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
One eligible citizen not having the opportunity to vote and one ineligible person taking advantage of the opportunity to vote because the system is flawed is unacceptable. We can provide examples on both sides of the debate so the question is, what should be done to improve the system?
annie – I also had one of my illegal alien student vote because someone had registered him to vote so he thought he was qualified to vote. I had to gently let him know it was illegal and ask him to please not do it again until he was a US citizen.
DBQ, IF that were a REAL problem then it would suck, but it’s not an issue. Voter fraud is nearly non existent. Disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters is a REAL problem.
annie – here is a real case of voter fraud.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26325550/town-montezuma-sues-all-its-voters-over-flawed
Wow, pretty soon we’ll need a retina scan to prove who we are before voting. Or a chip.
For the humorously challenged ( Paul) that was a joke.
“A drivers license is an an accepted form of ID. If that doesn’t need to be renewed but every 6 years, so should the state ID. How do we know that the voter who presents the drivers license is still a resident of the state?”
This is a good point. Perhaps they should also present some additional evidence of State and County residency. In CA a utility bill with your name and address on it has been used.
The issue about re-certifying is actually quite important and even more important in local races. If you have a 6 year lapse in time and people do move around, your original registration for voting may no longer be accurate.
For example. I register as a college student or other transient person in your county. In a couple of years I have moved either to another county and registered there or even out of state. Since the voter roles are rarely purges now, who would know? But I am so enamored with Wisconsin issues and have a strong idea on who should be the county supervisor in YOUR county….so I just vote anyway, even though I don’t live there anymore and am not eligible. Maybe even use an absentee ballot because even though I like Wisconsin, I’m too lazy to travel and vote in person. Meanwhile I have also registered in my new location so I just go ahead and vote there too. Maybe my vote in YOUR county where I no longer live is the swing vote and my candidate wins!!!!
You won’t be able to cease all fraudulent activity or stop double voting, but a diligent method of verification for initial registration and constant re-certifications will at least eliminate some of the issues. It isn’t hard. It isn’t even really much of a big deal after the initial registration.
It isn’t about keeping people FROM voting. It is about making sure the votes are legitimate and that all the votes count. My double vote in YOUR county where I don’t live anymore just illegally canceled out yours. How do you feel about THAT?
I believe we have consensus on the importance of ensuring the integrity of the voting process is not compromised. With that being the goal, we should have full agreement every voter should be able to prove eligibility to participate in the process. At a minimum, one should be able to prove life, citizenship, residency and age. I’m certainly open to additions or deletions. A government-issued photo ID card has been identified as the most effective means to accomplish this proof but is being challenged for various reasons that may or may not have merit.
Proponents and opponents of Voter ID allege nefarious motives that may or may not be true. Arguing against the means of proving Voter ID without offering an alternative demonstrates an insincere attitude towards the integrity of the voting process. There really is not much difference between this issue and immigration reform. It makes no sense in either issue to put the security/integrity of it subordinate to the availability of it.
A drivers license is an an accepted form of ID. If that doesn’t need to be renewed but every 6 years, so should the state ID. How do we know that the voter who presents the drivers license is still a resident of the state?
As DBQ says, “Quit whining, wha wha wha”.
Geez. Can’t you guys get anything right?
wah wah wah
I don’t care if poor people vote. I just want them to vote only once and be the person that they say they are and be eligible to vote in the venue/location that they are casting the ballot.
If you are so poor or so incapacitated that getting documentation or getting around to get documentation is a burden, then the State should provide the services for free. There are not that many people who fall into this disadvantaged category. The cost would be minimal and the results would be good.
“To make it be necessary to renew the state ID every two years will also be an added burden. Why would they do this instead of following along the lines of a drivers lisence which expires in 6 years? ”
The only reason I can think of to do this is to re-certify that you are still a legal resident of the State and eligible to vote.
“A California Driver’s License can be renewed either in person at any local DMV office in the State, online or by mail.” Every 4 years
In Ca to re-certify your driver’s license you just have to fill in a form that says basically everything (address etc) is still the same. The form is sent to you in the mail and you sign and send it back. That isn’t much of a burden. It had been at least 12 renewals before I had to go in and physically renew. Probably because of my advanced age :-0 That did require me to go into the DMV and have a new (and still awful) photo taken and do the eye chart test. Next renewal…..in about 5 years, I’m going to have to take a written test.
It doesn’t seem like such a big deal if all you have to do is send in a renewal slip to verify information (if that is the case in Wisconsin….I don’t know). It just seems like people are making a mountain out of a molehill. These procedures are common for everyone everywhere to do the most ordinary functions of daily life. I just doesn’t seem to be that hard to me. If some very few people need help, then the State should provide it for them.
It must really chap some people’s butts that poor people get to vote. As DBQ says, “Quit whining, wha wha wha”.
To make it be necessary to renew the state ID every two years will also be an added burden. Why would they do this instead of following along the lines of a drivers lisence which expires in 6 years? Anything to discourage certain voters from voting.
David even if only a third of those 300,000 voted it would still be 100,000. Nice way that you disparage those people by assuming they wouldn’t be interested in voting.
Also Leej, I think that there are certain people who daily insult and disparage the poor and disabled, but then when they are called on their vile behavior, they exclaim “Oh but I didn’t mean you, I meant the fakers”. How many who receive SSI or SSDI are fakers? How many passed through that rigorous demand to document one’s disability while faking? Very few. Some people you meet in person put on their best face, it’s not always their real face.
Paul
You still need to verify the identity of the person first. A mere photograph means nothing without identification. I could send in a photo and claim any name or identity that I wanted. I could send in multiple shots an be many different people.
