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
I haven’t a response yet….
David,
Just where in the constitution does it mention God?
I will grant you it does grant religious freedoms…. That means… It does not endorse religion nor does it deny you your right to worship the way you want…
Try your snake oil pitch on the uninformed…..
But if you can show me where the constution it specifically endorses a religion or God is mentioned, I will buy you a steak dinner of your chosing….. Within reason…. Not paying for a trip to get there…. Or anyone else….
AY wrote: “But if you can show me where the constution it specifically endorses a religion or God is mentioned…”
The Constitution mentions God following Article VII, and it also dates itself from the Declaration of Independence which not only mentions God but appeals to God to insure the legislation that the DOI enacts by the action of Congress. The Constitution makes accommodation for various Christian religions in Article I with the Sundays excepted clause. Nowhere does the Constitution endorse * A * religion, and, in fact, it prohibits Congress from doing so in Amendment I. I’m sure you know all this stuff, so why are we discussing this?
Reblogged this on Oxygen in Use! Smoking is OK! and commented:
How the USAF got it wrong this time!
David, there is NO persecution against theists. Theists, atheists and secular people should retain the right to seek legal redress. Your amendment would take away that right, let’s be honest here.
Annie wrote: “Theists, atheists and secular people should retain the right to seek legal redress. Your amendment would take away that right, let’s be honest here.”
There should be no legal redress against people praying on government time! Read the First Amendment: “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Do you seriously believe that schools should suspend students who say “God bless you” to another student who sneezes? You want school principals to be put in jail for saying grace over food? You want the right for the ACLU to have legal redress on that issue? Really? Why waste all the taxpayers money fighting over these silly issues. Congress needs to make the law clear and put an end to these foolish legal skirmishes.
If Jefferson lived ‘natural law’ why did he have slaves and why on his death did he free only some of his slaves? So, owning slaves is part of ‘natural law’?
http://www.publiceye.org/right_wing_populism/constitutionalists/index.html
All proponents of Natural Law. Should we be concerned?
Annie,
I think Jefferson would have a problem with under god… He was a moralist… He tried to separate the Jesus stuff from the other stuff…. It’s a good read.
Mike A. Is correct about the natural law… Jefferson lived it …
AY wrote: “I think Jefferson would have a problem with under god…”
No way. You do know Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence, right?
The moral authority for us to create a new nation was based in Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, the fact that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights… and he appeals to the Supreme Judge of the World and to the protection of divine Providence. Clearly Jefferson would have no problem with our national motto referring to God.
Have you read his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? He starts out with more than a mere acknowledgement of God. He speaks for God as any prophet of the Bible would. If somebody tried to pass a statute today that was written like this, it would be thrown out for being too religious and for supposedly violating the First Amendment.
Jefferson was not one to blush in making an appeal based upon his faith in God and the principles of freedom that God ordained. Notice his appeal to Natural Law and Natural Rights. The idea of categorizing this as natural law is that no government is allowed to create a law that would violate natural law. The thinking then was that natural law is ordained by the Creator, so because natural law is the highest law, then no man should be so presumptuous to override it. When man does that, he is acting tyrannical.
—
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
—-
Mike A.,
What do you think of Bradenton, FL?
http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2013/12/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old
Where did these ‘natural laws’ come from?
I’m curious, why do so many of these Natural Law proponents seem to connect these laws to a Diety?
Paul Schulte:
“Natural” means ascertainable through the application of reason unaided by divine revelation.
“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2] Jefferson’s religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs
It’s kinda funny, Jefferson was a man of ethics…. Not a believer in the all being god…
Check this out to correct your misstatement Paul.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
If Jefferson were a Deist then he would agree to a First Cause or Supreme Watchmaker. His going through KJV is neither here nor there for that issue. However, one can believe, disbelieve, rebelieve, all in the same lifetime. Ask anyone in Alcoholics Anonymous. Most lost their belief in God and one of the big hangups is AA requires a belief in a higher power of some type. Those who remain sober find some type of God again. Many rejoin the religion of their childhood for find another religion that fits their needs.
Paul, I agree that Jefferson probably wouldn’t have a problem with “under god”. I said I agreed with Jefferson in that he saw Jesus as a philosopher. Jefferson was comfortable with the male personification of that unknown force, I am not.
Neither natural law theory nor a rational code of moral conduct requires belief in a deity.
Mike – I would posit that ‘natural law’ requires a deity of sort. If not, how are the laws ‘natural.’
Mike Appleton wrote: “Neither natural law theory nor a rational code of moral conduct requires belief in a deity.”
No, but many theists do see an immediate rational connection between them. Furthermore, the study of natural law and the study of moral code often leads one to be convinced of a deity. Some theologians describe God as Logic, or the Greek concept of Logos (logical, rational meaning, etc.). For Einstein, it was the Designer / Intelligence aspect of nature that caused him to embrace Spinoza’s description of God.
