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
Paul,
Yes. Care facilities often facilitate such applications. It would be great if there were more programs like that.
Paul,
I characterize your comments as unreliable and fabrications and more interested in gamesmanship. That is not an ad hominen attack. You, personally, are of the salt of the earth and possess the most esteemed virtues
ALL states offer multiple ways of proving eligibility to vote. And most offer the same choices of documentation. I thought you said AZ was easier (and that was after we got past the whole ridiculous “personal delivery” thing). I see nothing on the AZ DMZ website that indicates AZ is better than any other state. However, as discussed several times in this thread, WI has changed their laws and will ASSIST applicants by searching other state’s databases of birth records, school records, and baptismal records. This is a very good thing. Not only will this ease the application process, it makes the ID application truly free – an issue that I think is very important lest it begin to act as a poll tax. AZ does not assist an applicant in obtaining necessary documentation as WI does. I maintain that is a big difference and also points out the error so frequently stated by many: that state IDs are absolutely free. They are not free when it is necessary to apply to another county for birth records. That county will charge for that service.
This once, I’ll trust that you are correct about the Court of Appeals overruling the district court. My apologies. However, Dust Bunny needs to get over her animus towards the ACA and might find it helpful to clarify just when a law is a law.
And now there is this:
Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “Most voters who have already returned absentee ballots will have to provide their local clerks with copies of photo identification — as will thousands of others who have received absentee ballots but not yet submitted them. Kevin Kennedy, the head of the agency that runs state elections, said new steps are being put in place to contact such voters after a Friday ruling by an appeals court that reinstated Wisconsin’s long-stalled voter ID law.”
Messier and messier.
docmadison – even your claim to defend yourself against making ad hominem attacks contains an ad hominem attack. You don’t seem to know the difference between a lower court and a higher court. Plus, you think Annie, who area of specialty is nursing, is an expert on the law. You also seem to think all the DMV are only open infrequently. None of those give you credibility on this issue.
Paul is a pack mule. A true beast of burden. He like to sing, “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen” as he trudges along, carrying unshared burdens through the Arizona desert, soon to be flooded again I see.
Nick – I hope we are not flooding. But I did get sandbags just in case.
Paul, he did say “there are many unshared burdens.” That must be yours. 🙂
max, We all made our predictions prior to the season. Our Brewers have folded like a cheap lawn chair. You sound like a real baseball fan. JT is a Cub fan. I don’t know how he feels about baseball.
Nick, I’m a voice crying in the wilderness here in Georgia. Now that the Braves are just about eliminated, however, I can possibly show my allegiance a bit more. Since I moved around a bit in my life, from NY to Texas to Georgia, I had finally decided to pick a team near my place of birth, Maryland, so I chose the Nats. It has been fun. I’m a lifelong baseball nut, including a family love of the Dodgers when they were still in Brooklyn and I was under 7 years old!
I’m guessing they’ll ok the law but not the 45 day time frame.
Annie, that’s really interesting about the en banc appeal. I’ll be most curious to know what Posner has to say.
There are many many unshared burdens in this country. Let’s hope our governments – fed, state, and local, work hard to ease those burdens.
http://expressmilwaukee.com/article-permalink-24015.html
The ACLU and the Advancement Project announced on Tuesday that they will ask the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc hearing on the WI Voter ID Law.
Another article:
“Air Force Will No Longer Require ‘So Help Me God’ In Enlistment Oaths”
The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine
Posted: 09/17/2014 5:31 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/air-force-oath_n_5838802.html
Good news, as someone noted earlier.
Olly,
Lots of people cannot imagine how people can live without an photo ID but it really is very easy. I have much experience with the elderly. They give up driving and let their license lapse. For most, their driver’s license is their only photo ID. Another thing some give up is travel – no more airports – no photo ID needed. I have banked at the same nationwide bank for many, many years. I do everything online. I have not needed a photo ID in all those years. The elderly, shut-ins, severely disabled, the permanently unemployed, the self-employed do not need a photo ID for employment purposes. There are also many Americans who live in a ‘cash only’ economy. Cashing a check is not an issue. I have seen how easily the elderly can slip into a minimal existence once they are widowed, retired, or in failing health.
I know many are concerned about the millions of undocumented immigrants. How many states issue them a driver’s license? They manage without the state ID.
I have one photo ID. If I let it lapse, I will have to scramble. I have no other papers. They were lost in a move. I can’t even find my marriage license. I haven’t bothered to get certifiable duplicates. I wonder how many here have more than one acceptable state photo ID.
Unfortunately, we are too often blinded by our own experiences and then find it incomprehensible how others live without what we take for granted.
I trust Annie will find out about the 300,000 number. I can’t answer that but I think federal judges are pretty nit-picky and often require substantial explanations for how such things are calculated. But if you are unsatisfied with the accuracy, is it acceptable that, say, 50,000 have 45 days to get an ID when their local DMV is only pen 3 days between now and the election? I don’t understand how that fits with a concern about the integrity of every single vote. Are 50,000 votes of less importance?
The law should be held in abeyance until my suggested reforms are implemented.
IMO.
docmadison – my brother spent years in a care facility and somehow, I really don’t know the details, they got him a photo ID.
Thanks Annie.
“Citing extensive evidence that African-American and Latino voters in Wisconsin were between 1.4 times and 2.6 times as likely as white voters to lack a driver’s license or photo ID, Judge Adelman found that Act 23 creates a situation “in which a disproportionate share of the Black and Latino populations must shoulder an additional burden in order to exercise the right to vote.””
That’s the closest thing to “data” that I could find. Don’t they all still have to shoulder the same burden? What’s being done to reduce this “disproportionate” share?
