There is an interesting case of religious freedom that has arisen at Creech Air Force base in Nevada where an unnamed airman has been told that he will not be allowed to re-enlist because he does not want to take an oath including the words “so help me God.” He is an atheist and, for obvious reasons, finds the words objectionable. Curiously, despite that fact that he clearly does not believe in God, the Air Force wants him to swear to God as a condition for his serving his country. It is not only a violation of this constitutional rights under the First Amendment but an offense to the many atheists who have served and continue to serve our country.
The American Humanist Association has complained to the Air Force Inspector General that the rule not only violates First Amendment but also Article VI, which bars using a religious test as qualification to any office or public trust of the United States.
The Air Force insists that they have no leeway because the oath is contained in a statute. Notably, however, the Air Force used to allow airmen to omit the words but changed the policy during the Obama Administration. The old version of Air Force Instruction 36-2606 included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.” The change in 2013 requires that even atheist be forced to swear to God as a condition for service.
In this case, the airman simply crossed out the phrase “so help me God.” He was told that who have to both sign a statement swearing to God and then recite those words.
The statute, 10 U.S.C. 502, states:
§502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Notably, if this goes to court, the airman would not be required to swear to God on a bible as an atheist. Instead, he is allowed to attest that his testimony will be true under an alternative to the religious oath:
If any person of whom an oath is required shall claim religious scruples against taking the same, the word “swear” and the words “so help you God” may be omitted from the foregoing forms, and the word “affirm” and the words “and this you do under the penalties of perjury” shall be substituted therefor, respectively, and such person shall be considered, for all purposes, as having been duly sworn.
The refusal to accommodate the religious beliefs of this service member is deeply disturbing and contravenes core American values. He should challenge the rule under the Declaratory Judgment Act in federal court. He will then doubly serve his country in standing against not just enemies from without but those within our country who refuse to respect the religious or non-religious views of all citizens.
Source: Air Force Times as first seen on ABA Journal
Maxcat, yes, I agree its creepy. Also all of this Natural Law Theory baloney and how odd that all those extremist groups ( I linked to above) adhere to it. They seem to want to declare they have the ‘right’ to inject their beliefs in our government…because its ‘God’s natural law’, sorry to be profane here, but how the hell do they know this? God told them so in a dream?
annie – many of the natural law adherents on here are your fellow liberals.
Annie wrote: “Also all of this Natural Law Theory baloney and how odd that all those extremist groups ( I linked to above) adhere to it. They seem to want to declare they have the ‘right’ to inject their beliefs in our government…because its ‘God’s natural law’, sorry to be profane here, but how the hell do they know this? God told them so in a dream?”
Try doing a little historical research, Annie. It has nothing to do with God telling them in a dream. It is all based upon rational thinking. Thomas Jefferson believed in Natural Law Theory. He wrote it right into our Declaration of Independence. Remember “… to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”? The law commentaries of William Blackstone and the philosophical writings of John Locke were among those who influenced Jefferson’s thinking about Natural Law Theory. Jefferson considered the three greatest men who ever lived to be Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton (in that order). All three men were Creationists, and John Locke wrote much about Natural Law Theory with a connection to the Creator. Locke wrote much about religious tolerance, but he also wrote that atheists should never be tolerated in a civil society.
David’s beliefs are the scary beliefs because he is so certain of his correctness he thinks all should follow suit and will bend the constitution etc to fit his personal beliefs.
LeeJ,
Used to be that December 25 was a regular work day…. It wasn’t til after the civil war that it became recognized in the US…. Again David, another failed argument…
Sundays were just another day to work…
Christmas was a religious holiday for Catholics and some others. Did not become a federal holiday until 1870. So, some people were taking the day off and some were not. Most communities had Blue Laws preventing businesses from being open on Sunday. Those were still in effect where I grew up in the 1960s and are in effect in smaller communities of Utah. God forbid you run out of gas.
Another thing David, the current makeup of the US Sct it’d probably go catholic ….. Just sayin….be careful what you ask for….
annie – no right is inalienable? Really?
