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
That is as logical as saying black is not black because I can paint it white.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Unalienable rights are fundamental to this nation’s existence as a constitutional republic.
A cite to the specific MA legislative statute or court ruling would be helpful. However, MA is not the entire country, much as some would like to think. If I remember correctly, MA was not a Catholic state early in its history.
The term Inalienable Rights is an oxymoron. If the rights were truly inalienable they would not be able to be alienated.
Annie wrote: “The term Inalienable Rights is an oxymoron. If the rights were truly inalienable they would not be able to be alienated.”
That is kind of like saying, if the law of gravity truly existed, nobody would be able to fly.
Unalienable doesn’t mean that others won’t try to alienate them. The whole reason government exists is because others WILL try to alienate them and we establish laws to protect them.
You know what I find interesting, much of the discussion has been civil. There have not been any side snarks or baiting. We have agreed to disagree and still are maintaining a civil blog. What’s the difference I ask myself…. Hmmm…. Paul is actually tolerable even though I disagree with him….. What element is missing that attacks and enjoys baiting? Oh yes….
Inalienable rights are a construct. They were never inalienable and rights get alienated all the time. That is why we have legal redress. Look at David’s suggestion that we have an Amendment that states the US aknowleges the existance of God. That Amendment would take away the right of legal redress of secularists and atheists when they feel their legal rights have been alienated.
Annie wrote: “That Amendment would take away the right of legal redress of secularists and atheists when they feel their legal rights have been alienated.”
Please give me an example of this assertion. Show actual damage, because the law is not about “feelings” but about actual oppression.
From my perspective, the acknowledgement of God in Natural Law Theory has led to all the wisdom about liberty and freedom that our country has inherited. It has led to great freedom for atheists and theists alike. It is the banning of the acknowledgment of God which has put our legal tradition on a collision course like the Titanic had with an iceberg.
Slaves did not have inalienable rights, Jefferson owned slaves. How do you own a person with the inalienable right not to be chattel? They got rights when the 14th Amendment was passed.
Annie wrote: “Slaves did not have inalienable rights, Jefferson owned slaves. How do you own a person with the inalienable right not to be chattel? They got rights when the 14th Amendment was passed.”
A Natural Law Theorist would say that their rights always existed, but the laws did not recognize and protect that right. When the 13th Amendment was passed, then the Constitution recognized that right that had always existed.
Jefferson actually fought very hard to stop slavery. He was hindered by the U.S. Constitution which prohibited banning the slave trade until the year 1808. Jefferson was right at the forefront to ban slavery the moment that date came.
The problem for Jefferson about slavery was not in recognizing the evil of it, but it was the cultural and economic problems caused by freeing slaves. Jefferson had inherited a plantation and slaves from his wife’s father. It was not something he sought for himself, to be a slave owner. Once having them, what is he to do? Shut down the plantation? He wrote about slavery much. It is fascinating to read his description of how negroes differ from white people. I remember him describing the negro race as gifted in music, but generally lazy in labor. He speculated what would happen to society if they were simply released to be free. Could they become educated and function as others in society? He could not come to a definitive answer. He actually predicted some societal unrest and chaos, much of what we see with situations like the recent Ferguson Missouri event. In the end, Jefferson could not find a way to end slavery once and for all. Ultimately it took a fierce civil war to effect that change, so he probably was right all along in his approach to slavery given the times in which he lived.
Some rights are inalienable, but some rights are not inalienable. How fast you can drive on the highway is not an inalienable right. Voting is not an inalienable right. The freedom to make up your own mind about religion and God is inalienable, and the freedom to express those opinions are inalienable. The right of men and women to live in freedom is inalienable. When laws are drafted that articulate accurately these natural laws for civil society, then peace and harmony is the result. When the laws of men contravene natural law, then societal unrest and oppression is the result.
That explains so much. The slaves did have unalienable rights and they were violated. Cultural shifts don’t occur because 56 men signed a document declaring the self-evident truths. It takes time but the DoI is the North Star to guide the country. It’s why the Preamble states “in order to form a more perfect union”; we knew we weren’t there and were ratifying the law to secure our gains as our culture shifted towards respecting the rights.
No right is inalienable. We as a society agree to honor each other’s rights by laws. Laws change, rights change.
So…life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness are not inalienable and those can be taken away when the laws change or when people decide they don’t want to honor your rights.
Awesome. I’ve always wanted to own some slaves and have a mini plantation, when can we pass that law and repeal liberty.
(Joking obviously but that could be the result of thinking like Annie)
No right is inalienable. We as a society agree to honor each other’s rights by laws. Laws change, rights change.