Certainly natural law theory and a moral code can be developed without any belief in a deity, the same way that one can study gravity without a belief in a deity, but such a fact does not invalidate those who see a connection and relationship there.
David thanks for answering my question. So you want it to be known to one and all that we are a Deist Nation with that Constitutional Amendment. That would still be imposing a state religion, a violation of the establishment clause. I wonder why once again you bring up the notion of some sort of rebellion by Diests and Thiests if they don’t get their way? Scare tactic? I think that the direction these Natural Law ideologists are moving in is extreme and a threat to this country. My opinion only. Who gets to make these natural laws? Some human who thinks he knows the mind of a Creator, God, what have you. Until a big booming voice comes down from the heavens saying he is God, or appears before millions in a supernatural way, and here is what he expects of us, I will suspect mans involvement in any rule making and story telling.
Annie wrote: “David thanks for answering my question. So you want it to be known to one and all that we are a Deist Nation with that Constitutional Amendment.”
No. Like Benjamin Franklin, I reject Deism.
The Constitutional Amendment would simply secure liberty for government and those working for government to acknowledge God without some ACLU lawyer filing a lawsuit against them based upon a twisted perversion of the First Amendment. It would stop the atheists from changing our National Motto, National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, what we print on currency, and stop them from sandblasting buildings and monuments that acknowledge God. It would stop persecution against theists because as a general rule, theists allow atheism but atheists do not allow theism. When was the last time you heard of a theist suing an atheist for not acknowledging God in public or trying to convince others that there is no God? Never, right? But atheists all the time use the force of government to try to stop theism in public.
In short, the Constitutional Amendment would simply do what Madison desired in the first place with the First Amendment, that nobody would be compelled by government to believe in any particular establishment of religion, and that government would not interfere with the religious practices of others.
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.” — Ben Franklin
George wrote: ““The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.” — Ben Franklin
George, I responded to you earlier this year when you shared this quote. Do you remember?
I said: this is a partial quote which really misleads people into mistakenly thinking that Ben Franklin was against faith, or that faith is contrary to reason.
The full quote from Franklin is:
“The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.”
The comparison is that reason is like a candle that guides us when it is dark, but faith is like the morning daylight which more fully gives us insight. The meaning clearly depicts both faith and reason as lights which illuminate the mind.
“The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.”
Yes, the morning daylight of reason appears plainer when you put out the candle of faith.
and conversely why would theists respond to an atheistic government?
Morality does not need G-d to back it up. People know what it is moral, decent etc without having to have Faith. Or are you saying atheists have no notion of what is moral and right (and a lto of agnostics then too)?
You think Gov’t is ordained by G-d’s order. ISIS think s that all should be Muslim and follow Muslim law. (well allegedly, at this point I think their belief is just kill, hate and terrorize)
G-d’s existence is convincing enough – to you, that does not mean to all. You seem to ant to impose your belief(s) on everyone else.
There is a reason this country is not a theocracy. You don’t have to look far to see what happens to the people and countries that are theocracies.
Your belief in G-d is wonderful, I am glad I have my Faith but I sure as heck don’t want or need to try and impose it on others. Do you need that to help verify your Belief maybe?
I don’t like your god… It’s too judgmental…. If I had one it would be all accepting….
David, Your proposed Constitutional amendment raises the question of “whose god”? Obviously you think it should be yours. I object. In fact, when “under god” was added to the pledge of allegiance, I stopped reciting it altogether. I had been ambivalent about it and mostly went through the motions since I didn’t want to take on the teacher and my classmates by refusing. It didn’t make sense to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. With the addition of “under god”, I still stood (still a coward to peer pressure and the pain that could meted out by Mrs. Sullivan), but my hand didn’t go anywhere near my heart and I said nothing. This reaction was completely natural.
Over the years I have tried to make sense of the god thing. My views are more in line with those of Thomas Jefferson who believed that Jesus was a philosopher. A personification of god just doesn’t work for me in that it suggests that humans are the be-all and end-all. I see all mammals as being as important. Other living things are probably on the same scale, but I’m not fully there yet. We are all interconnected so the equal importance of all living things is just a matter of seeing things differently than we currently do. The behavior of humans is more like that of an invasive species, destroying anything and everything in its path. Is that what a god supports and oversees or whatever your god does?
bettykath – if one assumes (although the evidence is unclear) that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, then ‘under God’ is not something he would have a problem with.
Olly,
If you want to engage in linguistical foreplay I suggest you come better suited…. I generally enjoy poping a sentence here or there…. But when folks such as yourself wish to spar, I will engage in your foreplay… Just be careful you don’t have to swollow your words….