Also, as a parent and grandparent I would not agree with a Principal in a public school saying grace over a meal. The kids are a captive audience to the religious persuation of the Principal. I wouldn’t want my grandchildren being subjected to prayer by any religious group. They are free to pray themselves, silently. Those who want religion and prayer to a deity as a part of their child’s education experience are free to send their children to a parochial school or homeschool them.
David: Though connected in spirit, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are separate, distinct documents.
The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. It was a list of grievances against the king of England intended to justify separation from British rule.
I see article 1 but in scanning it do not find the Sundays excepted. Can you give me the quote or link? (I would think in those days there were not the various religions and Sunday was the known day if Sabbath then (if that was way Sunday was excepted. Maybe it was excepted as forcing a day off.
Is this what you mean about after article VII, it mentions G-d “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord” because that is all I see.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
leejcaroll, not much time right now, but real quick. The DOI was more than just a list of grievances. Read it. It is legislation that changed the colonies into States able to act as united States. That is big time legislation in my book. I know some people minimize it, but it was an act of Congress (second Continental Congress) signed by delegates like other acts of Congress that came later.
Just google “Sundays excepted clause” to find the other. Should be Article I section 7, but maybe I don’t remember it right.
David in the search bar for the constitution I put in G-d (without the dash ((**)) and Christian nation, neither came up with anything.
Re Sundays “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a law.”
So in those days they gave one day instead of the weekend.
To interpret that to mean it is because of a Christian Sabbath is nothing but interpretation from your very myopic viewpoint. (I say myopic not as an insult but as a result of your inability to even see there are other ways of interpreting the clauses and quotes you have been bringing up.)
Interesting discussion of that clause, which doesn’t even address the Sunday part because, my interpretation of why they didn’t, it is irrelevant.http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/32/pocket-veto
leejcaroll wrote: “David in the search bar for the constitution I put in G-d (without the dash ((**)) and Christian nation, neither came up with anything.”
LOL. If you are going to search instead of read, search on the word Lord (another word for God). It is right after Article VII. Not much reading to do.
Why do you think Sundays were excepted? Why not Saturdays (the Jewish Sabbath) or Fridays (for the Muslims).
David I replied back further. It says Lord in referring to the date. That is not indicating that the constitution has a religious basis.
Oh by the way I did read, and since I did not find it I then searched. I don’t just go by one source or for that matter, your word.
Lets see. why not Saturdays for the Jews or Muslims? First of all because there were probably none at that time? Also in those days people didn’t have a lot of time off so they picked a day. It could have been Wednesday. You have no way to know that Sunday was picked because of religious as opposed to other reasons. It is a mere supposition on your part but you need ot see everything through your religious lens
David you seem to be an example of me thinks thou dost protest too much. For some unknown reason you have an overwhelming fear of those who do not believe as you do and those who do not ‘believe”
Thank G-d we have the Bill of rights and freedom of religion which means freedom from religion as well (as I noted earlier but it seemed to be ignored by you, it seems a penumbra to me and inherent in freedom of religion is freedom from religion) and people such as yourself cannot impose your beliefs and prejudices on the rest of us.
It is amazing when I read Mike Huckabee;s FB page (I go there to see what the other side says) and people consistently respond when I provide clicks with facts, from mainstream sources, that show the lie to what Huckabee has said I am told “You need to find the Lord and be saved.”.
Disagree with them, and with you, and it is all the atheists fault and that is the problem with the country. I mean…..really?
leejcaroll wrote: “It says Lord in referring to the date. That is not indicating that the constitution has a religious basis.”
I never said that the Constitution has a religious basis. AY asked me to show him where the Constitution “mentions God.” Anonymously Yours wrote:
“Just where in the constitution does it mention God?”
and
“… if you can show me where the constution it specifically endorses a religion or God is mentioned, I will buy you a steak dinner of your chosing…”
As I thought about it, the only mention of God that I know of in the Constitution is where they use the word “Lord” to date when the Constitution was signed. They actually used two frames of reference to date the Constitution. The year of our Lord, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Both frames of reference are real and foundational in the minds of the signers. Clearly, the Declaration of Independence is the basis for the Constitution, else why reference it and date the document from its signing? There are several clear references to God in the DOI. This still does not create a RELIGIOUS BASIS, but it does create a THEISTIC BASIS for the rationale in these documents.
