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
Olly,
Yes. The woman was from TN. Silly of me to not have realized that TN was off limits. Although… throughout this discussion other states have been mentioned: PA, AZ, Kansas and more generally, red states. Are those, too, illegitimate? Indeed, you are a man of the most rigorous standards.
This has been a long discussion. We, or at least I, have written in broad terms about what we feel are acceptable Voter ID laws and then more specifically about WI – a red state that I have praised for its recent change while stating that more changes are necessary. And although you never deigned to respond to my suggestions on what I think it will take in order to enact fair and just Voter ID laws nor apologized for your rude objection because of the delay in my response (I was out), I am inclined to believe I answered your question as you requested.
It is common practice on this blog to post links and excerpts from those links. It is RARE that anyone will post the link in its entirety. In fact, there are some who have contempt for the posting of excerpts. And unhappily, there are a few, very few, who refuse to post any links that support their positions or facts. I think your unhappiness that I posted only an excerpt is ridiculous. If I had omitted the link, you would have a legitimate objection. I posted the link so those who are interested could read the entire article. No big rhetorical ‘trick’ there.
It is depressing that you think it pathetic that I posted an article about the difficulties a 96 year old woman from TN had to go through in order to vote. Fortunately, she prevailed. How many other 96 year olds would have had the energy, the time, or fortitude to protest the foolish clerk?
Well, at least I posted an living, breathing, substantiated example of an njustice that occurred when a state felt it ought to ‘better regulate’ voting rights.. That’s more than you have done.
Well David, I HAVE since I was the one of the ones who cited those sources that disproved his claims. Paul himself has admitted when he was wrong on occasion, I’ll give him that.
annie – when I have been wrong I have walked it back.
Anyone actually interested in getting these people documentation will find links here: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
You know David, what gets caught up in the wash of Docmadison’s partisan rhetoric is a real problem. Regardless of why people don’t have ID’s, there are now a percentage of the population that may not be able to vote.
Using 2013 census estimated population in Wisconsin: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html
-5.7 million residents
-4.4 million 18 years of age or older
-373k Black or African-American (290k – 18 years of age or older)
-361k Hispanic (281k – 18 years of age or older)
-300k Estimated number of potentially disenfranchised voters; predominantly from the Black or Hispanic demographic (150 k approximate number for each demographic)
– Assuming every person 18 years of age or older was eligible AND they had NO documentation with which to get an ID; then 52% of Blacks and 53% of Hispanic voters may be disenfranchised
-There is an estimated 85k illegal aliens in the state
-There is a current bipartisan effort to get the illegal aliens driver’s licenses
LeeJ, ah yes, of course it’s Tony Perkins who would make such outlandish claims. The guy who would love to turn this country into a theocracy. Does he really think ISIS would like us better if we were a Judeo Christian nation? What do fundamentalist Muslims do when there is someone that openly worships anything other than Islam in their countries? They jail them, lash them, stone them.
http://irregulartimes.com/aapaypalfiles/images/arizonapapierebittethumb.png
Paul, you’re painting a rosy picture about the ID requirements of Arizona, are you forgetting something?
Given the conversation by some here about how we should be a religious country under G-d thght this was interesting http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/religious-right-leader-ties-us-secularism-islamic-state When it is their theocracy it is bad, when it is “our” theocracy then its good.
leejcaroll wrote: “Given the conversation by some here about how we should be a religious country under G-d …”
I hope you are not including me in this characterization. Arguing that the government should acknowledge God does not mean that I want a religious country. Theism and religion are not the same thing. We should have a theistic government but not a religious government.
I acknowledge God, but I am not religious. I belong to no religion. It would not surprise me if you were more religious than me.
In regards to the Perkins article, it is interesting to see how out of touch with our culture the author Steve Benen is. Because of a warped view of church and state separation, which has unfortunately become about persuading government to prohibit religion in public rather than its original purpose about keeping government out of religion, there is this strong pressure upon young people coming up in public education to be good evolutionists, secularists and atheists. That is likely unsatisfactory to the innate desire most people have to be connected to their Creator. Now that society has mostly dysfunctional religions afraid to stand up to a tyrannical government that favors atheism, it is not surprising that some young people would find the zeal and commitment of Islamic Jihad attractive. At least it looks like on its surface that Islam is serious about fixing the governments of the world and not just about spreading their religion.
leejcaroll wrote: “When it is their theocracy it is bad, when it is “our” theocracy then its good.”