Our rights come from human laws based on our capacity to care for one another’s interests. I don’t believe in inalienable rights. Slaves didn have inalienable rights did they? How about women? Children? We get our rights from being privileged enough to live in a country that is for the most part civilized and advanced.
Golly Geeze Paul, you catch on quick…. I am amazed…. Found an interesting link to the heritage folks…. Boy do they have plans….
“Also all of this Natural Law Theory baloney.”
Annie,
If you believe Natural Law or the Law of Nature is baloney then do you also believe unalienable rights are baloney? Natural Law gives that we can use reason and the fact we exist to arrive at universal natural rights. If we aren’t using our existence and reason to identify natural rights then where do you believe our rights come from?
http://youtu.be/mS_b5W88Dn4
GOP candidate speaks about blocking judges nominations based on Natural Law and another GOP candidate says we must judge them based on Biblical Law. Anyone see a violation of the Establishment Clause here?
“There should be no legal redress against people praying on government time! Read the First Amendment: “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” ”
I have to disagree with this. Praying on government time or when you are being employed to do OTHER work should be just as forbidden as playing World of Warcraft, surfing Craigslist, making your airline reservations. When you are at work…..WORK. No one should be forbidding you from your faith, from wearing a cross, displaying a menorah, putting up an Easter display, as long as those activities do not impede your ability to work or the ability of others to complete their own jobs. However, when you are working, your employer owns your time.
I know….now we get to discuss the Muslims who want to stop and put their butts in the air and bow to Mecca (or something). Fine. Take an UNPAID break and pray if you must.
Freedom of speech doesn’t grant people the right to falsely shout fire in a crowded place. It doesn’t grant you the right to take money from your employer under false pretenses either. Not working. There already exist workplace rules against political campaigning at work or on work time. The same rules can be instituted for proselytizing and ostentatious religious activities in the work place.
Basically. Be all religious as you want. Have any religion you like….just do it on your own time. If it were my employees mucking up my business…..I would find a reason to fire them. Not for their religion, but because they are being a$$holes in not obeying the work rules and wasting my time and money.
DBQ wrote: “I have to disagree with this. Praying on government time or when you are being employed to do OTHER work should be just as forbidden as playing World of Warcraft, surfing Craigslist, making your airline reservations.”
So when the President prays at the end of the State of the Union address (“God bless America…”) or after taking the oath of office (“So Help Me God”), you are against that? How does that interfere which his government responsibilities?
I have a daughter who worked for the University of Florida and received a formal reprimand in her file because she was discussing religious views in a public square at the university. It was considered not representative of university views. The argument was made that she represented the university 24 hours a day 7 days a week. So is your position that if she accepts an employment position with the university, she must shed her Constitutionally protected rights of free speech and religious expression for as long as she is so employed? Really?
By the way, when she applied to the Florida Bar to practice law, this reprimand was a big deal. It caused her enormous pain and extra work explaining the situation. They kept coming back wanting to know more and more about the situation. Ultimately she was admitted to the Florida Bar, but she should not have to jump through extra hoops just because the university believes like you do about employment and the Constitution.
No doubt Annie. It’s impossible to not have extremists.
The topic of the thread is the Air Force enforcing a law they did not write. Amend the law and remove the last 4 words. The Airman’s conduct will be measured by the UCMJ and Constitution; not some religious text.
Olly, I would bet there are plenty of other contributors here that would find Oath Keepers one of those creepy natural law extremist insurrectionist loony tune groups, like the ones at the Bundy Ranch.
David,
I do not support your amendment idea but it is no less “creepy” than a couple of the contributors in this thread.
Olly wrote: “I do not support your amendment idea but it is no less “creepy” than a couple of the contributors in this thread.”
Do you have any ideas for saving the First Amendment from being twisted into meaning freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion?
The way I see it, our culture has changed so much, that in order for the intent of Madison and Congress to be clear in our culture, there needs to be clarification that government must not compel religion, but government may be supportive of religion.
When Jefferson created the University of Virginia, he mandated the university teach the original languages of the Bible and also teach the proofs of God. He gave land to various religious groups to encourage them to have a presence on campus. There can be no more clear example of how to put into practice Jefferson’s concept of the separation of church and state than how he established the University of Virginia. The SCOTUS and the ACLU have perverted this understanding, so Congress needs to fix it. That’s how I see it. Otherwise, government will become more and more antagonistic toward theists and look more like atheistic communism than a freedom loving democratic republic.
One example of theists pushing their beliefs on the secular. The topic of this very thread, to go full circle.
sounds to me like Franklin is saying it only works when you put out reason, i.e. the candle
leejcaroll and George
That’s the way I’m reading Franklin as well. He’s appealing to reason over faith.