One thing that people seem to have trouble with is the concept that theism and religion are not the same thing. Theism is simply an acknowledgement of God. Religion is a system of belief based upon specific statements of faith (a creed). There are non-theistic religions like secular humanism, as well as theistic religions, like the religions found within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Not everyone who is a theist is religious. For example, I am not religious because I am not joined to any religion. However, I am a strong theist. God is as real in my mind and heart as the air I breath.
leejcaroll wrote: “why not Saturdays for the Jews or Muslims? First of all because there were probably none at that time? Also in those days people didn’t have a lot of time off so they picked a day. It could have been Wednesday. You have no way to know that Sunday was picked because of religious as opposed to other reasons. It is a mere supposition on your part but you need ot see everything through your religious lens.”
You are the one speculating without hardly a leg to stand on. I asked you to give me a reason for the Sundays excepted clause, and you have not. You simply suggest that it could have been Wednesday. Was it just a coincidence that they chose Sundays? Is that really your perspective?
I suggest you read U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer’s book, “The United States: A Christian Nation.” In his day, he pointed out that 36 of 45 States had the same “Sundays excepted” clause. You should read what he said about Louisiana, one of the States whose Constitution dropped the phrase. A case was raised about whether the governor’s veto was on time because the clause had been dropped from the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that “Sunday’s excepted” still stood even though the later constitutions omitted it. Their reasoning was based upon religion. They said in the Christian world, Sunday is regarded as the Lord’s day, and a holiday, adding that by statute as far back as 1838, this day was made in Louisiana one of “public rest.”
Brewer goes through many laws and State Constitutions, showing how many laws specifically name Sunday as a Christian day of rest. He quotes the Supreme Court of Maryland saying, “… the day of rest here is the Lord’s Day or Christian’s Sunday. Ours is a Christian community… it would scarcely be asked of a court, in what professes to be a Christian land, to declare a law unconstitutional because it requires bodily rest on Sunday (except works of necessity and charity) and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity.”
Times have certainly changed, but if you have any doubt about the laws of our nation that have accommodated the Christian religion, you really should read Justice Brewer’s book published in 1905. Unless you can point out something about this Sunday’s excepted clause, I think it is very clear that this clause is an accommodation for the Christian religion written into our U.S. Constitution. It is not an endorsement of any specific religion, but it is a religious accommodation directed toward the religions of Christianity which observe Sunday as the Lord’s day, a day of rest and worship.
David It absolutely is an endorsement on one religion over another when He says Sunday is because it is the christian day.
You write: Unless you can point out something about this Sunday’s excepted clause, I think it is very clear that this clause is an accommodation for the Christian religion written into our U.S. Constitution. It is not an endorsement of any specific religion, but it is a religious accommodation directed toward the religions of Christianity which observe Sunday as the Lord’s day, a day of rest and worship.
Davod makes no sense and is circular reasoning: It is not an endorsement but an accommodation towards the Christian religion, i.e. David, one religion over another
leejcaroll wrote: “Davod makes no sense and is circular reasoning: It is not an endorsement but an accommodation towards the Christian religion, i.e. David, one religion over another.”
Christianity has many different religions within it. The primary issue at the time of the Constitution dealt with different Protestant establishments of religion. For example the Connecticut favored Congregationalists, whereas Virginia favored the Anglican church. One thing most of these Christians religions had in common was Sunday worship. However, not all Christians worship on Sunday (e.g., Seventh Day Adventist formed in 1863), so my language is parsed carefully.
There is a difference between endorsement (which implies giving public approval and support) and accommodation (which means adapting or adjusting). For example, Jefferson did not want the University of Virginia to endorse any particular Christian religion, so he did not create a position for the Professor of Divinity. Instead he created a Professor of Ethics to teach the original languages of the Bible and to teach the proofs for God at the University of Virginia. However, he accommodated various religious sects by giving them land and encouraging all of them to come to the university and share their religious views at the University of Virginia. This is making an accommodation for Christian religions but not endorsing any particular religious sect.
