The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.
In the latest religious controversy to roil the air force, the atheist airman last month was denied his request to re-enlist because of his refusal to swear to God -- and he is now poised to take the military to court, his lawyer said.
"We have not received word from the Air Force regarding our letter. It has not indicated a willingness to settle out of court," said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association, which has taken up the service member's case.
With the deadline for re-enlisting expiring in November, the technical sergeant at Creech Air Force base in Nevada -- whose name has not been released -- will be forced to sue the government in a federal court, Miller told AFP.
In the past, an airman could opt for an alternative phrase and omit the words "so help me God," but the US Air Force changed its policy in October 2013.
The other branches of the American military do not require the reference to God and make the phrase optional.
"This is the only branch to my knowledge that's actually requiring everyone in all instances to use the religious language," Miller said.
The requirement violates the US Constitution, which bars religious tests to hold office or other positions, Miller said of the case, which was first reported by the Air Force Times.
"The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being," she said.
The sergeant's service expires in November and he has until then to re-enlist and take the oath, said US Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.
In the meantime, "a written legal opinion is being requested" from the Pentagon's top lawyer, she said.
The air force has been plagued by controversy for years over religion and the role of Christian evangelists.
The US Air Force Academy in Colorado faced accusations several years ago that evangelical Christians exerted a dominating influence over the institution.
But attempts to counter the perceived bias in the service have sparked criticism from Christian activist groups, who allege a new rule stifles the religious expression of troops.
The disputed rule bars commanders from promoting their religious convictions to their subordinates.
Advocates of the policy say it protects troops who worry their careers could be jeopardized if they do not take part in their superior's Christian activities.
Hopefully this does go through court and the Airforce is taught a painful lesson in pandering to religious nut jobs with their policies to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.
SilverMK2 wrote: Hopefully this does go through court and the Airforce is taught a painful lesson in pandering to religious nut jobs with their policies to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.
The military is not the one that did the pandering.
SilverMK2 wrote: Hopefully this does go through court and the Airforce is taught a painful lesson in pandering to religious nut jobs with their policies to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.
The military is not the one that did the pandering.
The military is the body that changed its policy to revert to an oath which a pledge to god cannot be omitted. Therefore it pandered to whichever religious factions were pressuring for a revision.
SilverMK2 wrote: Hopefully this does go through court and the Airforce is taught a painful lesson in pandering to religious nut jobs with their policies to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.
The military is not the one that did the pandering.
The military is the body that changed its policy to revert to an oath which a pledge to god cannot be omitted. Therefore it pandered to whichever religious factions were pressuring for a revision.
All the other stories I have read about this indicate that there used to be an opt-out clause in federal law that lets you skip the "under God" and that congress dropped that exemption last year. That's the AF position, they lost the flexibility to offer a religion-free version when congress changed the oath requirements.
Politicians voting "for God" is where I would look when searching for religious pandering.
I was trying to find out info on that but I haven't found anything. So not sure if the AF is the only one following the rule, the only one misinterpreting the rule, or just making stuff up.
They're slower to change, until someone orders them to change it, they won't. Or they just might not be aware that law has changed, or decided to ignore it because they know it's wrong.
IMO, the other branches have more real issues to worry about than trying to force people to say god.
It seems like the Air Force has been having a lot more issues this last decade than the others. There was this when no other branch was doing it, there was the cheating scandal a bit ago and a few years before that the trouble with letting Fundamentalists essentially take over the Academy.
Mr Nobody wrote: If he's atheist, then the phrase should have as much meaning as "bippity boppity boo" and not worth abandoning a job.
Cool, so since it is a nonsense phrase we don't need to make him say it in the first place, right? I mean, why would religious folks get upset if he didn't say it, he is the atheist and will be damned to eternal suffering, so no skin off their noses, right?
The air force has a clique/cabal in it that has been pushing this for years. The Academy is brutal on those who try to buck the flow and indoctrination from petty but higher ranking folk.
I can only imagine the vitriol spewed by the "War on Christmas" network if the officers imposing their religion were anything other than Evangelical Christian. They'd interrupt the superbowl for that drek.
Not sure what exactly you mean, but both times that I reenlisted in the army, during the "pre oath interview/practice" each time the officer who was reading the oath would brief me to repeat after them, but that I did not have to end the oath with "God"... so the Army's re-up oath ends with either "So help me." or "So help me god"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: This is not a fight I'd be fighting, it seems wasteful. It's his conscience though, I guess.
Well, I actually think it is a fight worth fighting... HE clearly still feels that the AF is the best place for him to practice whatever trade it is that he does, and is not ready to leave military service. If he didn't fight this through, his only other real options would be to "transfer" over to the navy, army, or USMC (which, being AF, he's too smart to join the Marines); Or, he'll be out of the military whenever his current contract is up and looking for work as a civilian.
I think he was referring to the person who said it was congress and not the Air Force that allowed for the relapse, and that if it were a multi-branch effecting change why only the Air Force was enforcing it while the Army, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines were not.
I would never be a part of an organization that made me swear to a religion I am not a part of. Doesn't matter which organization, nor the god involved.
When I defend this country's Freedom of Religion, I also support the freedom from being forced to be a part of any particular one.
'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase, it doesnt specify any particular deity and is just a cultural choice of phrase.
Comments like 'by Jove' are still spoken, by people who are not Latin pagans, and 'Jesus' is used as a swear word with frequency, and I don't see any atheists rushing to critique that.
It is a customary phrase, that is all.
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase, it doesnt specify any particular deity and is just a cultural choice of phrase.
Comments like 'by Jove' are still spoken, by people who are not Latin pagans, and 'Jesus' is used as a swear word with frequency, and I don't see any atheists rushing to critique that.
It is a customary phrase, that is all.
While it's true that it is, by itself a "harmless phrase" the fact that it's being used in an OATH OF ENLISTMENT... something which is taken quite seriously in the military, makes it problematic for someone who does not believe in the existence of ANY gods. Basically, because they a swearing an oath to someone/thing they don't believe in, the oath is basically useless because they really arent swearing an oath. By having an option to NOT say "so help me god" allows them to attest their oath and it's meaning without breaching that belief
To put it another way, if someone forced you to swear an oath, and it ended with "So help me Mars" or "so help me Zeus" would you hold that oath to have any merit/meaning? Would you feel any need/desire to uphold that oath?
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase, it doesnt specify any particular deity and is just a cultural choice of phrase.
Comments like 'by Jove' are still spoken, by people who are not Latin pagans, and 'Jesus' is used as a swear word with frequency, and I don't see any atheists rushing to critique that.
It is a customary phrase, that is all.
While it's true that it is, by itself a "harmless phrase" the fact that it's being used in an OATH OF ENLISTMENT... something which is taken quite seriously in the military, makes it problematic for someone who does not believe in the existence of ANY gods. Basically, because they a swearing an oath to someone/thing they don't believe in, the oath is basically useless because they really arent swearing an oath. By having an option to NOT say "so help me god" allows them to attest their oath and it's meaning without breaching that belief
To put it another way, if someone forced you to swear an oath, and it ended with "So help me Mars" or "so help me Zeus" would you hold that oath to have any merit/meaning? Would you feel any need/desire to uphold that oath?
Ensis......rethink how you want to go into this debate.
Example
In God We Trust
From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861. An Act of Congress, approved on April 11, 1864, authorized the coinage of two-cent coins upon which the motto first appeared.
The motto was omitted from the new gold coins issued in 1907, causing a storm of public criticism. As a result, legislation passed in May 1908 made "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins on which it had previously appeared.
Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.
Several years ago, the appearance of "In God We Trust" on our money was challenged in the federal courts. The challenge was rejected by the lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case.
