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
@ docmadison.
Please provide a link to the Ohio instance.
However, the mere occasion of having to stand in a line, does not equate to voter suppression.
And now I’m off to be suppressed by the DMV and renew registration on three trucks and add two new vehicles to our company. Pray for me.
The glib JFK joked after stealing err winning the 1960 election that his father told him to be frugal w/ buying votes. “I’ll pay for a victory but I’m not paying for a landslide.” For the Dem folks here to claim fraud does not occur says their hero, JFK, was a liar. Chrissake, Dems steal votes and Rep give poor folk “walking around money” to drink and not vote. I can never tell if the people claiming there is no fraud are dissembling, clueless, or a combo of both.
Professor! Where’s the update story on the Air Force bending the rule?
AlJazeera has it
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/17/atheist-airforceoath.html
Re Voter suppression and waiting in lines. Check out what happened in Ohio when people had to wait FOR HOURS in order to vote. It most certainly is voter suppression.
Paul;
The presumption that “illegals” aren’t paying income tax; assumes evidence subjective (in the extreme).
Meanwhile, their employers paying payroll taxes is an issue.
Be that as it may, they pay sales tax, smoke tax, liquor tax, gas tax etc., etc.
Make them legal (who aren’t hardened criminals) and lets get millions more in tax dollars; and resolve the “off the books” costly banter fruitless.
Nick – the voting is done is a hall used for gatherings.
Laser – a couple of people posted the new ruling on the oath. You will just have to wade through 1000 posts to get to them. 🙂
DBQ, You are being both suppressed and depressed @ the DMV by fat, lazy, union employees.
Olly, it’s not Natural Law or the highway. There are legitimate legal theories about how we are governed. Both have their flaws.
Nick,
Please provide documentation on Tim Tebow and Tom Brady offered ballots. I’m hoping the persons pulling this crap provided their signature and are now spending some time in jail. Idiots.
http://youtu.be/kqtsExnYeFI
http://youtu.be/TRNA_nFnnVA
“read more carefully.”
I read exactly what you wrote. ““UNLESS there is voter suppression going on which would mean they would have to stand in line for hours to vote.””
If you had more thoughts to that sentence you should write them so we can know what you are thinking. We can’t read your mind. Agreed: Limiting the hours of voting, closing or moving polling places should not be allowed. On the other hand, voting times and places should be set as to the time, set as to the place and not an unlimited, open ended process.
Voting is a privilege, granted to citizens, just like driving a car is a privilege and not a right. People need to respect it and treat it as such.
DBQ – it used to be that schools were used as voting places, but now more and more schools don’t want the bother of all those people coming into their building so other places are having to be found. My voting place has moved 3 times since I moved here. Now it is at a mega-church were they serve as the polling place for several precincts. We still wait in line depending on what is on the ballot. For the primary, no waiting, I was the only one there when I got there.
annie – I, for one, am really curious where the 300k number came from.
Paul Schulte – PUHHHLLLEEEAAASSSEEE – give me a break!
You (apparently) have no idea how absurd the words you stated are…
Paul C. Schulte verbatim;
I just spent a few minutes (in the Judge Fuller thread that his Lordship wouldn’t dare put His Honor [sic] name in title thereupon) – pointing out the 1 thing I adore about you – is your staunch purity of purpose {misguided IMO}. And then you go and give me a hard lined reason why I shouldn’t give credence thereof.
That’s the problem with U.S.
We are so damnation bent on a (closed) mindset that we can’t see the forest – because of our focus on the trees.
Isn’t an Oath (any) solemn? Are we to have purity, or just pomp & circumstance? Do you not even consider the fact that (let’s say), an ISIS guy just swore that oath and meant the ISIS gOd?
I also object to your assumption of facts not in evidence (that G-d is not going to strike him dead)! If you are talking of the Christian G-d; doesn’t the one and only (purportedly) true Bible state “G-d is not [to be] mocked”?
Sheeessshhh!
Laser – all I am stating is that whatever the oath is everybody takes the same one. They have now changed the oath to make the God thing optional. I have no problem with that, as long as it is optional for everybody.
This is not a comment to anyone in particular, but rather a comment to actually get back to the subject of the oath, although the “problem” has been solved. My mother had always said she was uncomfortable with oaths when she went to school, and I, as a not very good Jew, never knew why.
Studying it further, I think I have the answer, and it’s why also, that a constitutional amendment establishing God would never work.
Jews, at least Orthodox and many Conservative ones, are forbidden from saying or writing the name God. That is why you will see the name written “G-d”. The idea of God is believed to be so holy that it cannot even be uttered.
Now, if you did have an amendment, where would the word be used? I would imagine it would be far more pressed upon people to use.
Any of the intelligent people who post here wouldn’t be those who would insist upon the use of the word, but I can also imagine the slippery slope that could result.
This is my opinion, but I did want to clear up why the use of “under God” or “so help me God” isn’t an easy choice for all.
maxcat06 wrote: “it’s why also, that a constitutional amendment establishing God would never work. Jews, at least Orthodox and many Conservative ones, are forbidden from saying or writing the name God.”