This is why I said: “It [Sundays excepted clause] is not an endorsement of any specific religion, but it is a religious accommodation directed toward the religions of Christianity which observe Sunday as the Lord’s day, a day of rest and worship.”
No circular reasoning, unless you don’t understand the distinctions in the terms I use.
david – I see Christianity as one religion with many sects.
Plus David, the year of our lord was a way of dating thing back then….. You know that Russian did not adopt the present day calendar until I think the 1900s.. Messed up lots of things… Shipping dates etc….. Wanna know why they didn’t adopt it…. Because it was the Gregorian calendar…. The pope of the Roman Catholic Church…. The Russian Orthodox Church split with the Romans in about 1000, I think thats pretty close…. It was about money, inheritance….. Marriage…. Control…. So yeah… I’m against a national endorsement of any religion.
Mike A,
They already have the Muslim issue in Dearborn…. The largest concentration of Muslims outside the Middle East….
The purpose of replacing the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar was to get Easter (a movable feast) to fall on the right date. The Julian calendar did not make enough of an adjustment for the 365 1/4 days of each solar year. By the time the Gregorian Calendar was introduced The change only took place in areas where the Vatican had control. Civil states had to move on their own. The biggest problem was that the calendar jumped 11 days overnight. Working with dates (as a historian) during this period can be tricky. Dates are usually given as O.S. (old style) or N.S. new style. During the American Revolution, England was O.S. still.
Isn’t a Constitutional Amendment acknowledging God overkill when dealing with what other’s here have said is stupidity or ridiculous overreach? Those cases probably lose in court if they make it that far. Again theists aren’t in need of any added protections, it’s probably the other way around, secularists are being forced to deal with creeping religiosity in all walks of life every single day.
Thank you, Annie. The talk here about a Constitutional amendment really gives me the creeps. As I’ve stated, I’m a lapsed Jew, but my mother once told me a story about when she was in elementary school and was in a class where they were pledging some innocuous pledge, the type that David believes should be allowed. I’m not “Jewish enough” to know why she felt uncomfortable, but she did, as she couldn’t, due to her faith, pledge. So, “one God for all”? Perhaps, but once you really get into the weeds of peoples’ faiths, it becomes more complicated. Ross Douhat had an editorial in the New York Times today, where he casually restated the often stated canard that “as we are a mostly Christian nation”. No, we are a totally secular nation. That is our brilliance.
maxcat06 – I just always figured that the God they were talking about was MY God, not someone elses.
Paul C. Schulte – No offense meant, but it’s always easy to “figure” when it’s someone elses’ religion. That’s why we need to not establish anything that pertains to any whiff of same.
Here David,
I found your source for your theory…. And in my opinion mimicry…..
http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/7/essays/137/attestation-clause
David,
Your full of it… If you’re relying on the part that says done in convention…. That’s merely a statement that says where it was done… Signed by whom… Attestation clause….
If that’s the basis of your proposition…. You have dug yourself a hole…. Now how do you get out of it….
I’m not saying that the founders didn’t have some belief, some had no belief…. But when this country was formed… The power of the churches was so strong that they did not want one singular religion controlling…. YOU can get much simpler than that….
What’s the state religion of Italy, what’s the state religion of Germany…..
At the acceptance of the Constitution, more than one state had a state religion. And for a long time the state religion of various city-states of Italy was Roman Catholic, the state religions of various Germans states were either Lutheran or Roman Catholic.
davidm:
We frequently read posts here about absurd decisions by school administrators. But outlier stories abound in every area of human activity. Stupidity is not amenable to legislative correction.
There is no prohibition against personal prayer by any person at any time of the day or night, nor has there ever been. Indeed, a truly religious person believes that one’s life is a prayer when lived rightly. However, I would object to an employee engaging in evangelizing during his or her working hours.