I can’t speak for others, but I do not want any kind of a theocracy. I want the kind of government that our forefathers attempted to give us.
I do not want our government to be of the Sunni or Shiite persuasion, nor of the Baptist or Catholic persuasion. I want the country that the founding fathers created for us, one with freedom of religion, based upon a governmental acknowledgment of God, where people were actually free to express their views in public whether they worked for government or not. Now, thanks to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and various other secular activists, we have a government that favors secularism and atheism above theism. We have teachers facing jail time in court for praying over lunch, a Supreme Court Justice being removed from office for displaying a monument giving tribute to the Ten Commandments, Declaration of Independence, William Blackstone, James Madison, George Mason, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc., and a student being suspended for saying “bless you” to a student who sneezes. Maybe this is your idea of good government, one that is antagonistic toward religion, but it is not my idea of good government.
Government simply has to make a choice. Is it going to be an atheistic government or a theistic government? There is no middle ground, no matter how hard it tries.
Being a theistic government does not mean that the wall of separation between church and state comes down. It does not mean that we must have a theocracy. It does not mean that it will be illegal for atheists to express their views when they work for government. Our government was founded originally as a theistic government. We simply have wandered away from that path.
Docmadison, I’ve observed the same issues with the reliability of Paul’s assertions. I’ve cited sources to him that disprove his casual comments about things he seems to have neglected to do his homework on, several times now. Your observation is not ad hominem as its based fact, not emotion.
Annie wrote: “I’ve cited sources to him that disprove his casual comments about things he seems to have neglected to do his homework on, several times now.”
I have never seen one of Paul’s comments disproven. I’m not saying he is perfect in knowledge, but I think in every case where you think you discredited Paul, it was only in your own mind.
What I have seen you do is when you cannot articulate why you think Paul is wrong using logic, you link to some left wing ideological site that takes a different position from Paul and expresses your opinion for you. Often their opinion is worse than yours, and more poorly argued. It does not help the discussion because the person who wrote the article is not here to stand behind it. It would be better for you to make your own logical arguments.
Annie wrote: “Your observation is not ad hominem as its based fact, not emotion.”
Ad hominem arguments can be based in fact rather than emotion. Discrediting your opinion on a legal matter because you are a nurse rather than a lawyer is an ad hominem argument based in fact. The reason it is ad hominem is because your background being a nurse really doesn’t have anything to do with your ability to understand law. The ad hominem might be avoided if you said something like, “while you are a good nurse, you are wrong about the law here because x, y, z … (explaining logically the legal elements you are missing),” but even then, it is unnecessary. If the comment of your nursing background is sincerely meant to soften the blow from the argument, it might be acceptable, but if it is a snarky comment meant to get you upset and emotional, then it is does not help the discussion.
annie – perception is reality. Surely you know that.
Oy.
Thank you, David. I withdraw the gamemanship although I believe that is a fair characterization of his ‘rhetorical’ style. That leaves fabrications and unreliability.
david – thanks.
It is difficult when you see your position very clearly, but others do not accept it when you explain your position. The tendency of some is to think the other person is dishonest or just arguing for fun or whatever. Whenever the discussion turns from logic and reason about the policy under discussion to attacking someone’s character or accusing them of bad motives, then you are appealing to emotions rather than logic. That is the ad hominem fallacy. Let your logic stand, and if your argument does not convince, then examine the different assumptions held by each party. Somebody is accepting an assumption that the other person does not, or somebody is lazy about applying logic and argues simply from how they feel about it regardless of where logic would lead them.
Docmadison,
Let’s forget for a moment the example you cite is NOT from Wisconsin; I’m certain there are similar examples IN Wisconsin. You copied only the part of the article that fit your narrative and so yes, people like me will not just gobble up what clearly is an incomplete story. I will not nor need go upthread to copy/paste your obvious bias because at the end of this most recent post you get to the heart of the narrative you want people to believe:
“No, you feel it is quite acceptable to disenfranchise many thousands of Wisconsin citizens so that not one, or two, or ten, or 50 impersonation votes are cast.
May I assume you are a follower of the Cheney 1% rule and Gov. Perry’s theory on the justice of the Texas execution record?”
What’s really pathetic is you trot out a 96 year old woman (in Tennessee) when you could have just stuck to the facts (in Wisconsin). The short compliance timeline is the key to this current problem. You could have simply let the bureaucrats make your case for you but no, you thought it was important to insert your bias. Nicely done!
Have a great day.