My proposal is not a Constitutional amendment ESTABLISHING God, but rather ACKNOWLEDGING God, and making clear the purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment being about not respecting any particular establishment of religion.
The Hebrew Torah mentions God a lot. The acknowledgment of God is commanded as the first of the famous Ten Commandments. The Hebrews had a lot of names for God. The Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was his sacred name. Whenever a Jew read that name in the text out loud, instead of saying Yahweh, he would say Adonai (Lord). If you are reading the King James version of the Bible, and you see the word LORD all capitalized, the underlying Hebrew word for that is YHWH. It is translated as LORD out of respect for the Jewish culture and tradition.
So a good Jew can easily substitute the word Lord for God. They also don’t seem to have a problem with the Hebrew plural word for God, Elohim.
LOL! Well expert “wittiness” wouldn be such a bad thing.
Docmadison, I spent a great deal of time looking for a expert wittiness list for the WI Voter ID Law hearings in front of the various Judges. I couldn’t find one, although several articles state there were several. It really is a waste of time, because I seems some folks seem as if they really aren’t all that interested in factual information.
““As I said before, creating policy that excludes even one potential voter is unacceptable.”
Why?”
Okay, I’ll play.
A participant (in this thread) has provided an eye-opening series of comments that should send shivers down the spine of anyone interested in the security of any right and not just those that are unalienable. Here are just a few:
“No right is inalienable. We as a society agree to honor each other’s rights by laws. Laws change, rights change.”
“Rights are a social construct. Rights can’t be inalienable because governments often revoke rights. Rights can’t be natural because nature enforces its laws absolutely and rights are frequently broken.”
“The will of the people is expressed in their right to vote for people who represent their interests. We are a representative democracy.”
We are not talking about preventing people from voting that can prove they are alive, are citizens, are residents, aren’t felons and are at least 18 years of age. The comment was about creating a policy that prevents anyone that meets that criterion from the franchise. The most ignorant thing we can do is empower our government to disenfranchise any demographic they choose. And there are those that would like nothing better than to prevent a large bloc of otherwise eligible voters from ruining our chances to actually become a “PERFECT” union.
I have no idea what Prof Turley deleted. Sort of defeats whatever purpose the deletion is supposed to serve.
NO DBQ, read more carefully. Voter suppression, which includes limiting the hours and days in which the polls are open causes voters to stand in line for hours.
annie – we have early voting here, either by mail in ballot or in person. However, the official day of voting is the 2nd Tuesday in November. Hours are pretty standard across the country.
Paul, it’s obvious you don’t grasp what Positivist Law Theory is. The “Sovereign” in our from of government is the people, BECAUSE we chose a Representative Democracy. If I’m mistaken, maybe one of the legal scholars here can correct me. I’m learning as I go along.
Olly, I guess you’ll have to take it up with Professor Turley. He has said we are a Representative Democracy.
Annie wrote: “… take it up with Professor Turley. He has said we are a Representative Democracy.”
It is not inaccurate to describe it that way, but the Constitution never uses words Democracy, Democrat, Democratic, etc. The Constitution uses the word Republican.
In other writings, the founders of our government expressed a strong disagreement with democracy. That is why they chose a Republican form of government. It is why our Constitution guarantees us a Republican government.
Well David, a renowned Constiturional scholar, our very own Professor Turley described it that way. I trust HIS judgment.
I found one of the expert witnesses who testified in the WI Voter ID hearing! A voter fraud expert from Rutgers.
Olly,
Yes. You asked about the 300K. Annie did the research – yesterday. And today, you offered additional research – research that had not yet posted when I wrote about what I thought about Annie’s contributions. I don’t understand your point about some additional comment Annie made. How does that change what I think of her and her research?
But when you provided your additional demographic and worthwhile information today, your note about ‘illegals’ was not a subtle one – at least not to ol’ partisan me. Your question regarding ‘how many undocumented voted in the last cycle’ (could that also be classed as partisan?) implies there was some fraudulent voting of that type. Can you please provide support on convictions of undocumented persons voting in Wisconsin?
It’s my opinion you won’t find any convictions of undocumented persons voting. Undocumented persons live in the shadows and want to do NOTHING that will draw government attention to them. They want to earn a living and lay low. Just how many people from Central American do you think give a rat’s a$$ as to who is the governor of Wisconsin or their representative in the state assembly? Just how many people from Central America are interested in standing in front of six very official looking people with badges flipping through big ledgers asking for signatures, and a cop in the background looking ready to pounce? It’s a ridiculous idea.
But stay vigilant, Olly. You never know who might be hiding under the bed.
“UNLESS there is voter suppression going on which would mean they would have to stand in line for hours to vote.”
Standing in line is suppression? Wow!! Help help I’m being suppressed at the DMV.
Actually, having people stand in line to vote is a good sign. It means that more people than expected have been motivated to vote. The people are paying attention and are involved. It also means that the county registrar of voters should expand the voting places and expand the hours to accommodate the next surge of voters.
This is why we vote on Tuesday http://www.whytuesday.org/answer/ But, I’v never understood why we don’t change it to make voting more convenient for modern days. Have voting on a weekend day or on several days like a Friday and Saturday.