“I did not have ID and opened a bank account, cashed a check and got welfare benefits ”
@leejcaroll.
I am certainly not disputing your experience since I have never lived in S Carolina (?) and things may be different in other locations than mine.
However, I have spent my entire working life in the financial industry. First as a banker, loan officer for 15 years and later for the last 20 + years before retirement as a financial advisor, stock broker, financial planner and also as a notary public. (Yeah….I’m old)
When I was banking, you couldn’t open a bank account without proper ID. Driver’s license, passport, military ID, green card. A social security card is not ID. As a securities representative, we not only had to take ID information, we were required (by my broker dealer) fill out a form and certify that we had personally inspected the documentation and to make a photocopy. This was mostly to do with the Federal money laundering rules. As a notary, I had to have positive ID.
Years and years ago like 30+…I briefly was collecting food stamps and as I recall had to show proof of identity…..Perhaps that has changed. I don’t know.
There are a lot of other places that, even though they might be required to ID , they you generally won’t. Liquor stores if you look old enough. Check cashing if they sort of know you. I rented a car the other day and the guy in the next line didn’t have a photo ID. I think they allowed him to use his temporary DL and a copy of a PGE bill that matched the address. So there are ways.
So…yeah. Maybe someone could get by for a while without an ID. But it is harder and harder the more technologically advanced we get. Can you live under the radar and fall through the cracks?. You BET. I know people who do. Especially out in the countrysides like where I live. The downside of that lifestyle is that you give up other perks of civilization. Choices. They are hard.
(I was in NYC)
Olly it appears there were several witnesses who testified (under oath I presume) to the 300,000 number.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/voter-id-would-disenfranchise-latinos-african-americans-in-wisconsin/article_09763594-d0a1-11e3-8aaf-0019bb2963f4.html
Oily at 2:20 O gave you my personal experience aout not needing ID (I left out before the disability I was hired without having to show ID)
Olly,
It was Judge Adelman that came up with the 300,000 number of those who this law would affect. It’s a good question as to how he arrived at the 300,000 number, I’m trying to find out the source of that number now.
Docmadison,
I’m curious to know what percentage of the 300,000 have absolutely no way to identify who they are? Forget this election cycle for a moment. How was the 300,000 determined to be without valid photo ID’s? I personally don’t know anyone that doesn’t carry or have available some form of ID. So I’m embarrassed to say I have no knowledge as to how anyone get’s employed, get’s public assistance, cashes checks, opens bank accounts, etc. without one.
“it wasn’t a lower court that found it unconstitutional.”
I stand corrected then. I was under the assumption that the law had been found unconstitutional at the State level, and then appealed to a court with higher standing, a Federal Court.
“Is it your suggestion that we should obey a law before it is a law?”
(These are my opinions and not assertions of fact 🙂 according to the dictionary definition of the term.)
Of course not. If it isn’t law….it isn’t law. Yet. It is just a suggestion or an idea. However, if the law was passed by the legislature, it is a law, even while all of it or parts of it are being challenged. Just like Obamacare.
“Conversely, should we ignore a law because if it is your belief that it will be repealed or found unconstitutional?”
No. Because it is a law until it is not. Whether I like a law or believe it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it less than a law. The law can be challenged and repealed or partially repealed. But until then. It is still a law. This is the problem I have with Obamacare. The changing of the provisions outside of the legislative process by the executive branch, which doesn’t make laws. The law was found “mostly” constitutional with some exceptions by the Supreme Court. Once made law, there are ways to change it or repeal it. Just waiving an executive pen isn’t one of them, as Turley (I believe) agrees.
“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?”
Now, THAT is a very interesting question. I personally, would think that if a law is repealed, then all aspects of that law, including penalties would/should be be waived or refunded. Once again using Obamacare. Should that law have been found unconstitutional or should it ever be repealed, would the bushiness who were penalized get their money back? How about the people who pay a penalty for not having bought insurance? I would assume so.
docmadison wrote: “Conversely, should we ignore a law because if it is your belief that it will be repealed or found unconstitutional?”
Dust Bunny wrote: “No. Because it is a law until it is not. Whether I like a law or believe it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it less than a law.”
Nobody is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. If a law violates your conscience, then it is your DUTY to violate that law and disobey it. Now you can expect to suffer consequences for doing so. You will likely be arrested, prosecuted, etc., but nobody should ever obey a law that violates conscience.
docmadison wrote: “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?”
Dust Bunny wrote: “Now, THAT is a very interesting question. I personally, would think that if a law is repealed, then all aspects of that law, including penalties would/should be be waived or refunded. ”
When a law is deemed unconstitutional, it is treated as if that law never existed in the first place. No penalties against the victim exist. Also, the original arrest was unjustified, even though the arresting officers believed that a law existed at the time. Their foremost obligation is to the Constitution over any other law. Even though police acted in good faith in believing that the law was valid, their actions were illegal. The event is judged as if the law never existed in the first place. The court treats it as if the law never existed. In one case where I was arrested under an unconstitutional law, the big question on the city’s mind after the law was declared unconstitutional in court was whether I was now going to sue the city for false arrest. I did not, but I easily could have.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-strikes-down-wisconsins-voter-id-law-b99258822z1-257200321.html?ipad=y
It was Federal Judge Lynn Adelman that found the original law unconstitutional.
DBQ,
Also – it wasn’t a lower court that found it unconstitutional. Annie is pretty good on understanding how the courts work and this law in particular.
docmadison – I guess this is going to come as a shock, but the WI Voter ID was found unconstitutional by the federal district court (a lower court) and found Constitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th District (a higher court).