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
Annie,
You have previously stated you have a daughter in the military. She swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. That constitution is established on Natural Law theory. You of course are free to believe some other “truth” but we are to expect our military and our government to HONOR their oath.
Your definition of Natural Law cultists would be all of those that take the oath as well as those that believe in our founding first principles and the constitution.
I’m interested to know how you explain why your daughter and the rest of us “Cultists” are extremists and you are not?
Jack,
You’re correct…. It’s an amendment passed in 1791 or so….
Amendments to the Constitution are adopted, not passed.
http://againstpolitics.com/la-rollins-the-myth-of-natural-rights/
“The Myrh of Natural Rights” Book Review.
AY said; “And that’s why in the final draft of the constitution they purposely stated that congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion….”
Are you sure that is correct? I thought it was added later as an Amendment. I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001283.txt
The Myth of Natural Law
Annie, in response to your “myth of natural law,” please consider Blackstone’s commentaries. They are much more thoughtful I think than the link you offered us. Keep in mind that Natural Law adherents like myself do not think that Natural Law is the only law. We simply recognize that positive law, which are laws created by men, cannot contradict Natural Law.
From Blackstone’s law commentaries:
LAW, in it’s most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.
Thus when the supreme being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for it’s direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of it’s formation.
If we farther advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws; more numerous indeed, but equally fixed and invariable. The whole progress of plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again; …. the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion, and all other branches of vital economy; …. are not left to chance, or the will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the great creator.
This then is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being: and, in those creatures that have neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the creature itself subsists, for it’s existence depends on that obedience. But laws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and freewill, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behaviour.
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.
Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as be is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian[1] has reduced the whole doctrine of law.
But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance it’s inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it’s laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it’s present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to abstain from it’s perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.
If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the law of nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law possibly exist; for a law always supposes some superior who is to make it; and in a state of nature we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being. But man was formed for society; and, as is demonstrated by the writers on this subject,[2] is neither capable of living alone, nor indeed has the courage to do it. However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many; and form separate states, commonwealths and nations, entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law, to regulate this mutual intercourse, called “the law of nations:” which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by any; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which all the communities are equally subject: and therefore the civil law[3] very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.
Thus much I thought it necessary to premise concerning the law of nature, the revealed law, and the law of nations, before I proceeded to treat more fully of the principal subject of this section, municipal or civil law; that is, the rule by which particular districts, communities, or nations are governed; being thus defined by Justinian,[4] “jus civile est quod quisque sibi populus constituit.” I call it municipal law, in compliance with common speech for, though strictly that expression denotes the particular customs of one single municipium or free town, yet it may with sufficient propriety be applied to any one state or nation, which is governed by the same laws and customs.
Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.” Let us endeavour to explain it’s several properties, as they arise out of this definition.
—-
For more reading:
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1102.htm
David,
I look at it this way; I have my secular guide in Law and First Principles with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and I have my theological guide of Law and Gospel with Old and New Testament. The only guide I NEED to reference for my life within the social contract is the former. And the latter guides me in my Christian faith. They both serve the same purpose but for different lives.
IMO, the primary source of the fear regarding the public demonstrations of faith or the complete removal of religion from the public square is the realistic expectation government will be used against their respective belief. There is overwhelming evidence that our citizens are measurably ignorant of our founding first principles. The ramification has been disastrous for the security of unalienable rights as government has been repurposed for any majority ideology. We are essentially a ship of state without a compass and the electoral losers pull an oar while the winners lounge on deck.
History has shown when you lose your guiding first principles then the law will become meaningless. This is discoverable through reason and scripture. This is when tyranny rises; when we lose our moral anchor as well, then anarchy follows.
You know, many cults, when trying to get converts exclaim “Oh if only you took the time to study and understood our religion, you would believe too!”
David,
You’re swimming in your response to leej… Try and no better… You didn’t answer my question but pointed to after art VII. Keep swimming….
