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
OK Olly. You indicated it was insulting to say someothing was cultish, no? Do you then think that anyone who calls another cultish is insulting them? Then, you should be able to agree that it is insulting in general when anyone calls anyone else cultish. You seem to be an honest sort, much more honorable than some. I’m sure you can recognize what I’m getting at here. This might be a point of agreement between us two.
Thanks, Darren. For a minute I was able to see it, but it was flagged as awaiting moderation. Then I refreshed and it was gone.
Annie,
I never said it was uncivil. I have accepted the label in my posts upthread as it means absolutely nothing to me. My point was to address AY calling out Nick when she should would have been more accurate by calling you out.
My comment (quoting a portion of the DOI) has finally showed up…for me alone. It now says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I think that means it was removed from the spam filter, but now needs to be accepted. –A little more help, please.
Olly, if it is uncivil to call a group cultish, then perhaps you should admonish your buddy Spinelli. He’s been calling liberals cultish for months now. If you want to be recognized as being an independent thinker, the first thing you could do is extricate yourself from the influences of certain people here on this blog.
That didn’t answer the question AY. You will have realized in my posts that Natural Law theory can be understood through reason alone. I haven’t cited the Heritage Foundation in my posts. You also haven’t expressed any opinion on the subject of unalienable rights. Do you believe all rights come by the will of the people as Annie has put forth?
Do you know what the definition of Cult is Olly? Look it up, IMO…. That’s what the heritage foundation is…. Just like any church…. It pays allegiance to one….
I had the same problem Jack. 🙂
AY, who was the first person to post the “cultist” accusation this morning in this thread?
Olly, Apparently, the spam filter did not like for both of us to cite the DOI at roughly the same time. 🙂
Olly,
You don’t need links to know what you’ve said….
Please help. Comment eaten by spam filter.
I never would have expected a portion of the Declaration of Independence to be sucked in by the spam filter. 🙂
Annie,
IMO yes….. A side issue did you realize that this blog was going pretty well without insults…. The first post by Nick today here was insulting to everyone….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.
Jack, I retrieved your comment at 3:50.
Annie,
That’s because they are inseparable. One leads to the other.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd self-evident truths in the DoI demonstrate that our form of government IS derived from Natural Law.
“;that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
The reason we have the constitution and not the Articles of Confederation are because the central government was then too weak to secure unalienable rights. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is because the anti-federalists believed the Constitution would make the central government too strong and it would be a threat to the security of unalienable rights.
Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and Union” is an exceptional document on the relationship between the DoI and Constitution. The Declaration is the apple of gold in the constitution’s frame of silver. The Frame is made for the Apple.
Olly, I would have to believe that the Constitution was derived from Natural Law to believe it was a document that based on cultish ideas. The Consitution is The People’s Law. My daughter swore an oath to uphold the Consitution, not Natural Law. You seem to be unable to separate the two.
How proud you must be to have a daughter that took an oath to support a cult, Annie. I thank you for her honor and service to that cult.
Olly, I will always accept that I am infallible. It’s human nature.
AY, yes I know. Cultish isn’t it?
Annie,
I have to thank you for the opportunity to understand your thinking better. I would hope you have an open-enough mind to study the links that have been provided and the humility to accept the possibility you’re on the wrong side of this debate. For my part, I have read your links and will study them to see if they present a view that better aligns with the American founding.
AY,
If you look upthread at the links I provided you will find no reference to the Heritage Foundation.
You have been notably silent on the issue of Natural Law theory. Do you hold to the same view as Annie, that all our rights come from the will of the people?