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. Governor Taft is a long time ago. Do we want to go back to Tammany Hall and talk voter fraud or do we want to talk recent events.

  4. NO Paul an intelligent person, even if the are poor, knows that they MUST do everything in their power to improve their life, that includes voting which only takes a moment out of a working man’s life to do, UNLESS there is voter suppression going on which would mean they would have to stand in line for hours to vote.

    1. annie – voter suppression does not include waiting in line to vote. That claim is just silly. Check Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and see where voting falls on that list.

  5. “There are 11.7 million of them living here under the same laws and paying the same taxes as everybody else.”

    Not necessarily true. Not everyone pays the same taxes as everyone. Many illegal aliens who are working ‘under the table’ (for cash) are not paying income taxes. They are not paying into Social Security, although they sometimes get to collect from it in the SSI (welfare side of social security). They are not paying the DMV fees that we have to pay because they don’t always register their vehicles. When you buy and sell things for cash, under the table, and not through the standard commercial systems you are not paying sales taxes on those purchases. People of all ethnicity, not just illegal aliens, can avoid paying many taxes they want to.

    I pay a lot of taxes that most people do not pay. This is the cost of being a business owner. /shrug

    If you want to tie voting to taxes, I don’t have a problem with that either since the people who PAY the freight should have a bigger voice in what is done with their money. This is the case in California for assessments of property for utility districts among other cases Prop 218. When it comes to approving property assessments the votes are weighted by the value of the property to be assessed. So. If I have a 1 million dollar property and you have a 10,000 property , my vote is worth 100 times yours. This is only fair since my property would be assessed at 100 time more than yours.

    As to voting: ONLY citizens of the United States should be allowed the privilege of voting in our national, state and local elections. ONLY. Don’t like it……become a citizen. Here illegally……tough. You don’t get to vote.

    This is why we NEED voter identification. To prevent NON citizens from voting and deciding what taxes, laws, government we will have.

    1. DBQ – either 43% are paying income tax or 43% are not paying income tax. I am going to presuppose that illegal aliens fall into the group not paying income tax.

  6. And David, you keep emphasizing a SINGLE vote as having no significance. It is the single vote by MANY voters that does make a difference. A HUGE difference.

  7. David, poor people most certainly SHOULD be voting for the person they think will represent their interests in DC as it is way of making their lives better and perhaps they will have the luxury of thinking about other things in life than only survival.

    1. Anonymously Yours
      And the GOP disenfranchises voter, hides the ballot boxes and rigs the voting machines…

      Proof?

  11. Annie wrote: “I know it really bugs you that poor Americans who you feel aren’t worthy get to vote.”

    I never said they were not worthy to vote. They are. They just don’t care about it. Some of them are just trying to survive.

    1. annie – as an MSN I am sure you are familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. When you are poor survival is what you most need. Voting is an extra.

  13. David, why did you put that statement in quotes? I don’t recall saying this, please cut and paste my comment you are quoting.

  14. The integrity of a vote is just as important as the access to vote. Dems don’t want the integrity because they steal votes every election.

    1. AY wrote: “Do you really have to ask why?”

      Yes I do. There is no doubt in my mind that requiring ID will disenfranchise some voters. I don’t see a problem with that.

      To me it is kind of like driving a car. We create a policy that people have to take a test and jump through a few hoops to get a driver’s licence or they are not allowed to drive. I don’t see a problem with that.

      If we make the policy to vote that you have to be a citizen with an ID, that will keep some people from being able to vote. Why is that a problem?

      If we say people have to vote at a polling place, that would disenfranchise some voters.

      We could make a policy that only taxpayers can vote or only landowners can vote or only educated people can vote. If that is the policy, some people will not be able to vote.

      I’m fine with any of these policies if it is the policy that everybody agrees upon.

      As I have said before, Democrats treat voting as if it were an inalienable right. It is like they are saving people from a great injustice by making it easier for them to vote.

      Quite frankly, I would rather have successful intelligent people be voters and keep the self absorbed drug addicts out of the voting booth.

      Good government comes from wise people. It does not come from the ignorant and foolish. So I think we need more discernment about who should vote.

      The only caveat in this is that government should be about the consent of the governed. Voting is a way to measure that. So in that sense, even the illegal alien should be able to vote because he is subjected to our government. Which of course leads me to the weighted voting system that I had talked about in the past. I’m sure everybody is tired of hearing me pontificate about that.

  16. Annie, do you consider an undocumented alien a “potential voter”? There are 11.7 million of them living here under the same laws and paying the same taxes as everybody else.

  17. Paul, The guy posing as Holder was white. If he were black well we know all those blacks look alike. Here is another problem w/ polls. The workers are volunteers, often older than dirt, and not real sharp. They are ripe for people to scam them, and people do!

Comments are closed.