Paul.
When someone says ‘some’ do you believe that is the same as ‘all’?
I do know understand the structure of the courts and apologized for my error. Not too much of that goes on around here.
I’m not the least bit surprised that you dismiss the problem of mismatching names on a woman’s birth certificate and her driver’s license. That only is the potential case for about 100 million woman. Nothing that would upset you at all.
Here is what I said regarding you and ad hominen attacks:
‘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’
Now here is a definition:
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Now what part of my statement do you find an ad hominen attack? Point it out, Paul. Lord knows, I don’t want to hurt your feelings.
docmadison wrote: “I characterize your comments as unreliable and fabrications and more interested in gamesmanship.”
try looking up ad hominem in the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
* attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain
Olly,
Note: I said mindless bureaucrat. I did not accuse one party or another. Your opening paragraph directly implies that I (or someone) is hysterically attacking the GOP and tossing in ridiculous statements regarding Bush, ISIS and healthcare that neither I or the article made. No sir. YOU are the only one making that argument.
Further, nothing was conveniently left out. The damn link was right there. What more do you require? I assume most here can read – even though they have proved themselves incapable of reading DMV work schedules.
And the more rules you apply in order to obtain voting rights, the more often this crap is going to happen.
Your concern for the integrity of the ballot is a hypocritical sham. You have not acknowledged or discussed any of my examples – you have only attacked me as being an hysteric hyper-partisan, just like your sister who you have ‘nearly disowned’. I guess your logic and reason have left you no other choice.
Nor have you provided any data or stats of convictions of voter fraud. No. Of course not. Why in the world are you obliged to offer any substantial evidence that this entire issue is a problem that may prevent .000001 instances of voter impersonation but sure as hell is going to disenfranchise many American citizens?
No, you feel it is quite acceptable to disenfranchise many thousands of Wisconsin citizens so that not one, or two, or ten, or 50 impersonation votes are cast.
May I assume you are a follower of the Cheney 1% rule and Gov. Perry’s theory on the justice of the Texas execution record?
annie – I am working on inference. One does read between the lines from time to time.
docmadison – just out of intellectual curiosity, are you a citizen of the state of WI?
Paul, is your specialty the law? Your specialty is teaching, no?. We both can read publications about certain things that interest us. I doubt docmadison indicated I was qualified to speak of legal things in general. Neither are you.
annie – I have never claimed an expertise in the law and neither have you. What my problem is docmadison thinks you have expertise. 😉
Docmadison,
Shameful indeed! Damn the GOP! Vast Right-Wing conspiracy no doubt! Bush did it! She was then turned over to ISIS! And denied access to basic healthcare! The horror!!!
_______________________________
Seriously, “Mindless bureaucrat”; Absolutely. Did what you post make sense? No. There had to be more to the story and guess what? There was; now here’s the rest of the story you conveniently omitted from your post:
“Tennessee Department of Safety spokeswoman Dalya Qualls said in a Tuesday email that Cooper’s situation, though unique, could have been handled differently.
“It is department policy that in order to get a photo ID, a citizen must provide documentation that links their name to the documentation that links their name to the document they are using as primary proof of identity,” Qualls said. “In this case, since Ms. Cooper’s birth certificate (her primary proof of identity) and voter registration card were two different names, the examiner was unable to provide the free ID.”
Despite that, Qualls said, “the examiner should have taken extra steps to determine alternative forms of documentation for Ms. Cooper.”
Kilpatrick has had to call the state at least twice after taking someone to get a photo ID or have a photo added to the driver’s license. State law allows anyone 60 or older to have their picture removed from their license.
The state has been working diligently to make the process easy for residents, Qualls said.”
Now, continue to improve training of your staff so this does not happen again.
P.S. Good thing the bureaucracy wasn’t building a new website to provide these ID’s; she might never see the inside of a polling booth again.