Also USAF kicked this issue to DoD to make the decision.
Also a Active Duty member cannot take the US Military to court. The Active Duty member has to get a family member to fight it in Court.
If the Active Duty Member does decide to take it to Federal Court then he/she violates probably Article 92 of UCMJ being he/she jumped the Chain of Command.
Why has the new requirement of the Oath of Enlistment not been pounced on by EO's in the USAF I wonder....
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase
Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.
Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value. People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
If someone cant hack the last words of an oath of service how are they expected to handle the sandbox where they may be expected to keep the peace or negotiate with people with foreign values pressed in their face.
While it's true that it is, by itself a "harmless phrase" the fact that it's being used in an OATH OF ENLISTMENT... something which is taken quite seriously in the military, makes it problematic for someone who does not believe in the existence of ANY gods. Basically, because they a swearing an oath to someone/thing they don't believe in, the oath is basically useless because they really arent swearing an oath. By having an option to NOT say "so help me god" allows them to attest their oath and it's meaning without breaching that belief
To put it another way, if someone forced you to swear an oath, and it ended with "So help me Mars" or "so help me Zeus" would you hold that oath to have any merit/meaning? Would you feel any need/desire to uphold that oath?
There is flowery language attached to a lot of the military both in the US and elsewhere, adn a services traditions mean a lot to serving personnel..
The USMC attach themselves to the term 'Semper Fidelis', however they dont as a rule speak Latin and there is no Latin requirement, nor are they Romans or have any Rom an heritage. Its just a phrase. However the ideal behind 'Semper Fi' emboldens a lot of the USMC's actions. What is true for the US military is doubly true for the UK, but as we are talking about a US case I will just use the phrase at hand.
'So help me Zeus' is directly equivalent to 'by Jove' which is antiquated is still a common enough used term, especially amongst older generations. Again the cultural connection stands. Sometimes warships are named after pagan deities, even in an age where Christianity was more centralised to the culture than it is today, and the phenomena was not considered improper.
It is only today when people feel an entitlement to demand the removal of cultural traditions that are not personally appealing, and its quite unnecessary. A whole society should not have to change to accommodate one complainer.
Also the oath of service is detailed in the man text, the suffix is just that, a cultural suffix. It need not have meaning, so long as the main principle has meaning. This person cant have been the first atheist to apply for service, what of the others, they just got on with it, and tried not to impose their own beliefs on everyone by demanding a cultural rewrite for the sake of themselves. After all its not like they are being discriminated against, has anyone heard of the USAF discriminating against atheists, equal opportunities apply in full, but that isnt enough for some.
Does the USAF have Re-Enlistment window of 12 to 3 months out? If so why did he wait till the last minute to decide to Re-Enlist.....Playing around with a Bar of Re-Enlistment now
Edit
WTF...page 36 of the Manual states...
5.6.
Active Duty Oath of Enlistment.
All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the
following oath:
―I, (State your full name), 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.‖ (
Note
: Airmen may omit the words ―So help me
God‖, if desired for personal reasons)
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase
Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.
Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value
But it's not a tradition. It was only added a short while ago.
Jihadin wrote: Does the USAF have Re-Enlistment window of 12 to 3 months out? If so why did he wait till the last minute to decide to Re-Enlist.....Playing around with a Bar of Re-Enlistment now
Don't think the article was very clear on the timeline.. I would suppose that he "waited" so long because he was trying to re-up for station of choice? I know both times I re-upped for station, it took a while to get back from branch the "OK" to move forward. Also, while I know nothing about the AF personnel office, perhaps with drawdowns and whatnot, re-enlistments take longer because the personnel file is "reviewed" to see if the person is good enough for retention.
The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Jihadin wrote: Does the USAF have Re-Enlistment window of 12 to 3 months out? If so why did he wait till the last minute to decide to Re-Enlist.....Playing around with a Bar of Re-Enlistment now
Edit
WTF...page 36 of the Manual states...
5.6.
Active Duty Oath of Enlistment.
All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the
following oath:
―I, (State your full name), 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.‖ (
Note
: Airmen may omit the words ―So help me
God‖, if desired for personal reasons)
WTH......
The manual you posted was from 2011. AF claims that they are following congressional changes from 2013.
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
As to the oath, it seems silly that they'd force an Airman to say "so help me God." It hasn't been required in any of the oaths for years, and I don't see a point in the Air Force making it a requirement now.
Reference to Paragraph 5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment MUST READ:
“All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must
take the following oath: I, (State
your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United St ates against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true fa ith 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."
30 October 2013
Its current
5.6.
Active Duty Oath of Enlistment.
All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the
following oath:
―I, (State your full name), 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.‖ (
Note
: Airmen may omit the words ―So help me
God‖, if desired for personal reasons)
Congress approved it. Now I am thinking its the Oath of Enlistment Document itself
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
And yet it actually would be a problem. Look at how persnickety people get about the term Football/Soccer and that is only a psuedo-religion.
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
As to the oath, it seems silly that they'd force an Airman to say "so help me God." It hasn't been required in any of the oaths for years, and I don't see a point in the Air Force making it a requirement now.
I agree that Jehovah, God, Yaweh are all different names for the same thing. Yet I would put money on a huge number Christians being in outrage if the airforce oath said so help me Allah.
I know a few Asatru that would be upset if they had to swear to a Christian oath.
I'm thinking if you have never sworn an oath that involves you vowing to sacrifice your life (in more ways then one). Then you might not understand what this Airmen is going through. An oath holds the weight of who you are. I have taken my oath to the people of the US and The Constitution to the utmost seriousness. An have been willing to face death to uphold it. If I had to swear a oath to a simple "turn of phrase" I don't think I would of done it. It wouldn't of meant anything.
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
God means any deity, and is not specific. The Coptic Christians call the Christian God Allah because they speak Arabic. I would not support a move to 'so help me Jesus' as it would not be fair and is not part of the cultural meme.
Edit Reading adn responding to posts in sequence, already covered by Hordini.
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase
Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.
Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value. People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
If someone cant hack the last words of an oath of service how are they expected to handle the sandbox where they may be expected to keep the peace or negotiate with people with foreign values pressed in their face.
What about Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindu's? Do you think they should have no choice but to swear allegiance to the Christian god?
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
God means any deity, and is not specific. The Coptic Christians call the Christian God Allah because they speak Arabic. I would not support a move to 'so help me Jesus' as it would not be fair and is not part of the cultural meme.
EDIT:
So you're against a requirement to swear allegiance specifically to the Christian, but you're against people of no religious belief choosing to opt out? Effectively what you're saying is Religious people have Freedom of Religion, but a-religious people do not have the Freedom of no Religion because...its a tradition? (which as others have pointed out is a lie, it was a recent addition).
How the hell do you rationalise hypocrisy like this?
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase
Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.
Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value. People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
If someone cant hack the last words of an oath of service how are they expected to handle the sandbox where they may be expected to keep the peace or negotiate with people with foreign values pressed in their face.
What about Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindu's? Do you think they should have no choice but to swear allegiance to the Christian god?
Came so close to say "Bacchus" instead of "God" but my evil Commander whispered under his breathe "I would freaking kill you so hard your sperm will become non-existence".....as he was giving me the Oath of Re-Enlistment. Good days CPT. Gladney.good ole days....
What's the point of knowingly making a person swear on something he doesn't believe in? It's basically telling him that it's all pretend and he doesn't have to abide by it.
Orlanth wrote: 'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase
Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.
Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value. People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
If someone cant hack the last words of an oath of service how are they expected to handle the sandbox where they may be expected to keep the peace or negotiate with people with foreign values pressed in their face.
