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
DavidM, You are a man among boys and girls.
Annie,
If you want to get an ideal of where these folks are getting their speaking points and tips, go to heritage.org it is all spelled out there. You can even purchase it at google….. It’s kinda funny to read it’s like a Marxist Manifesto and mien kampt rolled into one….
“And THIS was the WILL of the People, that is what inspired the Consitution and that is what endowed them with their rights. Their own WILL.”
Wrong again Annie.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1. that all men are created equal,
2. that they are endowed by their Creator (*) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
3. that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
4.that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
These four self-evident truths are what legitimized the effort for independence and the creation of a different kind of government. The 3rd truth is what led to the Articles of Confederation and when that proved to be too weak to secure the 1st and 2nd truth then the 4th truth led to the creation of our Constitution. The anti-federalists still did not believe those natural rights would be secured and would only support ratification IF a Bill of Rights was included.
*Creator can be whatever you believe brought you into existence, perhaps the spaghetti monster.
http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/PopularSovereignty.png
My last comment on this subject.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
**************************
And THIS was the WILL of the People, that is what inspired the Consitution and that is what endowed them with their rights. Their own WILL.
annie – that We the People did not include women or blacks or Indians. How is that the WILL of the people?
Lord literally translated from what language? English, German, Hebrew, Swahili, Chinese?
Olly,
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and we the people do recognize it as such, we also recognize the Bill of Rights and the Amendments. No one discounts the Constitution. You want so desperately to prove that it is based on Natural Law, you can’t. You are free to think it is based on Natural Law, I’m free to disagree.
Annie – I would posit that Obama and his administration do not recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. They think they are a law unto themselves.
Any law Annie or what is their limit? What guides them?
The will of the people is also expressed in the laws that their chosen representatives make.
Lord literally translated means law…. Seriously…
The will of the people is expressed in their right to vote for people who represent their interests. We are a representative democracy.
Ok David, that was the answer I was looking for…. We agree that congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion…. So why all the fuss? It’s plain and it’s clear…. Read on down it says and to petition the government for a redress of grievances…..
Popular Sovereignty? You have to go deeper than that Annie. The will of the people defines democracy. You don’t want 51% of the people to elect a government that forces you to go to church, do you? That’s the will of the people. You don’t want 51% of your neighbors to elect local government that says you need to turn your property into a crack house, right? You don’t want 51% of the people to tell you that the next election will require 80% of the people to change any laws made by the currently elected government.
It’s far more than the will of the people. My oh my!
Annie – the Constitution is the will of the various legislatures of the various states. It has never been the will of the people.
What is the Constitution based on? The WILL of the people.
Annie wrote: “What is the Constitution based on? The WILL of the people.”
No, that would be a democracy. Mob rule. We have a Republican form of government. It is a Democratic Republic because people are elected to represent the people.
What really happens in practice is that people are voted into office who the people believe will represent their will. Hopefully these representatives are wiser than the people who vote for them, and they govern according to their own will with the CONSENT of the people. Votes do not really correspond directly to the will of the people, but rather to the consent of the governed. Do you see the difference?
“However, these are strange “Natural Laws” as they can be violated in nature! Natural laws (like the law of gravity) *cannot* be violated and therefore do not need enforcing.”
Annie,
On 9/11/01, four airplanes “violated” the natural law of gravity to “violate” the natural right to life of nearly 3,000 people.
Identifying natural laws is not invention but discovery. With those discoveries come further critical-thinking on man’s relationship with the discovery. Natural rights are not an invention but a discovery. The framers took that enlightenment to do further critical-thinking on how previous cultures violated those rights within their societies. They used that knowledge to create a form of government that would be the best defense against those violations of natural rights.
Here’s a clue for you David…. The final draft is the one signed….it seems pretty plain to me….. Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion…. Seems to me that it is clear…. How did the lemon test mess that up? Seemed to clarify it… Until it was strangled later….
No I don’t think we need another amendment that establishes any type of government sanctioned snake charmers…..
AY wrote: “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion”
That is not the First Amendment! You keep quoting it wrong and changing its meaning.
Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion.” (Capitalization for emphasis is mine)
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossaries.aspx?term=popular-sovereignty&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Popular Sovereignty.
The United States Constitution is based on the idea of popular sovereignty, which means rule by the people. This is the very reason the preamble to the Constitution starts out with the words: ‘We the people…’ The government’s power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. People can indicate their support of the government by voting during local and federal elections, working to make their opinion known on public policy issues and reminding their representatives that they are accountable to them.
Reference: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org
Kinda funny Paul…. We are both wrong…. They are proposed….. Then ratified….by the necessary number of states….
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I think the word we both may be looking for is VALID 😉