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
I get one of those phones because of my income level. No bells, no whistles, I am so glad I am poor so I can avail myself of all this wonderful free stuff for which I would rather be able to pay and have bells and whistles. The “poor” are not always “out there” and folks we dn;t know so we can just lump them all together. They are often our friends and neighbors, many of whom work hard not to let people know of their circumstances because of embarrassment and disdain that they get from society
leejcaroll – so we can say that professional writing does not pay well? 😉
Although, I have a cheap flip phone and my phone has a camera.
leej, I see you acknowledged there are free phones available, but they’re not upscale smart phones. Elect Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and it will be the newest IPhones for all poor!!
Obama has a program for the poor who can’t afford cell phones. 20 million have been given away so far. Go to http://www.obamaphone.com
David I write professionally. I know the difference between accommodation and endorse. Other then that no point to my responding to you. Others do much better then I and you seem to have no ability to consider other’s opinions, positions and that maybe, just maybe, sometimes you may be wrong or there is a legitimate other side to the story. The fact that I have become snarky to you tells me that I have banged my head enough against your concrete wall.
I will respond to your last comment. many folks cannot afford cell phones, and the ones that one can get thru the state, if you are low enough income, disabled, seniors, working poor, do not come with photo ability so again the ‘solution’ disenfranchises the poor.
leejcaroll wrote: “David I write professionally. I know the difference between accommodation and endorse. Other then that no point to my responding to you.”
It seems you consider yourself a good communicator. I am not a good communicator. I am working at understanding how you read my posts as being unintelligible and engaging in circular reasoning so that I can become a better communicator. I do not believe that the problem in communicating between us is because I am stupid and you are smart. Therefore, I work at spelling out exactly what I am thinking by defining my terms. Apparently that is offensive to you. I’m sorry about that, but I am in sincerity and honesty trying to communicate.
At this point, all I have is your declaration that I make no sense and engage in circular reasoning. On top of that, you accuse me of saying that you are not intelligent. I thought the analogy of Jefferson and the University of Virginia would explain it, how he did not want to endorse a specific religion, but he did want to accommodate all the ideas taught by all the religions. In the same way, our Constitution allows for the accommodation of religions, such as through the Sundays excepted clause, and through dating itself from the “year of our Lord.” However, it does not permit Congress to create legislation that would endorse any specific religious sect. This is how I understand the Constitution. You apparently understand it in a different way. Maybe you think like AY that the Constitution seeks to create freedom FROM religion in public society rather than freedom OF religion. That philosophy if of recent origin, and one hammered heavily by the ACLU. They seek to make it part of our culture by their constant lawsuits based upon their twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is a philosophy that is found in the text of our Constitution. Therefore, I challenge people who embrace this philosophy to show it to me in the Constitution.
leejcaroll wrote: “I will respond to your last comment. many folks cannot afford cell phones, and the ones that one can get thru the state, if you are low enough income, disabled, seniors, working poor, do not come with photo ability so again the ‘solution’ disenfranchises the poor.”
The idea of creating an ID at a person’s home involves a visit from a social worker who has a cell phone with photo capabilities. Their cell phone service includes a data plan so they are not reliant upon internet service. The social worker takes care of everything, which results in the ID being provided to the citizen. In my experience, this governmental service is sorely needed primarily because they need the ID to work. Voting would just be a side benefit.
As you probably know from past discussions, I would favor a weighted voting system, where taxpayers, property owners, and people knowledgeable about the candidates have votes that count more than others without these qualifications. I think it is an injustice that an ignorant unemployed person living off government welfare who doesn’t know anything about foreign affairs and the government problems facing us, can just show up at a polling place and cancel out the vote of a knowledgeable and successful citizen like professor Turley.
Our founding fathers did not believe everyone should have a vote, but over time their values were eroded and what we have now are foolish democrats pushing for mob rule of the government by pushing the ideology that everyone should vote. I think anybody not interested in voting should be allowed to abstain from voting. He should not be pressured into thinking that it is his duty to vote. If he just goes into a voting booth and votes for candidates who he doesn’t know other than as a name on paper, he does society an injustice by voting. He should abstain from voting for anyone that he is ignorant about. Many voters can’t even name the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House. Some can’t even identify the President from his picture. They go into the voting booth and make the vote of knowledgeable people who apply themselves worthless. How does that result in a government of the people and by the people? It makes all the political debates meaningless, and all the intellectual arguments of the candidates meaningless. It causes candidates to focus on name recognition rather than solutions to governmental problems. A candidate that can put out more posters and more tv ads and get his name on social media sites will do better than those who actually know how to run government and take the time to explain what they will do. This results in a corrupt government that I am not proud of. The more our country moves toward this kind of democracy, the worse our government will be.
leejcaroll – you seem to think that the person wanting the ID would be responsible for taking the photo. In my state you do not get to take your own DMV photo. Maybe that is true in your state, or they take several and you pick the one you like?
Annie
All that clicking to see various DMV schedules. It can be quite challenging. Best to dumb down the test.
Dust Bunny Queen
Thanks for the geography lesson. It enhanced the conversation. Especially the wawawa part. I hope I didn’t misquote you.
Paul,
You are supplying false information.
AZ does not personally deliver state photo IDs. They will mail them. Is that what you meant? Sounds like something Eddie Haskell would pull.
And unlike WI, the IDS are not free if your original documents have been lost because you are required to furnish original identifying documentation and those are not provided free by county governments.