What about Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindu's? Do you think they should have no choice but to swear allegiance to the Christian god?
Comprehension fail.
See my edit.
People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
Likewise, Christians (yourself included) should be a little less butt hurt when other people choose to opt out from your religious beliefs.
Something wrong with story. Airman and lawyers are saying one thing but the Manual states what they want. Seriously thinking it has to do with the Oath of Enlistment document (the shiney one you hang on the wall or something) has on it '"So help me God" embossed on it
or
“That is, saying ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath (not the person administering the oath).”
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
As to the oath, it seems silly that they'd force an Airman to say "so help me God." It hasn't been required in any of the oaths for years, and I don't see a point in the Air Force making it a requirement now.
I agree that Jehovah, God, Yaweh are all different names for the same thing. Yet I would put money on a huge number Christians being in outrage if the airforce oath said so help me Allah.
I would put money on it as well, but it's because they are ignorant, not because they are right. Theologically speaking they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
While it's true that it is, by itself a "harmless phrase" the fact that it's being used in an OATH OF ENLISTMENT... something which is taken quite seriously in the military, makes it problematic for someone who does not believe in the existence of ANY gods. Basically, because they a swearing an oath to someone/thing they don't believe in, the oath is basically useless because they really arent swearing an oath. By having an option to NOT say "so help me god" allows them to attest their oath and it's meaning without breaching that belief
To put it another way, if someone forced you to swear an oath, and it ended with "So help me Mars" or "so help me Zeus" would you hold that oath to have any merit/meaning? Would you feel any need/desire to uphold that oath?
It is only today when people feel an entitlement to demand the removal of cultural traditions that are not personally appealing, and its quite unnecessary. A whole society should not have to change to accommodate one complainer.
Also the oath of service is detailed in the man text, the suffix is just that, a cultural suffix. It need not have meaning, so long as the main principle has meaning. This person cant have been the first atheist to apply for service, what of the others, they just got on with it, and tried not to impose their own beliefs on everyone by demanding a cultural rewrite for the sake of themselves. After all its not like they are being discriminated against, has anyone heard of the USAF discriminating against atheists, equal opportunities apply in full, but that isnt enough for some.
That's ridiculous. By not wanting to swear a false oath to something they do not believe in atheists are not enforcing their beliefs on anyone. else. They are having the religious beliefs of another group enforced upon them by a government agency something that is explicitly non constitutional.
carlos13th wrote: The people who have no problem with the "so help me god" part of the oath, would you have a problem if it said "so help me Allah" instead. Bet plenty of Christians would.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
As to the oath, it seems silly that they'd force an Airman to say "so help me God." It hasn't been required in any of the oaths for years, and I don't see a point in the Air Force making it a requirement now.
I agree that Jehovah, God, Yaweh are all different names for the same thing. Yet I would put money on a huge number Christians being in outrage if the airforce oath said so help me Allah.
I would put money on it as well, but it's because they are ignorant, not because they are right. Theologically speaking they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Yeah I agree they are ignorant but these are the same people who claim that an atheist should just say the words because it doesn't matter.
Orlanth wrote: , has anyone heard of the USAF discriminating against atheists,
Yes, actually, though not in an official capacity. I've known a number of atheists and pagans in the USAF(my wife isn't one, but she is in the AF and one of her best friends is an a-religious Officer) who are all but forced to hide their religious affiliation or lack thereof from their units for fear of unofficial persecution and discrimination. One of the GPS team commanders was actually allowed pretty much preach his literal translation dogmatic and non-evolutionary beliefs ON DUTY even after being complained about numerous times. There's very much a culture of "monotheistic religious belief or GTFO" in many AF units.
Before missions in Afghanaland my platoon used to do a prayer. There were many non Christians in the platoon. While my platoon SGT was a fairly devote Christian he never once looked down on those of use that didn't participate in the prayer. After the prayer we would all come together for the platoon motto and other motivational words. Though I did enjoy the time our medic changed God to "Hail Cobra" throughout his whole prayer hahaha.
I am glad that at least in 12B land US Army there is nothing wrong with having what ever faith that you have. Heck religion even gets healthy debates among religious and atheists.
No it doesn't. It specifically means the Christian god. That's why it appears as 'God' and not (insert deity of choice). We all know what a god is and we all know what is being referenced when someone says God.
To put it another way, I could say god is loving, but you'd have no idea who I'm talking about. Or I could say God is loving and you'd *instantly* know I mean the Christian god, because capital 'G' God is ONLY used for that particular god. Like it or not that oath refers to Christianity and I would bet my house if you asked those who voted for it that was their understanding.
I'd argue that given the context inherent to the sentence the capitalization doesn't matter. It is typically quite clear regardless of capitalization when god is a proper noun and when it isn't.
I agree let's stick with tradition and not change things. So let's go back to the original pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
and the original oath:
"I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army."
Yes it's for the army, but the air force used to be the US army air corps
Hey look, no mention of god, all those entitled christians should not have made a nation change it because they were un american, and 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Traditions need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value. People should learn to be a little less butthurt. They should have left them alone and stuck with tradition.
Orlanth wrote: Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value.
Traditions: srious bizness vary important! Freedom of conscience: who the hell cares?
Hordini wrote: Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
What about “So help me Satan”? Would Christians be okay with it? Because sure if some of the Bible is true, I do not feel more respect for God than they have for Satan.
No it doesn't. It specifically means the Christian god. That's why it appears as 'God' and not (insert deity of choice). We all know what a god is and we all know what is being referenced when someone says God.
To put it another way, I could say god is loving, but you'd have no idea who I'm talking about. Or I could say God is loving and you'd *instantly* know I mean the Christian god, because capital 'G' God is ONLY used for that particular god. Like it or not that oath refers to Christianity and I would bet my house if you asked those who voted for it that was their understanding.
God with a capital G is not only used for the Christian God. It is used in English anytime God is used as a proper noun, and is sometimes used in English by those of other faiths including Islam, Hinduism, certain Native American religions, and Baha'i, among others. You can make a valid claim that "God" most often refers to the Christian God when used by Christians, but it is not the case that they are the only ones who refer to God with a capital G in English.
Orlanth wrote: Then 'obviously' there is no need to tread on a tradition, because its not currently fashionable to some. Tradiotns need not blow like the wind being chopped and changed whenever an individual complains, settle for that and you will have no culture of value.
Traditions: srious bizness vary important! Freedom of conscience: who the hell cares?
Hordini wrote: Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews pray to Allah as well, so there really isn't a problem with a Christian saying "so help me Allah," theologically speaking.
What about “So help me Satan”? Would Christians be okay with it? Because sure if some of the Bible is true, I do not feel more respect for God than they have for Satan.
Why would you ask a ridiculous question like that? Do you think Christians would be okay with "So help me Satan?" And I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence.
Over the past week, a controversy has erupted on the internet centered on an airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada who has been notified that his re-enlistment will be denied because he scratched out the phrase “so help me God” on his written enlistment oath. The situation has prompted a passionate discussion about the role of faith in the military, but its genesis has more to do with legal and bureaucratic issues than it does with cultural ones.
Leave it to the USAFto be different and skewer it left and right
“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Thursday. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God.’”
No it doesn't. It specifically means the Christian god. That's why it appears as 'God' and not (insert deity of choice). We all know what a god is and we all know what is being referenced when someone says God.
To put it another way, I could say god is loving, but you'd have no idea who I'm talking about. Or I could say God is loving and you'd *instantly* know I mean the Christian god, because capital 'G' God is ONLY used for that particular god. Like it or not that oath refers to Christianity and I would bet my house if you asked those who voted for it that was their understanding.
