Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society

Air Force Bars Atheist From Reenlisting Unless He Signs And Orally Repeats an Oath To God

1280px-Oath_of_enlistment_·_DF-ST-91-07705150px-Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svgThere 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

850 thoughts on “Air Force Bars Atheist From Reenlisting Unless He Signs And Orally Repeats an Oath To God”

  1. Docmadison, perhaps Wisconsinites need that super duper power of discernment and prognostication.

  2. DBQ

    Is it your suggestion that we should obey a law before it is a law?

    Conversely, should we ignore a law because if it is your belief that it will be repealed or found unconstitutional?

    In that case, would any fines or penalties assessed while the law was in effect and before it was repealed, be voided once the law was repealed?

    Should the citizens of Wisconsin KNOWN that the federal court would find the new law constitutional?

  4. Also DBQ, in one breath you state you don’t know much about the WI voter law and in another get snarky when I suggest you read up on it before making assertions. May I suggest that it would be wise to not admit to not knowing about the law, when make sweeping pronouncments about it, as if your unknowlegeable opinion on it holds any weight. If you don’t know abou the law, as you admitted, you have made assertions based on your faulty knowledge.

  6. “Perhaps you could read up on the WI voter ID situation before making assertions.”

    Perhaps you could look up assertion in the dictionary.

  7. Paul

    In what way has AZ made it easier? Seems boilerplate to me. WI should be the standard. It is a beautiful solution for those who have lost their documents. .

    Isolate you? No, Paul. You engaged and offered some silly information that proved to be untrue. I pointed that out. Your comments most often follow that pattern or seem most interested in gamemanship.

    You’re free to offer your stories. I am free to offer my opinion of those efforts.

    1. docmadison – Arizona offers many ways to prove your eligibility to vote. Not sure why WI should be the ideal. I do notice you get an ad hominem attack in with every response to me.

  11. @ docmadison

    Seriously what? I haven’t been following the issue that closely? The law has been held up in the courts and therefore the deadline is now shorter than it might have been?

    @ Annie

    Yes. A lower court found it unconstitutional…A higher court decided the other way and found it constitutional. That is how the court system works.

  12. Late to the party, But I’m in a mood to call out bad theology.

    A few days back Davidm2527 claimed the Ten Commandments were: ‘written by the very finger of our creator’.

    Might need to go back to the Bible. The first set were supposedly written by the Hebrew god, but Moses threw a fit when he saw the Israelites worshiping a graven image of a calf, and destroyed them. The set Moses was supposed to have brought down were written by Moses.

    It is a small thing, but the detail matters.

    As for atheism:

    Atheism doesn’t teach anything. It simply says that there is no evidence for a god. Not exactly sure how you teach people to disrespect something that the person does not believe exists, but since David has so graciously supported a person’s right to not believe in a god, anything I could say regarding that would be a cheap shot I’d rather not take.

    I’d rather a soldier be honest and not swear in the name of a god that the soldier does not believe in. Like so many broken policies, we would rather our soldiers lie about their faith or lack of it, or their sexuality, or any number of other ‘just say the words, you don’t have to really mean it.’

    I’d rather have an military of honest people, including non-believers, than one filled with people that are being encouraged to lie for expediency.

  13. “Charging a fee for a state issue voter ID card is tantamount to a poll tax.”

    Is the card solely and only used for voter ID…or are we talking about a general government issued non driver’s license ID? Seriously. Because I don’t know the particulars of the Wisconsin program.

    We don’t have a voter ID program in California, but we do have a motor-voter program, where when you get a driver’s license you are automatically (if you want to be) enrolled in the voting registrar’s list. The fee for a driver’s license is sorta/kinda tied to voting I suppose. /shrug

    The Calif non-driver ID is used for all sorts of other purposes like opening bank accounts, and other commercial ID purposes. It could also be used to ID the voter IF Ca decided to go with an ID program, which I seriously doubt would happen.

    If they went to voter ID cards with a fee and the voter ID was useless for anything else then you might have a point about a poll tax. What about the fee for the Driver’s License/voting combo? Would that be considered a poll tax as well in part?

  14. DBQ, the law was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that is what held up the law from going into effect. This is WHY it was “held up”.

  18. Just saw this online: JUST IN: US Air Force announces “So help me God” may now be omitted from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses: “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

  19. Olly,

    I missed your comment yesterday on the absentee ballots. I agree but would add the caveat that MOST of the voting reforms I suggested must also be enacted before the state photo ID law can be implemented – open up those DMVs, allow ample early voting, and figure out a way to get non-drivers to the DMV.

  20. The court found this law unconstitutional as originally written. The only reason it was found to be constitutional was because it was CHANGED recently to make the state ID free.

Comments are closed.