AY wrote: “You didn’t answer my question but pointed to after art VII. ”
What are you talking about? You do not recognize the word “Lord” as being a mention of God? Really?
Yeah David you’re correct…. And that’s why in the final draft of the constitution they purposely stated that congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion…. Translated today that no state can either…..
Were you aware that attendance in some churches were forced upon you… You didn’t have a choice….. You may like to dawdle glad handing folks on your day of sabboth …. I just want to be freaking left alone….
Recently had two Mormon lads show up at the door. I thanked them for stopping by, but that I was content in the way I believe and good luck on your journey… They thanked me and left …. They were not pushy…. Do you know how many other types I have had to say, what part did you not understand…. I am really not interested…. They keep blathering…. Then the tone takes a different turn….
AY wrote: “… that’s why in the final draft of the constitution they purposely stated that congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion…”
That is NOT what the final draft says! Ugh, how many times must it be written before you read it correctly?
Do you see Olly why we need another Amendment to clarify the First Amendment? People today do not read it correctly. They have been brainwashed since Everson and Justice Black’s mangling interpretation. They have been tricked by the Lemon test. It is time to re-establish the First Amendment and stop this terrible misreading of the First Amendment.
AY wrote: “You may like to dawdle glad handing folks on your day of sabboth …. I just want to be freaking left alone….”
It is not my sabbath. I do not attend church. I want to be left alone as well.
My comments simply emphasize what I believe was an important aspect of the Constitution; namely, freedom of religion with no compulsion for anyone to believe a certain way or join a certain religion. There needs to be a wall of separation between church and state so the mind can be free to consider and contemplate truth.
Furthermore, a government that does not acknowledge God is an unworthy government. No person should be forced to believe or trust in God. People are free to be atheists. However, this does not mean that government should be forced to deny God. No government should be forced to be secular or atheistic. If by natural law we reason that government is ordained by the Creator, which I believe it is, then it follows that government should acknowledge the Creator. This would result in the most harmonious society. Governments which are secular or atheistic are doomed to fall because they depart from natural law in not acknowledging the Creator which ordained their existence. They eventually evolve toward being antagonistic toward religion. We saw this in the old Soviet Union. We see it in China. We see it in North Korea. The right path for the freedom of religion that Jefferson and Madison sought for this country is for government to acknowledge God their Creator, just as Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence.
With parenthood an obligation’s borne. The duty to nurture and protect until the time has come to free an independent whole.
An example of Natural Law.
“Do you have any ideas for saving the First Amendment from being twisted into meaning freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion?”
David,
If you reviewed the comments towards the end of this thread you’ll notice you are arguing in support of an unalienable right against those that believe NO rights are unalienable. I used to do the same thing before I studied Natural Rights theory. I discovered theists and atheists can arrive at our DoI and Constitution through reason alone. Once I understood that then I knew the unalienable rights argument was a loser if I insisted the source of those rights must come from God. I can believe (and do) I have unalienable rights that come from God but I can believe (and do) those same rights exist simply because I exist. The common ground between theists and atheists is the unalienable rights we have as a result of our existence.
Once natural rights theory is understood then the next step is to connect those unalienable rights with the purpose for government. The first amendment; well actually the entire Bill of Rights, are better secured from infringement by government only when the citizens understand why governments exist. This is how I can (and will) defend atheists against amendments you suggested and I can (and will) defend theists voice in the public square.
That’s my understanding and it brings me peace in all these threads.
Olly wrote: “That’s my understanding and it brings me peace in all these threads.”
I agree with your understanding, but there are a lot of people like Annie who do not have your understanding. Those people require the Constitution to articulate inalienable rights more clearly. I don’t like the prospect of having to continue facing being arrested, nor my children facing the same persecution, nor the idea that everybody who works for government believing that they must lay aside their religious beliefs so as not to offend the atheists, nor even that people think they are not free to express why they believe or why they don’t believe, just because they represent government. I don’t like my public school system having to pay tax money to defend themselves against all these ACLU lawsuits. I yearn for the understanding that Jefferson had to permeate society, rather than the rampant secularism and atheism that is destroying our freedom.