To this point:
The names of God, specific deities, religious figures, and holy books
God the Father
the Virgin Mary
the Bible
the Greek gods
Moses
Shiva
Buddha
Zeus
Exception: Do not capitalize the nonspecific use of the word "god."
The oath across the entire DoD, specifically uses God with a capitol G, which specifically means the Judeo-Christian-Muslim variety.
No, it doesn't.
Specifically, God with a capital G is used anytime God is being used as a proper noun, which, in English, is not exclusive to the God of the Abrahamic faiths.
Specifically, God with a capital G is used anytime God is being used as a proper noun, which, in English, is not exclusive to the God of the Abrahamic faiths.
I literally JUST posted the English language rules for the use of the word god, from a major US university no less... God is only used as a proper noun when talking about the Christian one. For instance, if I hold Thor as my chief diety, I STILL must refer to him as "my god" not "my God"
Specifically, God with a capital G is used anytime God is being used as a proper noun, which, in English, is not exclusive to the God of the Abrahamic faiths.
I literally JUST posted the English language rules for the use of the word god, from a major US university no less... God is only used as a proper noun when talking about the Christian one. For instance, if I hold Thor as my chief diety, I STILL must refer to him as "my god" not "my God"
Did you read my previous post? I went to the link. I'm not trying to be a dick, but your interpretation of that information is not correct. "Nonspecific use of the word god" does not mean that God is only used to refer to the Abrahamic God.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your Thor example is correct, but that doesn't support your point.
"Thor is my god," is correct.
You could also say "Thor is God," because in that case God is being used as a proper noun, rather than a common noun. Similar to words to mother, father, mom, and dad, the word "god" can be used as both a common and proper noun.
And if you wrote that, and turned it in to an English teacher it would be circled in red ink. Right or wrong, it is in fact, how our society has deemed the "correct" usage of the word.
And if you wrote that, and turned it in to an English teacher it would be circled in red ink. Right or wrong, it is in fact, how our society has deemed the "correct" usage of the word.
Why would it? Unless she thought it was a typo and I meant, "Thor is a god," which does not have the same meaning as "Thor is God."
God is capitalized when used as a proper noun, which includes more than just when referring to the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Nothing in the link that you posted contradicts what I've said. Read my previous post.
So you're against a requirement to swear allegiance specifically to the Christian, but you're against people of no religious belief choosing to opt out? Effectively what you're saying is Religious people have Freedom of Religion, but a-religious people do not have the Freedom of no Religion because...its a tradition? (which as others have pointed out is a lie, it was a recent addition).
How the hell do you rationalise hypocrisy like this?
There is no hypocrisy, the words of the oath haver bearing to the service, no belief in a deity is assumed of the oath swearer, or atheists in the past will have been unable to have sworn the oath.
No freedoms are infringed, the person swearing the oath need only affirm their duty to the constitution, the president and to the officers above them, not to any God.
So you're against a requirement to swear allegiance specifically to the Christian, but you're against people of no religious belief choosing to opt out? Effectively what you're saying is Religious people have Freedom of Religion, but a-religious people do not have the Freedom of no Religion because...its a tradition? (which as others have pointed out is a lie, it was a recent addition).
How the hell do you rationalise hypocrisy like this?
There is no hypocrisy, the words of the oath haver bearing to the service, no belief in a deity is assumed of the oath swearer, or atheists in the past will have been unable to have sworn the oath.
No freedoms are infringed, the person swearing the oath need only affirm their duty to the constitution, the president and to the officers above them, not to any God.
People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
Likewise, Christians (yourself included) should be a little less butt hurt when other people choose to opt out from your religious beliefs.
Go ahead opt out, however there is a difference between opting out and saying remove the text to fit my feelings. You are opting everyone out, like it or not.
That's ridiculous. By not wanting to swear a false oath to something they do not believe in atheists are not enforcing their beliefs on anyone. else. They are having the religious beliefs of another group enforced upon them by a government agency something that is explicitly non constitutional.
Nobody is asking the person joining the USAF to believe in God.
Yeah I agree they are ignorant but these are the same people who claim that an atheist should just say the words because it doesn't matter.
The ignorance is your own, no God is specified. ther words are a cultural suffix not tied into any one religion. However the actual coponents of the oath are specified.
No it doesn't. It specifically means the Christian god. That's why it appears as 'God' and not (insert deity of choice). We all know what a god is and we all know what is being referenced when someone says God.
It is generally polite to use capitalisation for a deity. Judaism and Islam use far more strict restrictions for writing the word God than Christianity does. Hinduism and Krshna consciousness also capitalises the word God in its works using the Latin script.
An oath specifically to the Christian God will normally have a different form anyway, usually invoking the Trinity. Catholics oaths do, some of Protestantism doesn't usually include formal oaths are oaths are forbidden in New Testament law.
James 5:12
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple "Yes" or "No." Otherwise you will be condemned.
Consequently oaths of this sort are taken very loosely and not religiously at all, to do so would be contradictory. The main text is what is important. Again specifically to this oath the promise to serve the President and appounted officers. Note that the wording does include the option to swear or affirm this is in keeping with the Biblical instruction. Were this a 'Christian oath' the option to swear would have to be removed from the text.
To put it another way, I could say god is loving, but you'd have no idea who I'm talking about. Or I could say God is loving and you'd *instantly* know I mean the Christian god, because capital 'G' God is ONLY used for that particular god. Like it or not that oath refers to Christianity and I would bet my house if you asked those who voted for it that was their understanding.
Just as well you didnt bet the house. The terms of the oath are loosely cultural and not specific to any one religion as proven above.
Traditions: srious bizness vary important! Freedom of conscience: who the hell cares?
Military tradition is important. And no freedom of conscience is impaired. Atheists have been joining the US military for a long time, this has only cropped up now. Someone insists that the whole of society revolve arouhnd them and that the oath odf service be rewritten for thier personal advantage. Freedom of consciousness is a moral standpoint, not a point of self-centred divisiveness.
What about “So help me Satan”? Would Christians be okay with it? Because sure if some of the Bible is true, I do not feel more respect for God than they have for Satan.
Again no specific divinity is mentioned. If you spoke the words and had Satan in mind thats up to you. The only specificity in the wording is towards the officers and the President. If you want to you can think that the President is Satan also, whatever floats your boat.
Not sure what exactly you mean, but both times that I reenlisted in the army, during the "pre oath interview/practice" each time the officer who was reading the oath would brief me to repeat after them, but that I did not have to end the oath with "God"... so the Army's re-up oath ends with either "So help me." or "So help me god"
....
What I mean is that the Air Force oath used to be like your army oath -- non-Christians could "affirm" rather than swear by the name of God -- and the Air Force changed it a few years ago. They have given as their reason that a new law by Congress compelled them to change it to the Christian only version.
Why is it that the other armed forces have not found it necessary to change their oath too? Did Congress pass a law that only applied to the Air Force? If so, why?
Given that the current Air Force oath seems to violate the constitution the whole situation is murky.
Not sure what exactly you mean, but both times that I reenlisted in the army, during the "pre oath interview/practice" each time the officer who was reading the oath would brief me to repeat after them, but that I did not have to end the oath with "God"... so the Army's re-up oath ends with either "So help me." or "So help me god"
....
What I mean is that the Air Force oath used to be like your army oath -- non-Christians could "affirm" rather than swear by the name of God -- and the Air Force changed it a few years ago. They have given as their reason that a new law by Congress compelled them to change it to the Christian only version.
Why is it that the other armed forces have not found it necessary to change their oath too? Did Congress pass a law that only applied to the Air Force? If so, why?
Given that the current Air Force oath seems to violate the constitution the whole situation is murky.
