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
“More specifically, she did a fabulous job in digging into the source of the 300K figure and she was working on it before the question even came up.“
Docmadison,
For the record, I was the person asking and Annie then replied. That’s actually of less significance than the fact YOU had not bothered to ask.
Olly: “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?”
Annie:
“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.”
I provided some statistical breakdown of the census numbers and the impact voter ID would have on the two demographics. I did not include how many of those “undocumented” citizens would be eligible to vote if that had an ID or the likelihood would have voted anyway. How many voted in the last cycle for instance?
As I said before, creating policy that excludes even one potential voter is unacceptable. Creating policy that allows even one ineligible voter is unacceptable.
Olly – I also asked where the 300k came from. It is after that annie said she would try to find it.
One thing I’ve seen many times, the Constitution is misinterpreted almost as frequently as is the Bible.
As the Holder video points out, you need an ID to get into the DOJ Building to see Holder but not to vote in his name!
leej, People did the same sting claiming to be NFL players Tim Tebow and Tom Brady and were offered ballots.
No. He had to sign Holder’s name and that would have been illegal. But, if you watch the video on YouTube, just Google “Holder fake ballot” and you can judge for yourself. Of course I feel compelled to warn you, leej, this was a James O’Keefe sting so you won’t believe it out of hand.
No. He had to sign Holder’s name and that would have been illegal. But, if you watch the video on YouTube, just Google “Holder fake ballot” and you can judge for yourself. Of course I feel compelled to warn you, leej, this was a James O’Keefe sting so you won’t believe it out of hand
Of course I didsmiss him: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/b-klyn-acorn-cleared-giving-illegal-advice-hide-money-prostitution-article-1.176119
James O’Keefe, the right-wing activist famous for his undercover and ethically questionable sting operations on prominent liberal organizations, has settled a lawsuit filed against him for $100,000 from a former ACORN employee. O’Keefe’s misleading ACORN videos led to the collapse of the organization, which was hugely successful in registering minority and low income voters . http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12019/james-o%E2%80%99keefe-pays-100k-settlement-after-deceiving-public-about-acorn-alec%E2%80%99s-help
and it was not voter fraud because he did not vote.
Leejcaroll, I retrieved your comment at 4:51.
LeeJ, I think that if Republicans really wanted to make sure that voters weren’t being disenfranchised they wouldn’t have gone to these lengths to IN FACT disenfranchise many thousands of voters. They could’ve had the law commence after the elections. This is what makes them look like the duplicitous jerks they are.
Annie wrote: “I think that if Republicans really wanted to make sure that voters weren’t being disenfranchised they wouldn’t have gone to these lengths to IN FACT disenfranchise many thousands of voters.”
I can’t speak for all Republicans, but I am a Republican and the truth is that I don’t really care about voter disenfranchisement. The Democrats often say that voting is a fundamental right. I do NOT believe that. If it were a fundamental right, then I could understand how people get upset about disenfranchised voters. I see voting as a privilege granted to citizens who qualify.
If somebody does not exercise that privilege to vote, well, I don’t care. I know plenty of people who have ID’s and choose not to vote simply because they think it is a waste of time. I’m fine with that. As I have said before, most people who do not have ID’s do not have voting very high up on their list of things to do. I truly doubt that many of them feel disenfranchised. If perhaps some do, just help them get ID or have them sign up for voting by mail. No big deal.
I wonder how many people here besides me have been disenfranchised from voting. Am I the only one in this forum who has not been allowed to vote?
It doesn’t bother me one bit when I could not vote because of bureaucracy. It didn’t hurt me. Life goes on. My single vote would not have changed the election.
So when you get off on denigrating Republicans as being about duplicitous and deceitful, wanting to stop people from voting, you should first examine your assumption that they believe it is some kind of sin if people do not vote. The truth is that they simply care more about preventing voter fraud than making sure everyone votes. Voter fraud is a sin, but not the fact that someone could not vote because of not having their ID. A lot of Democrats are fighting to get illegal aliens the right to vote. They already can vote in some city elections. None of that makes any sense to me. Yeah, get some Mexican or Canadian over here illegally and let his vote cancel out your vote or Professor Turley’s vote. Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me.
Not surprising David, I know it really bugs you that poor Americans who you feel aren’t worthy get to vote.
Did he in fact vote?
leej, There’s also video of a guy claiming to be Eric Holder and getting a ballot to vote in DC. He was not Holder.
Nick – I think the funniest thing about the fake Holder getting a ballot is that they did not know what Holder looked like.
Paul, it was found unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, which is a lower court than the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Docmadison admitted to being mistaken on this. Why are you bringing it up again then? This is where you fall down in my estimation. It seems petty.
Annie – I walked back on the home delivery long ago, but docmadison keeps bringing it up. Is that petty, too?
re voting and getting ID http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/jim-wright-voter-id_n_4210225.html
Texas’ Restrictive Voter ID Law Stops A Former U.S. House Speaker From Getting A Voter ID Card (video so if you want to say if from Huff post and therefore biased you get to see it with your own eyes)
Interesting that David makes a complaint about the author rather then what Perkins said. I do think thou doth protest too much about how non religious you are.
That is the talking point of the right: public education wants kids to be secular, atheists and believe in evolution. David home is where you teach religion and belief in a G-d, or non belief, that is not the job of the public schools, as much as you would want it to be. And teaching evolution? Yes let’s teach creationism, and that the universe is 6000 years old, like science committee member US congressman Dr. Broun believes and then let’s see how our kids fare in the real world when they go to university, compete for jobs etc and are ill equipped with the teachings of the real world vs that of theologists.
Because you have an innate desire to be connected to “your” creator does not mean that is where others stand. You truly want to impose your belief system on all, Gee reminds me of IIS and theocracies.
Just for intellectual honesty, is Scott walker trying to sever WI from the rest of the US? Then they can have citizens, until then they are residents of WI, citizens of the US…..
Well! Thank you docmadison!
So, which of you made the mistake about not being found unconstitutional by the lower court?
Actually, Paul, if you don’t mind, I think I am better qualified to state what I think about Annie.
I think Annie does a terrific job of answering questions, providing substantial information and documentation on many topics that are discussed here. I think she is one hell of an honest reporter.
More specifically, she did a fabulous job in digging into the source of the 300K figure and she was working on it before the question even came up. But before then, she provided great information regarding the entire WI Voter ID situation – from DMV accessibility to court appeals.
She does great work. Thanks, Annie.
Docmadison,
I have deleted a comment in violation of our civility rule.
Paul, a REASONABLE person would not have inferred that from what he actually stated. Get it? It seems unreasonable and an attempt to mischaracterize on your part.
I think Dems are just setting up a pretext to recall Walker AGAIN when he wins in November. That backfired miserably last time, but they’re not real bright.
The airman will now be able to reenlist without violating his right of conscience. That was the correct decision.
I’ll be interested to see how much effort is made to get the ID’s before November. This is an opportunity to see how motivated people are to vote or simply make a political statement.
Paul, you see? This is what I mean about making assertions that are not exactly true. Did docmadison IN FACT say I was an expert in legal matters? NO, he did not. Why do you continue to push this mischaracterization of what he actually said? This is how one loses credibility.
“The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is providing free state ID cards. To learn about getting a free Wisconsin ID card, please visit the Wisconsin Department of Transportation website: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm.
New Free State ID Card Policy for People without Birth Certificates
The Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles has a new policy starting September 15, 2014 to help people who need a free state ID card for voting.”
************************
Olly, note the words “…. starting September 15th….” that doesn’t give voters enough time to get those state ID cards before the election, but that may be the goal.