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

SMSgt Jeff Samuelson I posted that here a few days ago :)

That's a fair point considering Bryan Fischer's frothy hysterics a few days ago.

Bryan Fischer is one of the heads of the AFA, one of the more rabid theocratic groups. Patrick Vaughan is, if I recall correctly, AFA's lead counsel. The two have now gotten into an overt sparring match over Fischer's declaration that atheists shouldn't be permitted to serve at all, while Vaughan pointed out that such a position is unconstitutional.

If the statement is false, it must be altered. For an atheist the statement is false and the phrase must be struck out to make the statement true. The Constitution is clear that no religious test, even this phrase, can be required.

I think we're all pretty much saying the same thing here and we're simply arguing semantics.

If an officer is out of uniform, the NCO should take the officer aside and explain to the officer he is out of uniform. He need not do this in front of the other troops as this would diminish the officer in front of the troops and violate the concept of maintaining good order and discipline and show a certain level of disrespect for the rank structure.

The NCO need not "correct the officer". Instead of correcting, he should "inform the officer" about the officer's deficiency -- at which point the officer, if he were wise, would thank the NCO for doing so, and the the officer should take whatever actions are necessary to correct his deficiency.

I agree with MAJ Carl Ballinger that it is NOT the NCO's job to correct seniors. If the NCO is a good one, he will tactfully inform his seniors of problems. He would avoid doing so publicly, if at all possible.

Do you see where I'm coming from? Correcting juniors vs tactfully Informing peers and seniors; Praise in Public, Criticize in Private; Maintaining good order and discipline; Respect for chain of command; Exercising good judgment... << These things all factor in regarding how one should respond to a given situation and should guide the NCO's manner of speech and actions.

As to the example given by MSG (Join to see), you ABSOLUTELY have an obligation to stop / prevent the commission of a crime or breach of security and that trumps whatever that individual is wearing on their sleeve or collar. But even then you should be tactful and professional.

EXAMPLE: "Sir, I believe you may be attempting to remove classified material from the SCIF. I'm going to have to ask you to set your briefcase down and step away from it." If they refuse, you take progressively more authoritative actions. "Sir, if you attempt to leave the SCIF and walk out that door, I will have to stop you and have you arrested." If the officer ignores and walks out, you call and get others' attentions. "Stop him, he may have classified info in that briefcase." And if they are dumb enough to make a run for it, you tackle them.

The absolute wrong thing to do would be to tackle the officer in the SCIF and get in a fight with them -- especially if it turns out they didn't have what you suspected on them!

FWIW.

EXAMPLE: In a low voice, not making a public spectacle, you walk up to a Major you suspect is out of uniform: "Sir, I believe you are out of uniform. [or Sir, there's something wrong with your uniform.] Should we go over there and talk about it. I don't want to have this conversation in front of the troops."

NOT: "Hey Major WTF! You're out of uniform!!!"

SFC Roger Thomas was correct in bringing this infraction to the Major. Forgetting the fact that it is written in ever post policy under safety. It is the responsibility of every Soldier to correct unsafe acts. What if that Major is struck by a vehicle because of his lack of situational awareness and the investigation shows he had knowledge of the act which caused the accident? Would he not be held accountable for allowing such a blatantly unsafe act?

Rank does apply, but there are times outside of safety that it may be necessary to offer mild correctives. I've personally run into a few senior ranking individuals, including officers, who were out of uniform. It's usually been the PT uniform but sometimes in the duty uniform. Most take it in stride and appreciate it, but context & tone matters.

Of course, there was a time when I was a PFC working my post at the gate at Camp Henry in Korea when a 1LT attempted to exit wearing an earring (in civilian clothes). At the time doing so was a violation of the SOFA agreement, so I stopped him and told him to take it out. He pulled his ID card out to show me his rank, but I told him that if he left he would be apprehended, and that I'd be happy to call the duty officer. He paused, but ultimately decided to take it out. Of course, I was in the Military Police at the time, so again, context. :)

Whether or not the country was founded by Christians is irrelevant, as they did everything within their power to put a separation between their religion and their chosen form of government, and made allowances for all other religions. The intention was never to jam Christianity down the craw of those of us who are not Christian, whether or not those individuals are serving our country. I swore to uphold the Constitution, not a god of any kind, not even my own, and I swore it on my own honor.

SGT Kuhn,

This country was most definitely NOT founded on god. It was founded on a desire for self-rule and has a constitution written mostly by a Deist (Jefferson was definitely NOT a Christian)

Unfortunately this conversation ran its course about 4 weeks ago so if you wish, take a look down the line and see all the responses and replies...you may change your mind. Good day.

I don't believe in this present day, stating "founders were Christian" is specific enough. They were mostly Calvinists. For whatever that's worth to anyone here.

