (CPT) (Join to see) that any society needs to intelligently know what to overlook. And this is not a hill for dying on, on either side.
Side note one: I expect that in time the title 10 language will be changed. I hope that it is, sooner rather than later.
Side note two: Interestingly, the "or affirm" language was a religious accommodation. I forget all the details, but basically one or more groups successfully argued that swearing violated their faith.
However, I think one thing is worthy of clarification. A "religious test" is a requirement that you either do or do not belong to, or believe in, a specific religious creed (i.e. Catholics can't be mayors, only Baptists can be mayors, no Buddhists need apply, etc.).
Whether right or wrong, this is not what is at issue in this case. Cpl Christopher Bishop was on the right track. It is about the seriousness of the oath, and the seriousness with which you take it. Back in the day (and today, for that matter), there was an understanding that there are promises and then there are PROMISES. The thought process (it may be flawed, but that is a separate matter) went along these lines, someone wouldn't invoke the name of god unless they were REALLY serious. Also why the same construction is used when testifying in court. It HAS been allowed over the years to replace $DIETY_OF_CHOICE in the place of "god" in the oath. For the person who asked if "so help me Allah" be acceptable?", (leaving aside the fact that it is actually the same dude....) the answer would conceptually be yes. As for Odin, I don't know anybody who actually is a follower of any old norse faiths, so I would be skeptical.
That said, title 10 says what it says, and is the law until it is not. This means that the Air Force is correct in its following of the law. The Army is wrong, if title 10 states the wording is non-optional. It is the job of the courts and/or the legislatures (and the people!) to remove bad law. The one branch of government that should NOT be involved in deciding what the law is the executive (that's us!).
Personally, I will keep right on being wrong because I agree with CH (CPT) (Join to see) that any society needs to intelligently know what to overlook. And this is not a hill for dying on, on either side.
Side note one: I expect that in time the title 10 language will be changed. I hope that it is, sooner rather than later.
Side note two: Interestingly, the "or affirm" language was a religious accommodation. I forget all the details, but basically one or more groups successfully argued that swearing violated their faith.
(6)
(0)
(0)
(1)
Sgt Don Davis
You said...
"I do apologize that you misunderstood me in those passages. My statement that there was no precedent was in response to your claim there was precedent. I made the statement with the assumption the USAF will continue to enforce the oath as written in the US Code. The fact remains courts have not ruled on a case like this so there is no precedent. Perhaps the USAF will back down and choose not to enforce 10 USC 502. That would not contradict anything I've said."
"I do apologize that you misunderstood me in those passages. My statement that there was no precedent was in response to your claim there was precedent. I made the statement with the assumption the USAF will continue to enforce the oath as written in the US Code. The fact remains courts have not ruled on a case like this so there is no precedent. Perhaps the USAF will back down and choose not to enforce 10 USC 502. That would not contradict anything I've said."
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Let's consider MR. Ballinger's combative, unprofessional manner in opposition to the Constitution, touting his superior religious beliefs, which somehow didn't prevent him from certain actions. My, how the self-righteous fall...
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/01/24/army-releases-verdicts-of-november-courts-martial/
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/01/24/army-releases-verdicts-of-november-courts-martial/
Army releases verdicts of November courts-martial
Army releases verdicts of November courts-martial
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
It all comes down to respecting others' opinions, I think. If he really had a problem with saying those four words, then he should be able to opt out. It's not like those four words are what REALLY makes the enlistee a service member.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
It wasn't that they person can't say the words, (which should still be optional) it is that they won't reenlist him because he crossed the words out on his enlistment paperwork.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google