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

I heard the silly "how do you use money if you don't like God because our money says in God we trust" argument years ago. There's an opt out in the form of a Visa/MC credit card. 95% of my financial transactions are in credit form, because that's the modern medium of financial transactions.

SMSgt Saunders, I'm shocked at how so many religious people are quick to throw others under the bus and who when confronted with opposition just say something like "It won't matter either way." Sorry it does matter and is a violation of the constitutional rights of everyone, especially those who do not believe in your god. Reference: United States Constitution, section VI paragraph 3: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Please understand that I do not mean this as an attack on you. I am only trying to bring attention to the fact that our Constitution not only protects those who agree with us; it protects all Americans.

Maybe you missed my point, SMSgt Love. I was not throwing anyone under a bus. I was stating that whether one asks for God's help or not, ultimately, the onus is on that individual to uphold the constitution and follow the orders of all appointed over them in the course of their military service. Simply put, it is NOT necessary to say the phrase, "So help me God" to enlist or re-enlist in the armed forces. Read the entire post and not just that last sentence. Thank you.

I don't understand the insinuation that atheists can't use money just because it says "In God We Trust" If it said "There is no God" would you stop using money, and choose to starve, because somehow touching a piece of paper that said us such would have some power to make it so?

It's a piece of paper with writing on it that our country sees as legal tender. What it says has no bearing on my personal beliefs, nor does using it mean I agree or approve of it. It is a necessity.

As far as including Jewish people as Christians, maybe something has changed since I last studied the various forms of current theology, but I believe to be a Christian you must believe and accept that Jesus Christ was the Savior and son of God. Traditional Judaism does not believe that. Unless they are Messianc Jews (which account for about 300k of the 14 mil Jews, or about 2%) then Jewish people are not Christians.

Correct! Sgt Don Davis, an AFI (or equivalent regulation in another service) must be presumed lawful: UCMJ Article 92: "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it." If the airman disobeyed an order he believed to be unlawful the appropriate procedure is to engage JAG (or the IG, perhaps), which can then pursue a ruling in accordance with military protocol.

I don't get why it confuses you that our government and founding documents are such that no religious majority has any inherent right to dictate to others how they must believe and act. If you don't like the fact that we have the right to refuse to say "so help me God", well, tough sh1t. The Constitution prohibits people like you from imposing that requirement on me or anyone else. If you can't deal with that, then life in America is not for you.

"Tradition" isn't always a good thing. Slavery, segregation, Blue laws were all "traditions" of the malignant variety. Compulsory god-oaths are as well. So the he11 with "tradition".

And don't call me "buddy". My buddies don't make it their mission to screw me over.

Its funny to me. Today we edit the oath of enlistment from 1776 to accommodate those who well .... Disagree with the oath our founding fathers created. If you don't feel like saying the oath our founding fathers made, why should you get to serve in the army our founding fathers created?

Now, you are going to feel religious over-tones in there, but its not. I'm just logically laying out the paradox here.

Now of course there are exceptions like slavery, segregation, etc.... but lets examine those and compare them to this debacle. 4 words vs life-long enslavement. What kind of ridiculous comparison is that. In most religion's, it is a penalty to deny God or the various deities your religion is based off of. If you are an athiest and you say the words "So help me God" where does Atheism send you? Nowhere, because you believe in nothing.... So why exactly do you care? I don't find my boss attractive at all, but when she asks me I tell her that her hair looks nice, to be courteous.... because thats just the way life is, and the hoops you have to jump through to keep life moving. So i just like I tell her that her hair looks nice, you can say so help me God. There's no penalty for either of us for saying that is there?

There is no logical loss to an atheist for saying "So help me God"... So why is this an argument to begin with? ...... Simply because someone wants attention.

Whats the difference between a private who refuses to say 4 words, and a private who refuses to march in formation? Nothing. Both are just refusing to simple tasks of no moral value what so ever....

I seriously think about all the things people complain about our government, this is the most stupidest complaint, because the thing they are complaining about does not effect their lives in any way shape or form. Its 4 words....

SGT Suraj Dave, as you stated above, some of us "...had to say 4 word's you don't believe."

The question then becomes WHY should it continue that anyone is asking me to state words knowing I may not believe them.

Please see my longer post above before replying here.

Thanks

@SGT Suraj Dave
what changes are you talking about?? there was no God in the original oath of 1775 and affirming was was allowed in place of swearing in the second oath of 1776 and still no goD

The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army."

"The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

No, he never HAD to say it. That's the law.