Air Force tried to comply with what Congress approved
“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Thursday. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God.’”
Air Force should have done what the other three branches did (four with Coast Guard) and violated the KISS rule of "One can only add but never take away".
Jihadin wrote: Air Force tried to comply with what Congress approved
So either the Air Force was singled out becuase they would do it, or they were the only branch that followed through with it when the others didn't. Seems to be a problem either way.
Hordini wrote: What about “So help me Satan”? Would Christians be okay with it? Because sure if some of the Bible is true, I do not feel more respect for God than they have for Satan.
Again no specific divinity is mentioned. If you spoke the words and had Satan in mind thats up to you.
Quote error (that was me, not Hordini).
God is pretty specific. Even in the broadest meaning of the term, It means the deity from a monotheism. No polytheism, no atheism, and, yes, no satanism.
Just as well you didnt bet the house. The terms of the oath are loosely cultural and not specific to any one religion as proven above.
Then why does it have to be (captial G) God? Why can't it be a blank section, like the others, personal and filled in by the person swearing the oath?
Saying that it could- and this is the United States- mean something other than God is reaching at best, and as I said the members of Congress who put this back in, I will assure you, were not thinking of any other god than God. If you want to keep insisting that it's anything but a deliberate insertion of Christianity into a military branch, go right ahead. But it was *added* explicitly and deliberately where it was once *optional*. Was the old way so broken it needed that God needed to be enforced by Congress?
The words "So help me God" were added in 1962. Therefore all of the armed forces have arguably been noncompliant with the oath since then, until the Air Force decided by itself last year to require the phrase to be used.
That's ridiculous. By not wanting to swear a false oath to something they do not believe in atheists are not enforcing their beliefs on anyone. else. They are having the religious beliefs of another group enforced upon them by a government agency something that is explicitly non constitutional.
Nobody is asking the person joining the USAF to believe in God.
They are asking them to swear an oath to god. One they do not believe in completely invalidating the oath.
Yeah I agree they are ignorant but these are the same people who claim that an atheist should just say the words because it doesn't matter.
The ignorance is your own, no God is specified. ther words are a cultural suffix not tied into any one religion. However the actual coponents of the oath are specified.
It seems in your rush to get defensive and insulting you didn't actually read what the conversation was about. The ignorance I was referring to was in regard to people who don't know that Allah, God and Yaweh are all words for the same deity. Unless you didn't know this it wasn't you I was refearing too.
Your attempts to make the discriminated against (the non religious or anyone who wants to join the airforce but does not believe in God) seem like they are doing the discriminating for not wanting to turn their enlisting loath into a lie is not only blatantly dishonest but extremely common among the Christian majority in the United States. You are not free to enforce the majority belief on a minority no matter how much you wish it show. The separation of church and state is their for a reason, this is unconstitutional.
Their is no doubt that in this instance as in pretty much anytime an American uses the word God such as "In God we Trust." Or "One nation under God" to the airforce "So Help me God" they are referring to the Christian God. To claim they are not is intellectually dishonest. Also to say that they should carry on due to tradition is also intellectually dishonest considering that traditionally neither of these references to God were in there but they were added later.
Since apparently there is a stipulation in the constitution that offices should not have a religious test, to require a religious oath is unconstitutional whatever the religion that might be involved.
What I mean is that the Air Force oath used to be like your army oath -- non-Christians could "affirm" rather than swear by the name of God -- and the Air Force changed it a few years ago. They have given as their reason that a new law by Congress compelled them to change it to the Christian only version.
Why is it that the other armed forces have not found it necessary to change their oath too? Did Congress pass a law that only applied to the Air Force? If so, why?
Given that the current Air Force oath seems to violate the constitution the whole situation is murky.
On the surface it is actually a kind of strange issue here.... I mean, if congress did really change the law so that you MUST swear to "God" in any oath of enlistment/commission, etc. Why is the AF the only one doing it? I know the old addage is that it takes about 10 years for anything to change in the army (it's not entirely true), but perhaps it's more that the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard all realize that it's pretty stupid, and somewhat petty to force people to say words they don't believe. I know from my experience around the Marines, you would think they are pretty religious (as almost all NCOs seem to LOOOOVE Full Metal Jacket, and try to invoke their inner R Lee Ermey) but really, that whole "you serve God, your country and the Marines, but maybe not in that order" thing is really just some rah rah speech to get people going.
What I mean is that the Air Force oath used to be like your army oath -- non-Christians could "affirm" rather than swear by the name of God -- and the Air Force changed it a few years ago. They have given as their reason that a new law by Congress compelled them to change it to the Christian only version.
Why is it that the other armed forces have not found it necessary to change their oath too? Did Congress pass a law that only applied to the Air Force? If so, why?
Given that the current Air Force oath seems to violate the constitution the whole situation is murky.
On the surface it is actually a kind of strange issue here.... I mean, if congress did really change the law so that you MUST swear to "God" in any oath of enlistment/commission, etc. Why is the AF the only one doing it? I know the old addage is that it takes about 10 years for anything to change in the army (it's not entirely true), but perhaps it's more that the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard all realize that it's pretty stupid, and somewhat petty to force people to say words they don't believe. I know from my experience around the Marines, you would think they are pretty religious (as almost all NCOs seem to LOOOOVE Full Metal Jacket, and try to invoke their inner R Lee Ermey) but really, that whole "you serve God, your country and the Marines, but maybe not in that order" thing is really just some rah rah speech to get people going.
More likely it was ignored being it took away from the Service Member. More likely if one goes by AR165-1 that the US Army took no stance on who, what, maybe, questionable, genie, whoever and/or whatever God might be. The Spiritual need is recognize for those that require/desire it and also for those who has moral need.
People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
Likewise, Christians (yourself included) should be a little less butt hurt when other people choose to opt out from your religious beliefs.
Go ahead opt out, however there is a difference between opting out and saying remove the text to fit my feelings. You are opting everyone out, like it or not.
Incorrect. Allowing someone to opt out of a religious oath does not force everyone else to opt out.
It seems in your rush to get defensive and insulting you didn't actually read what the conversation was about. The ignorance I was referring to was in regard to people who don't know that Allah, God and Yaweh are all words for the same deity. Unless you didn't know this it wasn't you I was refearing too.
Orthodox Judaism doesn't accept either of the other two Abrahamic faiths and Christianity doesn't accept the third. They are mutually exclusive. So a reference to Allah in the English language doesnt refer to the Christian or Jewish God, the Jews beleive God is One, the Christians Three in One and the Moslems beleive he is One and Mohammed is his prophet. Yet Jesus says that he is the last prophet to appear in his own name, all others come in his name or are not of God. Consequently one needs to be more specific is attempting to reference God as decribed by the three Abrahamic faiths as they are not directly compatible.
Also there are numerous other montheistic sects to add to the above, each with thier own dictrines and ideas of Godf, and even some polythiesistic religions refer to a single God when it suits them. Though you will have to ask them why.
Your attempts to make the discriminated against (the non religious or anyone who wants to join the airforce but does not believe in God) seem like they are doing the discriminating for not wanting to turn their enlisting loath into a lie is not only blatantly dishonest but extremely common among the Christian majority in the United States.
It isnt dishonest, as given above the comment is cultural and coloquial. Taken fopr example fro a Christian point of view one simply shouldnt swear oaths, period. Therrefore the oathb is seen theolgoically as a mission statement. Islam does include oaths but again many moslem servicemen are having trouble trying to reconcile their reglious oath and the oath or serrvice to the President and the US policies in the middle east. Only those who do not see this as anything more than a cultural statement can effectively complete the ritual. However it is important to both that God is not entirely removed from the state, hence the value in the references. But that is all they are references, not impositions.
