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

No sir, EVERY Soldier is empowered to decide which rules to follow and which not to. I could be THAT GUY and refuse any order on the grounds that it breaks standing regulations. However, I value appropriately applied independent thought and common sense/safety application to make a mission happen. Just because I do not command a company sized element, and instead only lead an 11-man ATHP Section, doesn't mean I am excused when I legitimately break a reg.

SGT McBee, since you're not empowered to make any decisions, I hope the all-knowing sitting in their comfy offices answer their phone when you call for orders when you come under fire.

You are obligated to follow orders even unlawful ones unless the order "shocks the conscience". You have a chain of command to notify if you are given an unlawful order and if need be a congressman and two senators.

In this case the order is signed by a Lt Gen (who has since retired) for the SecAF. No one at Creech AFB may disobey it even if it is unconstitutional. However they are doing the right thing by passing it up the chain of command and I'm sure the general counsel of the DoD will take care of the matter with alacrity.

Well I guess I was right. Didn't think it would stand up in court. The military doesn't need robots it needs people who can think question and reason. The excuse I was just following orders has been used over and over during war crimes trials and almost never worked out for the individual using the defense. A lawful order is just that it. LAWFUL!

http://news.msn.com/us/air-force-so-help-me-god-in-oath-is-optional

..."The Bloat"...cannot go unresearched.

lol the drinking ritual.

Were you allowed to have your DD4 changed to use Odin, Thor, and Tyr?

the actual form wasn't changed cause we were in Afghanistan, but my captain worked with me anyways

MAJ (Join to see) MSgt Lowell Skelton There is a reason that they put that statement "so help me God" in there. When you take an oath, the idea is that if you swear by a "higher authority" than yourself, you will take it more seriously.

People are inherently flawed. Even the framers of our Constitution, including those that didn't believe or weren't sure what if an higher power existed, saw fit [without complaining] to acknowledge such in the Declaration of Independence. When the same got around to writing the Constitution, they amended it with the Bill of Rights and made sure that people's right to worship freely and speak freely were guaranteed. But by whom? Who gives us our rights according to the Declaration of Independence? The government? Other men? Who? Do we give rights to ourselves? If so, by what authority? Our own?

The same man that wrote the Declaration of Independence also helped frame the Constitution so I seriously doubt that much changed insofar as the intent behind the wording...

It's much more difficult to justify your failure to perform your best to honor your oath to someone else than it is to justify it to yourself.

MSgt Lowell Skelton I'm amused that you go through so much trouble to make sure we all know you're not as stupid and gullible as those who recognize a higher power. If one had a choice to be remembered as a prideful and arrogant person, or as a humble servant, it's kind of a no-brainer which leaves a more favorable and lasting impression on people.

"There is a reason that they put that statement "so help me God" in there. When you take an oath, the idea is that if you swear by a "higher authority" than yourself, you will take it more seriously."

The Constitution lists only one prescribed oath, for the President. It does not have those words (even though *almost* every President has ad-libbed them on at the end). Laws for specific oaths have varied over the years, and certainly some had those words early on, for which I can certainly believe that those uttering the words were intended to invoke what they believed a "higher authority" as a witness.

The Declaration is not, has never been, and never will be law. The Constitution, however, is. That legal document establishes that government oaths must be supplemented with the requirement of affirmation as an option, and that one cannot be barred from office on account of a religious test. Since those two things (plus the Presidential oath) are sufficient to show that the Founders did NOT believe that invoking the "higher power" was always necessary, they must by process of elimination have believed that it could perfectly-well be taken seriously enough on its own.

I don't have time right now to address other aspects of what you wrote; I have to get ready for a military ball...

Capt Schwager, If I am to be compelled to render an oath to a "higher power", then someone darn well better prove it exists first. Until then, they can stop annoying me with their fairytales. As for humble, I have yet to see a believer who is. The ones commenting on this forum illustrate that point.

Projecting?

MAJ Lupold, your remark about the "war on women" was so unclearly stated, that I'm still unsure what your intent was. But your post suggesting that SPC (P) Mulder, for all intents and purposes, "go along to get along" and abandon her principles and integrity was abhorrent. As you correctly stated afterwards, no one should have to do that, ever. I hope the issue is simply unclear communication on your part. I don't see her issue as one where she should "let small things slide", because it wasn't a small thing by any means. Since many things you've posted have been quite sensible, if I become confused by one of your remarks,I'll ask for clarification in the future before posting.

MAJ (Join to see) It may not be click bait. I have had some commands make it explicitly clear that I WILL pray, and some who laugh and tell me it is optional "duh". *shrugs* Who knows I guess.

Some seriously sick and twisted comments on here.

BREAK

SGT (Join to see), what your CO did is inexcusable, disrespectful and unprofessional. Regardless of MY own personal beliefs, we are all entitled to believe as we choose to without condemnation from others. Sadly, as MAJ Lupold alluded to, there is some hatred coming from every single group out there whether they call themselves Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, Buddhist, or Agnostic. Yes, I know there are hundreds more. I am disgusted by all of it.

SSG (Join to see), true. Religion is one of those issues that causes bitterness because when we question someone's beliefs, essentially, we are questioning their entire worldview. We are asking people to justify themselves to us.
My stance is neutrality. If we could all do that in the public sphere, things would run much more smoothly. In the meantime, most of agree that extremism, on either end of the spectrum is harmful to everyone.

I saw it on AF Times a couple minutes ago - I figured it was coming.

I'm Army, so I don't get the action alert, but thanks to other notification channels I too had heard the news a few minutes before you posted this.

Good news, definitely. I'm glad the issue is resolved.

TSgt Joshua Copeland: Sorry I overlooked this. :)

SMSgt Jeff Samuelson It is all good...never too much info!