If only everybody studied like you Olly, the world would be a better place, but most people do not study and our public educational system is failing them because teachers are afraid to mention the Creator, to discuss viewpoints about creation in the science classroom, or even to apply logic and rationalism. Atheism has the imprimatur of government, and theists are being silenced, forced to hold their viewpoints in private on their own time. The next time I am arrested, I will be thinking about you Olly.
In my mind, to simplify, I take rights to be tempered by the duty to respect others’ rights.
Rights. (Almost) inalienable,
Natural Law “theorists” seem to emphasize duty in moral thought. Libertarian liberals emphasize rights.
Today the right to swing my fist does not stop at your nose but well before. The right to religious practice is tempered by a duty to do no harm. Talk: a right tempered by duty not to harm. Freedom of action: a right, you know the drill.
To say a given set of rights is officially inalienable in a social contract is to say that this government of our forming has a duty to make no law infringing these.
Rights: liberal and libertarian
Duty: contract (sometimes a contract with a god — I sacrifice this; you do that)
This is another good source for Natural Law theory:
http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke
Annie,
Here is a quick read to understand what our entire system is really based on. It’s not just Libertarian or Conservative. This is understood by Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, etc. The difference is some people just don’t like the limitations it places on government and will push the limits of constitutionality.
http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
There were no state endorsed religions…. Just accepted….
AY wrote: “There were no state endorsed religions…. Just accepted….”
Actually, if memory serves me correctly, there were six States that established religions. The letter to Jefferson by the Danbury Connecticut Baptists was based on the fact that they were a minority religion. The State religion was Congregational at the time. The Congregational church was supported by State taxes and the State statutes required church attendance.
Even though Massachusetts got rid of their State religion in 1833, take a look at Article III in the Massachusetts Constitution:
=====
Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].
=====
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution
Changed to the following:
Article XI:
Article XI. Instead of the third article of the bill of rights, the following modification and amendment thereof is substituted.
“As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; — therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: — and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII, The Initiative, section 2, and The Referendum, section 2].
Paul,
Much to my amazement you not thinking this through…. But part of the reason for the Seperation of Church and state was because of the Catholics….. In MA there were many more Quakers and Puritans than any other religion…. When they opened up the immigration in the US to other Europeans Catholics made head way here….
You can read about the distrust of having JFK as a president because as a catholic he would owe his alligence to Rome.
MA had a religious tax that was used to support churches. I am giving you a link from the Library of Congress regarding tax supported churches in the newly minted United States.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
I don’t have to read about the problems with JFK as a Catholic, I lived through it. my distrust of him was based on the fact that he was not a practicing Catholic.
This is what I, a liberal believe to be true, I am aware that libertarians and conservatives disagree. We can argue until the cows come home, but the fact is that we are a nation of laws, by men.
Annie – not sure about WI but the cows are already home here, for today 😉
Rights are a social construct. Rights can’t be inalienable because governments often revoke rights. Rights can’t be natural because nature enforces its laws absolutely and rights are frequently broken.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm
In our system inalienable rights are constitutional guarantees. Laws are statutory constructs of the legislature, or agencies as deferred to them by the legislature.
If there are examples where rights were denied or removed at one time does not invalidate the concept of inalienable rights.
Paul know all… The state of MA prohibited stores from closing and that the legislature conduct business……on December 25, look it up rather than arguing about things you haven’t a firm grasp on.
An inalienable right is what we wish we had. It’s fiction. Rights can be alienated. It up to laws to prevent people’s legal rights from being alienated. You can believe the Spaghetti Monster gave you Natural Law or rights for all I care, but it’s up to men to make law and enforce it.