Positive ID is the only way to go, otherwise there is no point in anyone anywhere anytime having identification.
annie – with my last vote with Voter ID they scanned the back of my ID and then took an electronic signature to compare with the one on record. Very, very cool and high tech. Not against retina scans though.
Er….subscribing witness and credible witness procedure. I’ve had to do this twice in 15+ years of being a notary. It is very rare.
Ok….to be serious.
“A photo will be necessary. Sounds like a trip to the DMV to me so why would any “hand delivery” be necessary.”
First, you have be able to prove your identity. Show some evidence that you are who you say you are. Otherwise there is a wide opening for fraudulent identification. This might actually require some work for those deficient in coping skills. Things like providing a birth certificate which is readily available for a minimal fee from the county in which you were born. If you are illiterate or so completely indigent (poor) that you can’t even afford these costs, the State should set up an agency or even a roving mobile agency, like a bookmobile, to provide those services to get the ball rolling on getting ID.
There are other forms of ID also acceptable to getting identification for Government ID.
To get a copy of your birth certificate, you need to fill out a form certifying who you are and have it notarized. I was a notary for many years in California so I can only speak to our procedures. What if you don’t have an ID already….seems like catch 22 . Well, in CA all you need is a Subscribing Witness and the Notary will endorse the form for the birth certificate request. http://www.mobilenotaryproviders.com/notary-public-faqs/what-is-a-subscribing-witness.aspx.
Very few people do not have birth certificates, and for those who don’t, who were born under a cabbage leaf or at home, there are ways around this.
I don’t know about Wisconsin, but perhaps the subscribing witness in front of a notary would work for getting DMV licensing or general ID for those who don’t drive for the purposes of positive ID.
Just get a mobile type of program for this. Go to the remote areas. ID people, take their photo and mail the ID to their address. For the very few people who would need this service would not be that expensive. Then everyone can shut up and stop whining about the few people who are incapable of dealing with modern society and must be living under a rock anyway.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wisconsin-voter-id-opponents-hearing-25550420 “he most pressing immediate issue was what to do about more than 11,800 voters who had requested absentee ballots before the ruling. Hundreds of those ballots, which were obtained without having to show photo identification, have already been filled out and returned to local election clerks, Kennedy said.
Everyone who requested an absentee ballot will be contacted and told they need to present a copy of an allowable photo ID in order to have their ballot counted, Kennedy said.
For new requests, voters will have to show copies of their IDs before being sent the ballot.
Another area of concern is that many college IDs in Wisconsin don’t include information required under the law for them to be used for voting purposes, Kennedy said. Under the law, the college IDs must have signatures on them and expire within two years of being issued.” No voter ID required next door in Minnesota. The goal there is to make voting as accessible as possible to ensure all citizens have a voice.
“Thanks for the geography lesson. It enhanced the conversation. Especially the wawawa part. I hope I didn’t misquote you.”
@ docmadison
Actually, you DID misquote me….is is wah wah wah. Get it right if you are going to quote me 🙂
So,,,, Wisconsin has a large bunch of itty bitty counties many rural ones which have itty bitty populations. Juneau County has about 27K people according to the 2012 census. Not even a mid sized town. Mayberry is probably bigger than that 🙂 That few people hardly need to have a Motor Vehicle Department open all of the time. To be economical and cut down on costs of personnel, utilities and other overhead the State has the offices open at select times. Instead of paying DMV people to sit around and play crosswords on the internet, people can schedule their time to come in and take care of business.
We have two locations in my county, which is huge compared to your dinky counties, for County Welfare Benefits offices. The one at the county seat about 110 miles away is open weekdays. The satellite office is open two days a week and it is farther away from my location than it is across the entire County of Juneau. People here have to schedule their time if they need to appear in person or use the internet or use the phone. We also have zero public transportation, so don’t give me THAT whining excuse for Wisconsin.
Are you telling me that people in Wisconsin are unable to do this simple task. It isn’t as if you are suddenly immediately in need of getting an ID or Driver’s License. After all they have been able to get by without ANY ID for any other purpose in life for quite a few years, like opening a bank account, cashing a check, checking into a motel, renting a car, buying liquor, getting welfare benefits, much less driving a car, ……right? What is the hurry then? Can’t people take care of their basic business? Are they incapable of the ordinary functions of modern life? If so, perhaps they need more help than in just getting a basic ID for navigating through our civilization.
DBQ – I came from a town of 10k and the driver’s test was given once a week by the highway patrol.
Unfortunately in any program of any kind, private or governmental, there will be fraud but it seems when it comes to government the people who need the help, which is the majority of those who get it, get lumped in with the ‘bums”. This is why they are cutting safety nets and why there is the snark. I see it in many places besides here, on the net, the news, overhearing conversations in the street, train etc,, particularly on the right, towards those in need. The have’s often are purposefully blind to the have-nots, I think, for many, thinking not, there but for the grace of G-d go I, but these people are lazy, liars, criminals, frauds etc. As a college educated person who grew up in what is probably considered upper middle class I sure as heck never considered I could become more a have-not then a have. (and I am luckier then a lot of folk in that I can afford to take care of myself and am in a position to do so)
leej, I always acknowledge there are good people like yourself who deserve this assistance. The problem many have are the people who scam to get them. Where there is govt. assistance there is fraud. You may remember Hurricane Agnes in 1972. It devastated Wilkes-Barre and the entire area. I saw the good of govt. emergency relief and I saw the rampant fraud. It was eye opening for a 19 year old liberal, college student.
“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.”
Docmadison,
I don’t know what all the snark is about when we simply need to find common ground. It’s like pulling teeth but you finally answered the question. Thank you.
Begrudging low income folks for what basically a necessity in today’s society….. Maybe we can just ship all these folks with cellphones to Cuba….