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
Docmadison,
You are guaranteed to be an enabler of governmental abuse of unalienable rights and/or legislative rights if you refuse to see them without a party filter. You cannot
P.S. Voting rights are not unalienable.
Oh, Olly. You stand in front of some poor schmuck who has just been beaten to a bloody pulp by the local sheriff, or by some woman who has had a pelvic and rectal search done on the highway and recite those elegant words.
I’m sure they’ll be comforted.
Unalienable Rights?
Let’s inquire of the esteemed former head of the AZ state house (until recalled) who was the architect of their anti-immigrant law so loved by jolly Sheriff Arpaio and current muckedy-muck in the leadership of the AZ Republican Party what he thinks are unalienable rights – the Lovable Russell Pearce…
This lover of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would force sterilization for women who are on Medicaid – special note – THE WOMEN ONLY – who wind up pregnant. I suppose the men are entitled to another free prescription of Viagra.
The Republicans are growing these thugs by the bushel (see WI voter ID crap). Do you think these guys give a hoot about unalienable rights?
When was Russell Pearce recalled?
Olly,
Read what Mike Appleton said… Then look under his long statement… You’ll see something like I agree or well said… .. That summarizes my position fairly well.
AY,
I’m still waiting for you to take a stand on unalienable rights. Do you agree with Annie that all rights come from the will of the people?
Docmadison,
The distinction of rights being unalienable is about WHO has the power over them. Unlike other rights that are a construct of the social contract and government, unalienable rights exist by the mere fact we exist. They come from no person, including ourselves and as a result, they cannot legitimately be taken away, not even by ourselves. They will always be under the risk of infringement because there will always be others giving in to their own human nature. This is why within the social contract, governments are established to provide security for these rights. They key to the rise of tyranny is to convince the people that all rights come from government. Once that has become the predominant belief then only revolution can restore our security of our natural rights.
Thanks George…
docmadison,
You sound like a true patriot in today’s world needs more….. Think about the Occupy Wallstreet Movement….. The rights of the Nazi attired people to assemble…. The rights of the Santarias to sacrifice chicks…. Or the Christian in Kentucky that play with snakes….
I don’t plan on joining them, but I certainly support their right to do such activities when it does not interfere with my rights….
I will not step inside Hobby Lobby, I had bought a present for someone and when the birth control thing came up, I returned it, I stated that I did not agree with corporations playing doctor and knowing what women need. The lady cheerfully gave me my money back and thanked me for my reasons why I brought it back.
So keep up the good work…
docmadison sounds like he’s doing an ad man for Atheists R Us.
I think Annie is quite correct.
Think of our Japanese citizens sent to the camps, think of the guy who was tossed from a town meeting because he wouldn’t stand for the pledge, think of the seizure of assets by the police during a traffic stop, think of the way they closed down the suburb outside Boston to search for the bombing brothers, think of a woman’s right over her own body, think of Mr. Hobby Lobby telling calling the shots on his employee’s birth control, think of the guy handcuffed in the back of a squad car who suddenly ‘commits suicide’, and think of the thousands of little authoritarian tyrants running small local governments all over this country. Unalienable rights go “poof’ all the time.
For those who wish to rely on religion…..
Given by our Creator? Ha! That guy has NO qualms of pulling the rug out from under us at any time. I give you Noah.
“The next time I am arrested, I will be thinking about you Olly.”
I hope you will be thinking about my point that arguing religion is a loser in secular law. You don’t need to convert people to your faith or God; you need to convert them to unalienable rights. Get them there and what you seek will stand more of a chance of security.