I agree with you MAJ Carl Ballinger, religion in the military is tradition. I guarantee he had no problem stating the OATH when he originally enlisted. It’s only recently that this topic has become such a big deal. Anyone who joins the military should know that the foundation was built on pride and religion. I understand that things are changing, but why mess or argue with traditions? Is it really that big of a deal? I guess that is up for debate.

ENS Dodson, You do NOT know what the airman recited when he enlisted. Any claim otherwise is only prejudiced conjecture on your part. Your claim that "the foundation was built on pride and religion" if blatantly false and offensive.

The airman is NOT an "active duty trouble maker behaving as an activist." He is a servicemember challenging an illegal regulation, and there is no honor in falsely accusing or condemning him. He is far more deserving of the respect you steadfastly refuse to show him.

"There will be those out to get him, and they will win in the end. I would not do that, but the fact is, some will."

As someone with command authority, you don't have the ability to change someone's personal opinion on a matter or another person. However, you do have the resources to make sure that whoever is now "out to get him" doesn't get him. That is, of course if he were actually in your unit. Given your blatant stance on non-religious people who demand equal treatment as "trouble makers", he is already on your bad side. You don't even know him and yet you seem to think he is a trouble maker, indignant, a bad Airman, just wants attention, already had problems in his unit, or any combination of these and other labels that has been placed on him. Why? For asking that his religious views are treated like any Christian's? For trying to exercise his first and sixth amendment rights in the face of unlawful and unenforceable regulations? The perception I have is that you are insinuating in your comments that you would not protect him from those who would harbor ill will toward him based on his difference of beliefs. I don't know your command history or anything else about you so all I have to go on is your posts. But if it were me in a command position, I would refrain from passing judgement on how I would handle the situation- theoretically of course.

For the record, I haven't violated my oath. We are simply debating an issue in a forum where people are encouraged to discuss their opinions. If we were at a commanders call or we were in your office, it might be a different story.

The issue isn't whether or not anyone has to say the words, it's that the phrase is now mandated in writing for reenlisting. The Airman crossed out the phrase "so help me god" because he didn't want that in his official transcript, Air Force documentation and U.S. record.

Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”

That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.

“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Thursday. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God.’”

So because law violates the Constitution and we're in the military, that makes it okay? Uh, no.

That was basically an insult to my and everyone else's intelligence. I expected better from a field grade officer. The language is clear: Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

The first part is just as important as the second part, and the Air Force is a part of the DoD, which is a department of the Executive Branch of the US Government..... so it is Government respecting an establishment of religion by imposing religious-based requirements for continued service.. Anyone with a brain can see it's a clear violation of the Constitution, and you don't need a law degree to do so.

Yes I do. If *you* mean God to mean whatever deity you believe in, then you did nothing wrong. The objection here is forcing someone who doesn't believe in God to say those words as part of a civil oath.

While I understand the issue at hand I still do not see what the issue is. To this individual his supreme being is science. So, could that not suffice and calm the fires of those that are worked up over this whole situation?

MAJ Carl Ballinger, I can totally agree with that.

"To this individual his supreme being is science." That simply shows a complete lack of understanding of atheism. Do you think we go around saying "Praise helium" or "blessed are the muons" or other nonsense? "Worshipping science" is just an uninformed way of saying "I don't know a thing about atheists, but I'm going to toss this out to insult them". It's simply a lack of belief in any deities. Nothing more.

Of course it's a conspiracy. No one would ever come to the defense of a fellow servicemember who is being wronged by an unconstitutional regulation, would they? No, once they heard about it, they would ignore it and move on.

SERIOUSLY?

MAJ Carl Ballinger I can see your point. I can't positively say how I'd feel if roles were reversed, as I'm pretty skeptical, anyway. But rest assured, Sir, just as you watch out for your soldiers, the MAAF and the service-members affiliated with it are doing the same, just from another angle. Organizations like MAAF and FFRF have no subversive agenda. They aren't anti-religion.They are pro-neutrality. That's it.

You know, not everything objecting to Christianity is a conspiracy. Asking for neutrality isn't wrong or morally subversive, sir.

MAJ Carl Ballinger My apologies for not tagging you correctly. I'll make sure to note that in my future interactions on the forums.

Sir, once someone says "I don't discount the possibility it was engineered as a planned act by a MAAF member with prior knowledge of the organization," it starts to wander rather close to asking about a conspiracy in actions, or deeds. The fifth definition of conspiracy on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy is "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result." Since there was no collusion to commit a crime, Sir, it doesn't fall under the criminal law definition, but it's still a viable interpretation of "it was engineered as a planned act."

Have a fantastic day, Sir.