You are not free to enforce the majority belief on a minority no matter how much you wish it show. The separation of church and state is their for a reason, this is unconstitutional.
Good so don't enforce a minority beleif either by demanding removal of the wording. Its there as a cultural point based on how the US traditionally does things, it doesn't actually get in the way of service so why complain.
Their is no doubt that in this instance as in pretty much anytime an American uses the word God such as "In God we Trust." Or "One nation under God" to the airforce "So Help me God" they are referring to the Christian God. To claim they are not is intellectually dishonest. Also to say that they should carry on due to tradition is also intellectually dishonest considering that traditionally neither of these references to God were in there but they were added later.
This is only at most only partly true, Christianity might have been what Americans had in mind but the wording is ambiguous. Freemasonry is a root for a lot of US religious lexicon; Freemasonry use the word God deliberately unspecified as to which as a point of cross faith unity. This ambiguity also shows out in policy, in fact early US history was remarkably open minded to what they referred to at the time as Mohammedans, again due to Masonic influence. Moselms and Chritians most likely specified b y themselves but the state did not.
Had the phrase been 'in Christ we Trust', or 'So Help me Christ' then you would have a point, or alternatives like Heavenly Father, God the Father etc all of which are exclusively Christian. Jews and Moslems don't call God by the name Father, it borders on blasphemy to them.
People should learn to be a little less butthurt, especially if they are going to join a fighting profession.
Likewise, Christians (yourself included) should be a little less butt hurt when other people choose to opt out from your religious beliefs.
Go ahead opt out, however there is a difference between opting out and saying remove the text to fit my feelings. You are opting everyone out, like it or not.
Incorrect. Allowing someone to opt out of a religious oath does not force everyone else to opt out.
It does if there are demands to remove the wording.
It does if there are demands to remove the wording.
Except the secular side of this debate isn't calling for a removal- just for it to be optional. The secular side is saying 'if you want, swear to God/Allah/Thor, just don't make me do it' while the religious side- and the Congress- made it COMPULSORY.
Again, why can't it be left blank and those who wish to swear- to whatever they wish to swear- can do so? Why must it be, and must they say, capital G God?
Orlanth wrote: There is no hypocrisy, the words of the oath haver bearing to the service, no belief in a deity is assumed of the oath swearer, or atheists in the past will have been unable to have sworn the oath.
The fact that no one has chosen to challenge the wording of the Oath until now is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is constitutional (its NOT). Its hardly surprising, given how much stronger Christian influence over American society and politics was 5 decades ago (when the words were inserted into the Oath by Christians) compared to now, where Atheism has only recently become a significant movement.
No freedoms are infringed,
Except the First Amendment.
the person swearing the oath need only affirm their duty to the constitution, the president and to the officers above them, not to any God.
Not true. God is specifically mentioned.
Go ahead opt out
Atheists CAN'T opt out, its a compulsory part of the Oath. Thats the whole issue of this debate FFS.
however there is a difference between opting out and saying remove the text to fit my feelings. You are opting everyone out, like it or not.
Thats a lie. Nobody is demanding it be removed to suit "my feelings". They are demanding that it be OPTIONAL, not COMPULSORY; as it used to be before Christians interfered and had it inserted into the Oath 5 decades ago. To require "so help me God" to be a compulsory part of the oath is by definition unconstitutional.
Like it or not, this is a case of Christians forcing their beliefs onto others.
I was with you on the Irish Christian cake maker - gay rights political message issue (which I saw as political beliefs/opinion being forced onto others), but in this case you are flat out WRONG.
The American Constitution says you are wrong. There is no debate here.
The ignorance is your own, no God is specified. ther words are a cultural suffix not tied into any one religion. However the actual coponents of the oath are specified.
Again, thats a lie which has already been refuted. In this case, "God" very specifically refers to the Christian god, and was inserted into the Oath as a result of pressure and interference by Christians. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest revisionism.
Consequently oaths of this sort are taken very loosely and not religiously at all, to do so would be contradictory. The main text is what is important. Again specifically to this oath the promise to serve the President and appounted officers. Note that the wording does include the option to swear or affirm this is in keeping with the Biblical instruction. Were this a 'Christian oath' the option to swear would have to be removed from the text.
The fact that "so help me God" is a compulsory part of the Oath, makes it a Christian Oath.
To borrow your own term, why are YOU so butt hurt that other people want to opt out of a religious clause in an Oath of allegiance?
It is NOT a tradition as you claim, it was inserted only a few decades ago as a result of political interference.
Orlanth you are completely wrong on this issue and that your claims that Atheists not wanting to take a religous oath is some how infringing on Christian rights is utter nonsense.
Forcing someone who does not believe in God to swear to God as part of the Oath makes the Oath utterly meaningless to the person. This is very important when the Oath is meant to be taken seriously.
Also not wanting to be forced to say the religious part of the oath if you are not religious in no way forces or harms people who revere religious. No atheist is trying to say that Christians cannot say so help me god at the end of their own oath they are just saying that they do not want to be forced to say that oath themselves in much the same way you wouldn't want to say so help me Allah or so help me Thor.
Your argument is just as bad as when Christians claim prayer is banned in schools. it's not, teachers are not allowed to lead prayer or enforce their religious beliefs on students. Any student themselves is free to pray whenever they want though. Sadly to many Christians don't see the line between being free to practice their own beliefs and being free to force their beliefs onto others.
carlos13th wrote: Orlanth you are completely wrong on this issue and that your claims that Atheists not wanting to take a religous oath is some how infringing on Christian rights is utter nonsense.
In the eyes of some, his premise is probably more spot on than it should be.
Ok, so lets take a look at the 'Thor is god' or 'Thor is God'
The second one does not make sense, as in no way is Thor also God, as he is a god.
You can only realy use God when there is only one god you are refering to. To be a correct oath for religious people it should be 'so help me __(Insert name of deity)' and for the christians they could then say Johova, or Yahway, or elohim and a Hindu could say Ganesh.
This oath is not only saying that there are gods, but there is only one God. True it's not saying which of the monotheistic religions god it's refering to, but I think it does rule out anything other than a single diety religion
carlos13th wrote: Orlanth you are completely wrong on this issue and that your claims that Atheists not wanting to take a religous oath is some how infringing on Christian rights is utter nonsense.
In the eyes of some, his premise is probably more spot on than it should be.
The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.' This seems to upset a lot of the religious people, as they have been taught throughout their lives that they know what's right and wrong by following god, which gives them a distrust of people who do not believe. You only need to look at the polls which puts Atheists along with rapist on the list of people that Americans don't trust!
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/
Now as a rational Atheist I could think of a number of reasons for this, but think it must come down to the environment they grew up in, as these trends do not appear in most of western Europe.
chocmushroom wrote: Ok, so lets take a look at the 'Thor is god' or 'Thor is God'
The second one does not make sense, as in no way is Thor also God, as he is a god.
You can only realy use God when there is only one god you are refering to. To be a correct oath for religious people it should be 'so help me __(Insert name of deity)' and for the christians they could then say Johova, or Yahway, or elohim and a Hindu could say Ganesh.
This oath is not only saying that there are gods, but there is only one God. True it's not saying which of the monotheistic religions god it's refering to, but I think it does rule out anything other than a single diety religion
There's some convenient handcuffing at work in that we don't have simple terms in English to express the belief in pantheons of divine beings, and in fact, the one term you can use to express a singular supreme being is the same term that, when capitalized and thus giving it more weight and making it "proper", also refers to the one Christian god. The converse of this is that you will encounter people who have become offended as even mentioning the existence of other gods by that vernacular even in a historical sense, which leads into my previous comment about how your actions can infringe upon the beliefs of others (in their minds), even if you refrain from actually doing it directly.