maxcat, Women make some of the best baseball fans. They get the fact that it is a LOOONG season better than some men who have the football mindset. Doris Kearns Goodwin is like you, grew up in Brooklyn and was a Dodger fan, moved around and is now a Red Sox fan. I grew up in Ct. My dad was a Yankee fan, my mom’s family Red Sox. Moved to KC and became a Royal’s fan. I married my wife there and she didn’t know baseball. Turned her into a huge Royal’s fan. We would sit in the bleachers 50 times a year. I felt guilt when I would see her sobbing when the Royals would lose to the Yankees in the playoffs[76-78]. We moved to Chicago in 1981 when the Bureau of Prisons transferred her. We lived @ 2136 Waveland Ave. That is 10 blocks from Wrigley. Waveland is the street that borders left field. I could watch the pregame show on TV, like the pitching matchup, and go see the game. This was before ticket brokers ruined it. You could even walk up for a Cards game and get a ticket. But, I went to as many White Sox games. I loved that old park as much as Wrigley and the Sox had a team. We’ve been in Madison for 31 years now. The Brewers are tough to like. So, I’m a baseball fan who follows the Brewers. I LOVE the game. I coached Little League to Legion ball. My first teams were inner city teams like you saw from Philly and Chicago in the LL World Series. It did my heart good. We can chat baseball as the postseason evolves. One of the reasons I like the Nat’s is Strasburg. We spend winters in San Diego and we would go see him pitch for SDSU. He was a man among boys. I hope he reached his potential.
Paul
AZ is trying to make it harder to vote. They are attempting to require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections. Presently, the federal law is that citizens only need affirm they are citizens – not provide proof. All states follow the present federal law. This case was just heard on August 25, 2014 in appeals court.
Kansas was also part of the AZ suit.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-voting-20140825-story.html
I do not find anything on the web that indicates the court has reached a decision.
IIRC, you said AZ was making it easier. If they win this case, registering for federal elections will be harder in AZ and Kansas than any of the other 48 states.
docmadison – if you looked at the website I linked to, Arizona only requires ID for state and local elections at this time. You will see a variety of manners of identification.
Here’s the story of how a mindless bureaucrat can deny a 96 year old citizen from voting:
Dorothy Cooper is 96 but she can remember only one election when she’s been eligible to vote but hasn’t.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she’d need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
“But I didn’t have my marriage certificate,” Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Cente
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/
____________________________________________________
Pretty shameful, right Olly?
docmadison – read the article and the headline makes it worse than it was. Her birth certificate and name she was using were different. She needed a document to prove that link. Right now the State of Arizona is having me fax a copy of my wife’s DL to them to prove that she has a right to part of my state pension. I really do not see what the problem is. Everyone is getting in an uproar over something that is not that big a deal.
Paul Schulte wrote: “Everyone is getting in an uproar over something that is not that big a deal.”
Getting an ID is easy for someone like you, Paul. You mentioned having a fax machine. You have a car to drive around. You have a good mind to understand what it is that you need to do.
Some people who are poor are mentally ill or have an IQ of 70. They don’t understand what they are suppose to do. They are simply unable to jump through all the necessary hoops, and they have nobody to help them.
I have helped hundreds of people get ID’s, but I will always remember one homeless man many years ago who taught me a lesson about it. I met him on a park bench and sat down next to him and talked. He knew about me from other people I had helped. He had seen me give people food and clothing. But I had never really talked with him. As we talked, he said that he had a particular job offer at the time, but the employer said that he could not hire him without ID. I said, “I have a car. Come on. Let’s go get your ID.” I had helped others get ID and knew it could get difficult. I decided to take off work and dedicate my whole entire day to getting him his ID so he could work. He thought it would be a waste of time. I kept assuring him, “Don’t worry. You are going to have your ID today!” After many zig-zagging trips around the city, to the homeless ministry that distributes a form that the agencies acknowledge can be used to facilitate the process, to the Social Security Office, to the Sheriff’s Office for a printout because he had an arrest record, and finally to the DMV. Of course, he did not have the $3 required to buy the ID, so I ponied up for that. Now he had his ID. The look on his face when he held his ID is what makes me remember him so well. He kept exclaiming, “David, you don’t understand, I have been trying to get an ID for 2 years. 2 years! and now I have it.” He was so happy. You see, the difference is that I had a car, I had $3 in my pocket, and I had the mind and willpower to keep jumping through all the hoops. A lot of these guys get frustrated after just one or two rejections and being told they must do something else.
Now to be clear, I really don’t like the whole concept of ID. I understand why it is needed, but it is a huge tool for government control. It scares me that all the States have moved toward a federal ID system. Ultimately it dehumanizes people. But the photo ID has become a necessary element in society if we want to work, buy and sell.
david – I am talking about a specific issue which comes up for married women who change their names, all the time. And as the article went on to say there were other ways to identify her.
Docmadison, you got me chuckling.
Just catching up with all the comments from earlier today.
I must say that Dust Bunny’s comments perfectly illustrate why right-wingers so easily win our love and affection.