Mike Appleton wrote: “There is no prohibition against personal prayer by any person at any time of the day or night, nor has there ever been. ”
I agree with you. But the ACLU has a habit of filing lawsuits against school boards. Remember what happened in Santa Rosa County? Pace High School? Principal Frank Lay? Yeah, they created a consent agreement to avoid a lengthy legal fight. The ACLU did put demands upon them that not only forbid prayer, but nodding the head, folding hands, saying bless you to someone who sneezes, etc. Once their agreement gets in place, then when a violation happens, like an informal prayer by the athletic director, they are facing jail time! I am not making this stuff up.
The inclusion or omission of the public display of faith will have the same coercive effect IF one allows it to color one’s judgment in all other matters. If the rule of law is respected then what difference does the demonstration (or not) of faith make?
AY:
I really like the Sarasota-Bradenton area. Some nice rural areas and close to some really beautiful beaches.
David. it was overreach re the kid who said “G-d Bless you” just like suspending the kids who make a gun with their fingers but a principal saying Grace publicly in the school is picking one religion/religion over all else. Anyone can pray at school, it just cannot be a formal prayer. Principals and teachers are in a position of power and coercion and can fprce their religion preference, overtly or covertly on impressionable kids.
Them …. correction
Two of the have passage to Tampa Bay.
Mike,
Looking at property there, Sarasota, tarpon springs or Saint Petersburg… The one in Bradenton is a horse farm. Looking for a little acreage….
AY:
What happened in Bradenton?
The resurgence of interest in natural law theory is a neo-Thomistic reaction to secularism. There is nothing wrong with that, but the new natural lawyers explicitly link natural law to theological principles.
davidm:
Your observation that theists do not sue atheists is meaningless because they do not need to. The pressure has typically come in the opposite direction, in the form of religious observance sponsored or endorsed by government or government funded institutions. This typically occurs at the local level and reflects what its proponents believe represents majority views within the community. Since the Supreme Court seems to think that’s okay, theists hardly have anything to worry about. Of course, we’ll be hearing a different song once majority Muslim communities begin to emerge. As I’ve previously argued, most tyranny is local.
You are correct, however, in recognizing that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to compel official recognition of God. I would naturally oppose such an amendment because it would inevitably lead to a religiously balkanized society. Besides, pure theists are objectionable to most religious sects because they promote the sin of theological indifferentism.
Mike Appleton wrote: “… the new natural lawyers explicitly link natural law to theological principles.”
What about William Blackstone, Mike. Not hardly one of the “new natural lawyers.” Nor was John Locke. I think you paint with too broad a brush. In fact, the unique aspect of the “new natural lawyers” is the opposite of what you say. They seem to want to unlink natural law theory from any connection to the Creator.
“Neither natural law theory nor a rational code of moral conduct requires belief in a deity.”
““Natural” means ascertainable through the application of reason unaided by divine revelation.”
Mike, I wholeheartedly agree.
If any generation was enlightened enough to include the existence of God in our Law it would be the founding generation. The fact they made the First Amendment one about the natural right of conscience tells me they believed the legitimacy of unalienable rights and government could be discovered through reason alone. If a belief in a Creator or God was necessary to make this great experiment succeed then they would have written into law.
That being said, I do believe they considered religion a necessary institution to immunize a culture against their own sinful nature.
Olly wrote: “If a belief in a Creator or God was necessary to make this great experiment succeed then they would have written into law.”
Belief in a Creator was so pervasive and implied in society, that the idea of writing it into law seemed mostly unnecessary. However, they did from time to time do that. They wrote it into the legislation known as the Declaration of Independence. They wrote it into Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. They wrote it in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
In regards to the Constitution, the problem is they did not anticipate people would argue that the DOI is not law or meaningful, nor could they anticipate how far the pendulum would swing toward the government favoring and promoting atheism. Some of them sounded these alarms during debate, but ultimately they came up with what they came up with. The Amendment process was suppose to remedy these issues, but they could not anticipate how Congress would cease to legislate on important issues and be basically a big money hoarding body of men fighting over which State gets federal money. They never imagined the Federal Income tax we have now. There are no Statesman anymore.
John Adams said:
“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”