A photo will be necessary. Sounds like a trip to the DMV to me so why would any “hand delivery” be necessary.
It will be appreciated if you would make some effort in being a honest commenter instead of just making stuff up.
docmadison – the people will come to you to make the ID. They may mail it back though. My understanding was that they delivered, but mailing makes more sense.
Olly,
Voter fraud is EXTREMELY rare, but the voter suppressors (Republicans) cite it all the time. Even more rare is the type of voter fraud that will be uncovered by displaying a state photo ID.
You’re practicing fear mongering. Please show some support that voter fraud runs rampart in WI. Sorry. That’s hyperbole. Show us some stats with link. It will also be helpful if the convictions of voter fraud was the type that is exposed by providing a photo ID. PA pulled the same crap. The court asked for evidence of voter fraud. They said they had none.
And I appreciate the admonishment on the need to vote. That is EXACTLY what I am advocating. Republicans don’t like it. See my notes above.
But I’m glad to know you favor everyone voting. I hope I am not being overconfident in assuming that you are then in favor of early voting and are dismayed that Ohio (Republican state) is drastically cutting back on early voting. I guess Ohio prefers those long lines on voting day – at least in SOME precincts.
And surprise, surprise! Some southern red states have eliminated Sunday early voting, though I’m sure it has nothing to do with African American churches busing parishioners to the early polls after Sunday church.
But I’ll work with you Olly. You provide free IDs (each time they need renewal) and get them delivered to the voter’s home (with photo) and I’ll cease my opposition.
But don’t forget – I’m most anxious to see citations on all the voter fraud (with convictions, please) going on in WI , or for that matter, throughout the nation.
Odd. So many are incapable of reading the hours of the DMV.
Paul, I don’t believe a state that sells its capital can afford to hand deliver a photo ID. Support is required for this assertion.
Olly and Paul, how does the ‘photo’ part get done without leaving your home?
docmadison wrote: “… how does the ‘photo’ part get done without leaving your home?”
A cell phone camera would work pretty good for this. Click the selfie and upload to website.
docmadison – I know this will come as a big surprise to you, but cameras have been portable for some time. All you need is a small camera, laptop and a printer.
Docmadison,
Do you have any opposition to ID’s if they were free and could be provided without having to leave the home?
DBQ, Maybe they can take over the Capitol again. Too bad they can’t come up w/ even a decent Dem candidate for Governor. My prediction is Walker by 5 points.
You only have ONE DMV in a county!! Oh…wait…..your counties are about the size of one of my neighbor’s cattle ranches. Juneau County 804 square miles. That’s basically a square about 28 miles on each side. I just drove that many miles one way to go to have lunch and then back again. We drive 3 times that many miles one way to go shopping at Costco and get a McDonald’s hamburger.
You have more DMVs per square mile than we do. My county is 4720 square miles. We have one DMV.
You guys in Wisconsin are wimps. Wah wah wah.
DBQ – AZ only has 15 counties. AAA now does some DMV tasks in AZ. Of course, we are that backward state.
Olly,
I wouldn’t be opposed.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/about/locate/dmv/#map
Click on a county to see how often their DMV is open a week.
Is there any opposition to ID’s if they were free and could be provided without having to leave the home?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/todd-milewski/clock-is-ticking-to-get-a-wisconsin-voter-id-before/article_d1346760-3cf1-11e4-9560-df1946b2278e.html
Paul, just because you found one that is open for those hours, doesn’t mean all are.
annie – does not mean they are not open. When I looked at their major site all sites were open today.
Docmadison,
My sister has been living in Madison for 40 years and never fails to keep me informed about the GOP monsters in your state. I’ll tell you the same thing I told her; you cannot complain about the government you get if you don’t vote and you can’t be sure you’ll get the government you deserve if you don’t secure the integrity of the voting process. It takes two legitimate voters to overcome every fraudulent vote.
This is an institution the People should demand has the highest security. I’m curious to know if there is any opposition to ID’s if it was free and could be provided without having to leave the home.
Olly – cannot speak for WI, but in AZ they will bring the ID to you for free. Could not be easier.
Olly,
Why did they sit around for 2 1/2 yrs? Because they had no idea of what was being done in their name. Because the only time it had been required was during a primary election where may be 10% of our citizenry votes. Because it had been declared unconstitutional. Because they had been voting for thirty years and they never needed one before.
Let me know when Scott Walker declares only the most zealous and upstanding citizens are allowed to vote and we must all pass the ‘Concerned Enough Citizen’ test. Funny. I think there was a Republican legislator who said something like that just the other day except he said something about being educated enough. And then there is a frequent commenter here who only wants property owners to vote.
There is no shortage of crappy ideas being suggested. And I don’t hear those ideas coming from Democrats.
This will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. This might actually be grounds for another recall process if Walker wins (if the Wisconsin Constitution allows for it). It would not be an honest win, it’s dirty.
Annie wrote: “This will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.”
You are assuming that all 300,000 people who do not have ID’s want to vote. This is the same broken logic Obama used with Healthcare, where he assumed that everybody who did not have health insurance wanted to have it.
Most people I know who do not have ID’s don’t care about voting. They might want help getting an ID so they can get a job, but voting is not even on their radar.
Olly, there was no way to get a state ID free that I know of. If it wouldn’t have been made “free” the court has stated it would be found unconstitutional, as I understand it.