David you have a habit of saying someone is less intelligent then you, that they can’t understand your remarks if ythey point out something against what you say. Christianity, albeit having many denominations within it, is a religion as opposed to others such as, Oh I don’t know. Judaism or Muslim, or Taoism or, or or that do not have Jesus as their basis. Maybe you cannot understand the distinctions that I am making /
leejcaroll wrote: “David you have a habit of saying someone is less intelligent then you”
What? Where did I ever say that, even once?
leejcaroll wrote: “Christianity, albeit having many denominations within it, is a religion…”
Does it really matter how you classify Christianity? The First Amendment is about not respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. Historians know that what they were most concerned about were the various establishments of the CHRISTIAN religion, that one establishment of Christianity would be favored over another.
From my perspective, the differences within Christianity are so severe that it is best looked at as an umbrella term for many religions. When the Catholics came into power in England, the blood of Protestants was spilled. The inquisition primarily slaughtered Protestants. Many Protestants to this day say Catholics are not Christians. Many say Mormons are not Christians, or that Seventh Day Adventists are not true Christians. We could easily try to say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims are really all one religion because they all worship the God of Abraham, but how many Muslims do you know who think Jews and Christians are part of Islam? It seems very difficult to me to consider Christianity as one religion with many sects. But even if you look at it that way, the First Amendment and the Constitution and numerous laws in this country have coddled and accommodated Christianity, and the only prohibition about lawmaking concerns respecting AN establishment of religion (e.g., Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.). It does not prohibit respecting religion, or even respecting Christianity in general. There is some common law dictum that argues such, but that dictum goes beyond the Constitution and has led to major problems of legal interpretation. The lemon test is a joke that should be eradicated from jurisprudence. Any jurisprudence that leads to freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion is in violation of the Constitution.
I have sometimes thought it might be a good life mission to draft a Constitutional Amendment acknowledging God and defining the First Amendment more specifically, but I have no idea how to start on a project like that. How can anyone get two-thirds of the State legislatures to convene for such a purpose?
Yeah and except for the baptist every Christian based church is a split off of the RCC…. And the RCC is a spilt from judisam….. So who’s leader do you follow….
Yeah, A.Yours.
Christianity is a large sect of Judaism. The ones who accept Jesus as messiah vs. those who await the real messiah.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism all hold the God of Abraham as their god. They are sects of Yahvism.
But everyone else in the world has a different god or gods. And we, unlike so many other places, allow the free practice of non-harmful rites of even these. The minority religions. And the 18% none-of-the-above have no rites, but do have the right to not be forced to follow the practices of the majority religion.
The god of atheists is Mother Nature! She’s so powerful that denying her is the very test of godhood of other gods.
Rights protect minority cults. E.g. Wiccans. We do suffer witches to live, contrary to Christian doctrine.
Jack,
I really hope you are able to retrieve your comments.
Annie,
If it was meant as an insult then it’s an insult; if it’s taken as an insult then it is insulting. I’ll call out the insult for what it was meant to be but it is no more insulting to me than any other name one might think of. I gave up that thin skin when I was in the Navy. As for Nick, you’ll just have to trust me when I say I’ve communicated my recommendation to him.
Paul,
I have no idea why my comments stopped going through. It started when I copied a portion of the Declaration of Independence. Then Darren retrieved it to the point of “awaiting moderation”. Then it went away again and none of my subsequent posts were being published. I don’t know if the problem is my email address, or the stuff I’m trying to post (none of which contained links or profanity). Maybe it’s all the result of an inadvertent mouse-click while Darren was attempting to help. I don’t know. — I’ll check back later as it is a pain in the you know what to get anything done while spoofing my ip address. OSAC won’t let me in from the ip address I am using.
Ah well, I’m off to babysit a sweet little 4 month old grandson of mine. I’m not skipping out of the discussion, although its played itself out. It was a good discussion, thanks.
And the original comment that you retrieved is gone again.
Was Jack – can’t you still be Jack at the new IP address?
Darren, My comment showed up for a minute but still indicated that it needed moderated. Then my subsequent posts, including the one thanking you for retrieving the comment, went into neverland.
Now I’m posting this from a different IP address and a made up email address. Maybe it will go through.
So Olly, you should be calling out your buddy Spinelli, no?