I suppose you could adopt the latin dei, but my latin's rusty so I'm not 100% if that's the correct construction or not. Plus it makes you look like an ass.
carlos13th wrote: Orlanth you are completely wrong on this issue and that your claims that Atheists not wanting to take a religous oath is some how infringing on Christian rights is utter nonsense.
In the eyes of some, his premise is probably more spot on than it should be.
The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.' This seems to upset a lot of the religious people, as they have been taught throughout their lives that they know what's right and wrong by following god, which gives them a distrust of people who do not believe. You only need to look at the polls which puts Atheists along with rapist on the list of people that Americans don't trust!
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/
Now as a rational Atheist I could think of a number of reasons for this, but think it must come down to the environment they grew up in, as these trends do not appear in most of western Europe.
I'm not sure how I feel about the poll. I would be interested to see how many of the people who mistrust atheists also would be in the group that uses the words "pinko" or "commie" as pejoratives. Something else you have to remember that is a reality is that the Cold War was seen as "The Christian United States Of America" versus "Atheist USSR". That got us a Christian god injected into what we say when we swear fealty to the State in school as well as being cheaply turned into a motto we plastered all over our currency, as if we might forget. Constant reminders and indoctrination like that would probably have a powerful effect on a lot of people. Not to mention that at the time, being an atheist meant (in the eyes of McCarthy types) being a commie. Thankfully, I'm too young to have lived through that era. I imagine it was probably a scary time.
How the oath sounds to an atheist wrote:"I, _____, do solemnly swear 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 Poseidon, Lord of the Tides."
I'm not American, I have no interest in the military, and this is not a fight that is ever likely to affect me. But I am an atheist, and I think that those who can't see why this is a problem need to think why the oath even exists. If you make a promise to something you don't believe exists, then it has no power. There is no point in the oath even existing if it cannot be made appropriate for those taking it.
chocmushroom wrote: Ok, so lets take a look at the 'Thor is god' or 'Thor is God' The second one does not make sense, as in no way is Thor also God, as he is a god.
You can only realy use God when there is only one god you are refering to. To be a correct oath for religious people it should be 'so help me __(Insert name of deity)' and for the christians they could then say Johova, or Yahway, or elohim and a Hindu could say Ganesh.
This oath is not only saying that there are gods, but there is only one God. True it's not saying which of the monotheistic religions god it's refering to, but I think it does rule out anything other than a single diety religion
Not necessarily. If you find yourself in the position of worshipping a pantheon of Gods then I assume you would either choose the one that means the most to you as a person, the God of battle (There's always one) or just the God with the shiniest hat.
chocmushroom wrote: Ok, so lets take a look at the 'Thor is god' or 'Thor is God'
The second one does not make sense, as in no way is Thor also God, as he is a god.
You can only realy use God when there is only one god you are refering to. To be a correct oath for religious people it should be 'so help me __(Insert name of deity)' and for the christians they could then say Johova, or Yahway, or elohim and a Hindu could say Ganesh.
A Hindu could also say "God," in English. "Thor is god" is not grammatically correct, but "Thor is God" is. It doesn't make sense because you are looking at it as a theological perspective, not a grammatical one. This is just an example, but someone who worshiped Thor and did not believe in any of the other Old Norse pantheon could very easily say "Thor is God" and be both grammatically and theologically correct, at least in terms of his personal beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chocmushroom wrote: The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'
I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.
How the oath sounds to an atheist wrote:"I, _____, do solemnly swear 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 Poseidon, Lord of the Tides."
I'm not American, I have no interest in the military, and this is not a fight that is ever likely to affect me. But I am an atheist, and I think that those who can't see why this is a problem need to think why the oath even exists. If you make a promise to something you don't believe exists, then it has no power. There is no point in the oath even existing if it cannot be made appropriate for those taking it.
I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.
Hordini wrote: I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.
That is irrelevant, it is still absurd to insist that a person appeal to a make-believe authority for assistance in upholding an oath. To atheists, a deity is make-believe, and it would be just as absurd to implore Roboute Guilliman to assist one with an oath as it is to appeal to god. Sorry if that comes off as insulting to those who identify as religious, but unless the faithful begin to see the situation from a non-believers point of view no amount of parsing language is going to help.
Hordini wrote: I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.
That is irrelevant, it is still absurd to insist that a person appeal to a make-believe authority for assistance in upholding an oath. To atheists, a deity is make-believe, and it would be just as absurd to implore Roboute Guilliman to assist one with an oath as it is to appeal to god. Sorry if that comes off as insulting to those who identify as religious, but unless the faithful begin to see the situation from a non-believers point of view no amount of parsing language is going to help.
Oh really? I'm so glad you're here to tell us these things. Did you read my post? I agree with you that it is absurd to make someone say "So help me God" at the end of an oath. I was simply pointing out that the actual oath, if you read it, isn't a promise made to a deity, which is what another poster was claiming.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Okay, champ, perhaps you should check your post for ambiguity because it certainly read that you were attempting to justify the difference.
What is ambiguous about "atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part"?
Kilkrazy wrote: According to the constitution no-one, including Christians, should have to say the "so help me God" part.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to the constitution no-one, including Christians, should have to say the "so help me God" part.
No crap. That's not really my point, I mentioned atheists because that's who we've been primarily talking about, and an atheist is the one who has been wronged in this case. And in the other branches, no one has to say the "so help me God" part.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to the constitution no-one, including Christians, should have to say the "so help me God" part.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
Have you read the oath? It's not an oath to God. Even religious service members who choose to say the "so help me God" part aren't swearing an oath to God.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
The objection being mounted is that the phrase "So help me God." requires nonbelievers to affirm the existence of God, and arguably a monotheistic one at that. Not that anyone is being required to swear an oath to God.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
The objection being mounted is that the phrase "So help me God." requires nonbelievers to affirm the existence of God, and arguably a monotheistic one at that. Not that anyone is being required to swear an oath to God.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some difficulty in disassociating the phrase "So help me God" from religion.
If it is nothing to do with religion why is an atheist objecting to the compulsion to recite it?
Who is saying it has nothing to do with religion?
According to what I understand of your earlier post, you did.
Hordini wrote:Have you read the oath? It's not an oath to God. Even religious service members who choose to say the "so help me God" part aren't swearing an oath to God.
Exactly.
I have read the oath. It ends with the phrase "So help me God," and everyone is compelled to read that out as part of the oath.
If you mean that the oath in its traditional form, which does not include "So help me God", is non-religious, I entirely agree.
I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.
Typically when people offer a statement immediately followed with "but", they are arguing something opposite to their original statement.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some difficulty in disassociating the phrase "So help me God" from religion.
If it is nothing to do with religion why is an atheist objecting to the compulsion to recite it?
Who is saying it has nothing to do with religion?
According to what I understand of your earlier post, you did.
Hordini wrote:Have you read the oath? It's not an oath to God. Even religious service members who choose to say the "so help me God" part aren't swearing an oath to God.
Exactly.
I have read the oath. It ends with the phrase "So help me God," and everyone is compelled to read that out as part of the oath.
If you mean that the oath in its traditional form, which does not include "So help me God", is non-religious, I entirely agree.
I absolutely never said it had nothing to do with religion. I said that the oath isn't being made to God, regardless of whether or not it ends with "so help me God."
I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.
Typically when people offer a statement immediately followed with "but", they are arguing something opposite to their original statement.
