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

The argument that the four words “…so help me God” are a religious test is a bogus argument. If it were a religious test then does everyone who uses US currency or has US currency in their wallet a Christian or are the words there because of historic precedent?
I can understand the want to maintain one's integrity by not making a proclamation that would indicate one believed in or did not believe in God. I affirm wanting to maintain one's integrity. So if the individual has not proclaimed God's name either in praise or condemnation since becoming an atheist then I would venture to state he is maintaining his integrity. To do otherwise is in essence declaration to some higher power (God) and would therefore lend credence to disqualify his claim.
However, will the AF likely be forced change their stance regardless of historical precedent...based upon how I interpret the news, yes they will. However, I would venture to say the AF will insert or blank out the phrase to accommodate each individual's doctrinal beliefs (religious or non-religious) as was done before with the words “I affirm” to replace “I swear.”

PO3 Matt Haag Sir, this is surprising, because when I enlisted, before we actually went into the swearing-in room, the person at MEPS made a pretty big to-do out of telling us that "So help me God" was optional. His explanation of it being optional was getting into beating-a-dead-horse-territory, actually.

But, yes, I agree, sir: this is going to come back and bite somebody.

Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF will get a hold this.

The change is a good thing for all concerned. Religion is personal, and must absolutely never be required.

Latest update sir.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/17/atheist-airforceoath.htm

LOGIC PREVAILED!!!!

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-drops-so-help-me-god-requirement-will-allow-airman-to-re-enlist-1.303637

As soon as I saw this topic of discussion, I knew it would be controversial. There is simply no way that it couldn't be, due to the nature of the content. Religious views are intimately personal. The way we view the world, life, and death, are all issues that we struggle with. Some of us view these issues, and attempt to resolve and incorporate them, by the means in which we perceive them.

Many of us find comfort in religion. Some of us can't. It isn't a willful refusal. It's simply an inability to believe something without proof. Skepticism. It's a culmination of experience without evidence.

Asking someone to NOT believe something is just as illogical as asking a person to START believing in something. I can't ask a Christian to cease their belief that Jesus was the son of God, nor can that Christian ask me to accept that Jesus was the son of God. But, we do. And we do it viciously, sometimes.

I cannot provide "proof" that there is no god. A religious person cannot provide "proof" that there is one. We can use our perceptions and experiences to battle to the death (and that's what we are doing), to refute each other. But there is no resolution to this. In the history of mankind, there has never been a resolution, nor will there ever be one. The supernatural realm, if there is one, is simply non-debatable, but we always think it is, because we are cognizant beings and slaves to our own existence.

However, the caveat in discussions like this, is the standard to which we must adhere. That standard, in America, is to acknowledge the diversity of religious views while limiting those views to the person who hold them. When any religion is imposed on the individual (and individuals compose groups!), we have become a theocracy. And if a Christian theocracy is ideal to someone, let's place our choice of god aside and objectively assess the "status quo", and the ultimate results of a society based solely on theocratic rule.

If you don't think that America can possibly subscribe to such a totalitarian doctrine, you are ignoring a large part of our cultural history.

If you believe that organizations like MAAF and FFRF are the enemy, you must understand that these groups, and groups like these, are not representative of the oppression of religion. You should research, and objectively evaluate, the purpose of what they do. They do not advocate anti-religion. They advocate religious neutrality (in our public lives) in regards to the unsolicited adoption of the "majority rule" in impingement on the fundamental right of an individual to view the world, life, and death, as one already does.

We have beaten this horse into the Afterlife. However, I will quit my opinion with the words of my ten-year old daughter, raised as as Humanist:

"I respect all religions. (Not really happy with a few Christians though) A religion is a life. Religion can be bad or good. If you can't decide, become you're own religion. Believe in yourself. Atheist is me. But nothing is wrong if your Buddist, Islamic, Christian, etc. You can study other religions too."

The military oath written by the very first Congress in 1789 left off the "So help me God" line? That's right, the very first Congress, which included a good number of the founders who actually framed the Constitution, did not make "So help me God" part of the military oath! These words were not part of any military oath until 1862, when the oath for officers needed to be changed because of the Civil War. And it wasn't until a full century after that that the words were added to the enlisted oath.

Yes, it is true that one of the oaths used during the Revolutionary War, the oath taken by officers, did include the words. At that time, military officers were required to take the same oath taken by all officers of the government, military or civilian. This oath, renouncing all allegiance to King George and acknowledging the independence of the United States, did end with "So help me God." The first oath written specifically for the military, however, the oath first written in 1775 and revised in 1776 and taken by all enlisted soldiers, did not include the words.

In September 1789, the first military oath under the new Constitution was approved. This oath, which was the same for both officers and enlisted, was part of "An Act to recognize and adapt to the Constitution of the United States the establishment of the Troops raised under the Resolves of the United States in Congress Assembled," and did not include the words "So help me God."

Here is the original oath written by the Congress of 1789. This oath was actually two oaths, both of which were required for both officers and enlisted:

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


It wasn't until long after the days of the founders -- over seven decades after these original oaths were written -- that "So help me God" was added to any military oath. The change came in 1862, when the oath for military officers was rewritten to include a statement that the officer had never borne arms against the United States or aided the Confederacy. This new Civil War era oath was the first military oath to end with the words "So help me God." The oath for enlisted members of the military, however, was not changed at this time. That oath remained "godless" for another century.

The enlisted oath was not changed until 1950. The reason for the change at that time was the establishment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The purpose of the UCMJ, passed by Congress in May 1950, was to make the justice system in the military "uniform" across all of the branches of the military. Upon passage of the UCMJ, the line in the enlisted oath saying that a service member would obey orders "according to the articles of war" had to be changed to obeying orders "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." But "So help me God" was still not added to the oath when this change was made. That wouldn't happen until 1962, when Congress passed an act to make the enlisted oath more consistent with the officer oath, which, of course, did include the "so help me God" line.

At MEPS and all of the reenlistments I've been a part of those 4 words were specifically mentioned as "not required". most say them but the few that don't are not treated any differently.
The officer in charge of this reenlistment should be held accountable and the airman allowed back in to service, in my opinion.

E Pluribus Unum- So one airman refused to swear an oath to GOD and everyone is in an uproar. How convenient for the airman and an advocacy group would be ready to pounce on this issue. Don't we have more important things to worry about as a military? The statute is what it is, like it or leave it. I guarantee you that if we don't stop ISIS in their tracks you will be swearing an oath to some deity somewhere. Stop the trivial foolishness! Everyone knew the statute was in effect when he made his stand and the advocacy group just wanted a platform for their views to be brought forward. E Pluribus Unum- if the airman was a penny on the ground we wouldn't think twice about walking by because there is only one. If there were hundreds or thousands of airman taking this stand I would consider changing the rules, but there is only one airman. Wise up, or your career in the Air Force will be short-lived.