Who else thinks the AF is going to get burned on this one? - Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say "so help me God"

hmm, seems that would be in direct conflict of separation of church & state but I'm no lawyer so I'll let them drown each other in legal briefs and lawsuits.

I would hope this would get removed by the SCOTUS. A person entering the armed services should not have to swear (or affirm) by a diety they do not believe in. But then again, what does "so help me God" really mean? Isn't the definition & meaning subjective to the person?
interesting though...

James Madison, the most prominent of the drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, stated unquestionably that there IS separation of church and state. His word carries more weight than that of any Monday morning quarterback 235 years later.

Well said Major. This topic has stirred up a lot of talk on both sides of the issue. I would be fine with someone remaining silent or affirming their oath, but do not support removing the phrase in order to be PC.

Exactly. The AFI will be brought back into line with the Constitution, acknowledging the right to omit the phrase.

And yes, it's over. DoD responded, Air Force complied.

Precisely. It was dealt with swiftly. Slam-dunk case, just like I said.

He crossed it out on the form.
Last year, the AFI was re-written to remove the section that said:
"(Note: Airmen may omit the words "So help me God", if desired for personal reasons)" and instead state that it "MUST READ" (they put that in caps at the beginning of the oath) exactly as written, including that phrase.

Said the same thing in my post 1SG.

Yes, "So help me God" is there in the enlistment/reenlistment contracts for the US Army, I never stated that it wasn't in my comment above. And no, I did not state "So help me God" in my enlistment or reenlistment oaths. Kindly pay a little more attention to detail before you attempt to correct someone. Below is the paragraph (6-18) regarding the oath of enlistment from AR 610-210 for your edification:

"6–18. Administration of oath of enlistment
A commissioned officer of any Service will administer the Oath of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each applicant. Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. Display the U.S. flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words “So help me God” may be
omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath."

When your entire argument is nothing but juvenile insults, I guess you have to act the fool. If you don't want to discuss things like an adult, just say so instead of throwing childish tantrums.

SSG Brad Porter, come on, really? I answered your question and what's with the attack?
You managed to cheap shot three issues with one jab. Gays, blacks, and atheists. Socialize a little bit. Let off some steam.

Oh hell no, SSG Brad PorterHilary? (!) Would you?!

Not to worry, SSG, Boehner and the rest who cut embassy security funding won't get near the Oval Office.

SPC (Join to see): Thanks for the kind words. I always learn a lot too when having these kinds of discussions. They definitely help to clarify my own thinking.

MAJ Carl Ballinger: I consider myself a humanist, but that's inclusive of my atheism. I also tend to distinguish between gnostic and agnostic when it comes to theists or atheists. In other words, a person might be a gnostic or agnostic theist, or a gnostic or agnostic atheist, and so on. I'm the latter type, though I feel about 99% sure gods don't exist so for all intents and purposes I'm just an atheist who leaves open the possibility that invisible divinities may exist. But if they do, I seriously doubt they'd be anything like what believers expect.

All it will take to convert most atheists is simply proof of the divine. So far, none have been able to supply it.

I see that arguing reality and facts with either of you is useless. There is no proof, nothing you will ever be capable of providing. Otherwise you'd already have your Nobel Prize.

Capt K F, Thank you for stating the case against requiring an oath to a god that many members of the military do not believe in. I would like to add that The Constitution of The United States of America, Section VI, paragraph PROHIBITS requiring such oaths: "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I've read many comments here that atheists and non-believers should stop being whiners and just go along with anything put forth by our military leaders. I'm very sure that those who say that would say the same thing to gay and lesbian members of the military about their efforts to bring about their right to equal service, and they would say to female members who were not allowed to serve as members of the USAF
until 1976 but who were members of The Womens Air Force, WAF, that they should "just be nice" and should not have tried to change things. WAFs were not allowed to preform duties other than clerical, medical and in the women's band. In the 1960 when I first enlisted females had to be in their squadron area after dark unless they were on duty in a hospital and would be immediately discharged if they married or became pregnant. Who would ever expect females to try to change such a wonderful service component. I'm sure that these same ones who say that agonist or atheist members of the USAF should just keep the peace and stop whining would surly tell black Americans in the 1940 that they should just "play nice" and never attempt full and equal membership in the military as the white men.

I will never understand how so many people only see or admit to problems if and when they are negatively impacted.

Every right thinking member of the USAF should write to the president and ask him to sign an Executive Order requiring all services to comply with the Constitution Of The United States and NEVER force anyone to swear allegiance to a religion or a god in order to serve in the US military.

It is an interesting legal check and balance on this one. Congress made the law. As CINC, the President can order the military to put it aside until the Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of it. But I have not seen any articles saying that any of the three legs of our govenrment are getting involved here. It seems like Congress published it and the military has to now figure out what to do with it - either obey without question or disobey on the grounds that it isn't a legal order. Any General officers with the ****s to do that?

Much like the Pledge of Allegiance.

and Article VI of the Constitution which prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.

I didn't have a problem when he originally enlisted so to me it's just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame

SP6 Bowyer, So YOU didn't have a problem when he enlisted. (Was that a typo?) So what? Your opinion of his Constitutional rights is irrelevant. It only matters what the enlisting servicemember wants.

Nor should there ever be. Religion is an important part of society and culture. What the 1st Amendment guarantees though is that there should never be a law regarding religion.

It's a non-issue as far as our government should be concerned.

The 1st is not talking about starting religions with "establishment of religion", it's talking about THE establishment, in noun form.

This is the second such statement I've seen. Please tell me that a commissioned officer isn't trying to justify reprisal against an airman for challenging an illegal regulation. Condemnation of potential reprisal will suffice to allay my concerns.

If this really just "an oath to the people of the United States through the government", then why the he11-bent fight to keep the phrase in the oath? If it wasn't for the "god" nonsense, there wouldn't have been an issue here.

MAJ Jean and MSGT Skelton, I'm glad you posted that, because my first thoughts were pretty much the same, I would hope that he doesn't get someone with that attitude.... isn't part of what we did "defending freedom" for ALL? With or without the words, his signature on the contract is legally binding. The OATH is ceremonial; therefore, the four words are also ceremonial and CAN BE omitted { seeing as how the Air Force has already agreed with me on this one, don't bother to correct me on this one! And yes, I added the "!" for emphasis just as I did above.} Base the actual decision to allow him to reenlist and the way he's treated at his new duty station on his MILITARY traits and not his personal beliefs..... it's that simple!

I have no anger, I just think the way you stated "because his potential Air Force career is over," insuinuated that those appointed over him were going to be out to get him.... and by the fact that the other two posted almost the same thing that ran through my mind suggests that I wasn't the only one who interpreted your comments that way. I hope that you are the type who would allow for difference in religious, political and social beliefs and not judged others for not falling into the same category as you.

I Retracted The Remainder Of My Previous Statement.

This should be an example to everyone that reading what you think you see and reading what is actually there are not always as easy as you would think. The Major and I understand each other, and actually agree for the most part on the situation. IF you believe in something strongly enough to stand up and not go with the flow, there may be a price to pay. Right or wrong, people will remember your actions and it will (in some cases) be held against you..... kind of like marriage when I think about it.

Given your description of the airman as a "crybaby", and your explicitly negative characterization of atheists in general, I can't see why anyone might come to that conclusion.