Yes, I was arguing the part of his statement that claimed that the person swearing the oath was making a promise to God (they aren't), but not the part of his statement saying that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part. I'm not sure what's so confusing about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So you're saying what you took from that was that I was basically saying, "Atheists shouldn't have to say "so help me God, but they should have to say "so help me God."
That's a pretty impressive interpretation, actually.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
The objection being mounted is that the phrase "So help me God." requires nonbelievers to affirm the existence of God, and arguably a monotheistic one at that. Not that anyone is being required to swear an oath to God.
Okay. Allow me to rephrase in such a way that continues to make my point whilst removing that as an issue for everyone.
And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath involving a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath involving God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.
Hordini. I don't want to drag this discussion any further OT. You wrote something that I read and responded to, and there was a miscommunication. If you want to believe that is because I have a reading comprehension problem that is fine. I'll continue thinking you wrote an ambiguously worded post that stated something other than what you were trying to say. We can both go on agreeing with each other while thinking the other person is a moron. Are we good or would you like to discuss this through PM?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Hordini. I don't want to drag this discussion any further OT. You wrote something that I read and responded to, and there was a miscommunication. If you want to believe that is because I have a reading comprehension problem that is fine. I'll continue thinking you wrote an ambiguously worded post that stated something other than what you were trying to say. We can both go on agreeing with each other while thinking the other person is a moron. Are we good or would you like to discuss this through PM?
Oh fine, have it your way then! We'll all just do what you want to do!
I'm still willing to bet the majority would fall under the umbrella of "Christian". My issue isn't with Champlains though, as I know a few and they are good guys, but with the idea that there is no "substance of god in the military" when there is, however small. If there wasn't this Oath issue wouldn't be happening, the Air Force Academy issue wouldn't have popped off, and there wouldn't be any Chaplains either. Of course there is some substance, as the soldiers themselves would have some if nothing. It isn't a religious organization, thus the problem with the oath, but to pretend there is no faith in the service is dishonest.
Jihadin wrote: Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.
I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!
Jihadin wrote: Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.
I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!
If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.
Jihadin wrote: Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.
I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!
Then they would not join the US Military at all. Or they can resign their commissions. They must adhere to AR165-1 regardless of faith or view.
Hordini wrote: If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.
I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.
Hordini wrote: If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.
I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.
If a soldier who is a Christian has guard duty on Sunday and wish to go to Mass and my only replacement for him/her is a Atheist I will not make the switch nor would I even ask the Atheist. If a detail comes down to set chairs for a Spiritual Event to be giving by a Chaplain later then I would detail off anybody that I deem is needed regardless of faith/view.
Hordini wrote: If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.
I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.
A big part of what chaplains do is refer service personnel to clergy and lay leaders of other faiths. A lot of bases have civilian clergy who will contract with the base to minister to service members of other faiths. So for example, if a base or a unit has a Protestant chaplain and no Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim chaplain, they will have a local clergy member actually on base for those service members or will have contact information for congregations and clergy in the local area. If no local clergy exists, the chaplain will make sure the service member has access to any texts or other religious items they may require, and a space to practice their faith. So yes, a chaplain of one faith can (and does) absolutely provide chaplain services to a service member of another faith.
Hordini wrote: So yes, a chaplain of one faith can (and does) absolutely provide chaplain services to a service member of another faith.
The question isn't whether it is possible, because just about anything is possible, but would a Satanist feel a Fundamentalist pastor can actually fulfill their spiritual needs and vice versa. Either way it still doesn't say there is no substance of god in the military. Let me present some images showing no substance.
Spoiler:
Having some substance of god isn't the same as saying it is the majority or somehow a theocratic institution, I just disagree with the idea that it isn't there at all, which is what was said.
Hordini wrote: So yes, a chaplain of one faith can (and does) absolutely provide chaplain services to a service member of another faith.
The question isn't whether it is possible, because just about anything is possible, but would a Satanist feel a Fundamentalist pastor can actually fulfill their spiritual needs and vice versa.
As for how a Satanist and Fundamentalist would feel, I can't speak for either of them. But a chaplain would be expected to provide the same services. A Christian chaplain wouldn't have to oversee a Satanic ritual, but he would have to provide books or contact information or something to meet the spiritual and religious needs of the service member.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties, but if you became a chaplain in the military because you wanted to stay in your comfort zone, you probably made the wrong decision.
Show me in AR165-1 where the word "God" is mention and/or defined. Show me where in AR165-1 does it mention any specific religion. The various religions you pointed out in your post shows me different Chaplains who are there to provide a Spiritual Need for the Service Members
Hordini wrote: I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties
That was what I was trying to get at and was parenthetical to the main point; no FM is going to remove that discomfort. I wasn't meaning to say the Chaplain would be incapable of doing their job, but I can't imagine their heart would be in it the same was as giving the Lord's Prayer.
I don't care if the word "God" is mentioned in a field manual or not. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there is "any substance of god in the military."
Hordini wrote: I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties
That was what I was trying to get at and was parenthetical to the main point; no FM is going to remove that discomfort. I wasn't meaning to say the Chaplain would be incapable of doing their job, but I can't imagine their heart would be in it the same was as giving the Lord's Prayer.
That's likely true, but as long as the chaplain provides the service member with the proper referral to local congregations (if they exist) and access to religious items or books, it doesn't really matter if his heart is in it on the same level.
Jihadin wrote: Show me in AR165-1 where the word "God" is mention and/or defined.
Right, because it doesn't say the word god suddenly the chaplains are not member of their clergy, whatever faith it is? Considering we have a definition of chaplain and chart showing that almost everyone single one has some religious affiliation it seems odd to deny that they have any religious context.
Jihadin wrote: Show me where in AR165-1 does it mention any specific religion.
See above.
Jihadin wrote: The various religions you pointed out in your post shows me different Chaplains who are there to provide a Spiritual Need for the Service Members
If they are fulfilling spiritual needs then there is a substance there, not a complete lack of one. Pretending what we are seeing isn't religious in nature because a FM doesn't mention God or specific faith is a bit feckless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: That's likely true, but as long as the chaplain provides the service member with the proper referral to local congregations (if they exist) and access to religious items or books, it doesn't really matter if his heart is in it on the same level.
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing... Was I wrong?
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
All of the services do chaplains pretty much the same way as far as I know. And chaplains don't really have anything to do with the oath of enlistment and oath of office.
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
All of the services do chaplains pretty much the same way as far as I know. And chaplains don't really have anything to do with the oath of enlistment and oath of office.
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
chocmushroom wrote: The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'
I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.
Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
Well that's just dandy.
Are we all kinda agreed with the oath thing?
purplefood wrote: It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?
Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.
Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?
Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
Well that's just dandy.
Are we all kinda agreed with the oath thing?
The NCO from the AIr Force is not agreeing to it but its a battle he wants to fight. Though I wished he did not alter that document by scratching out the "So help me God". Since he is 90 days plus or minus from ETS and made known now he had issues with the Oath might make re-enlisting him not becoming a priority being his slot in the unit personnel roster is made open to get a replacement in. Basically he screwing around with a bar of re-enlistment of jacking up a official document.
Jihadin wrote: The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.
chocmushroom wrote: The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'
I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.
Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.
A belief system can't say anything because a belief system is not a person - in addition, even in a belief system like Christianity there is a very large amount of diversity as to what people actually believe. As to what happens to non-believers, that is the subject of some debate even within the faith. If you want to argue and have a debate about whatever faith, that's fine, but throwing around terms like "sky daddy" isn't going to help your cause in any way whatsoever. The bottom line is, if someone wants to be respected, they need to show some respect in return - that goes for both atheists and believers.
Jihadin wrote: The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.
Some Hindus do use the word God in English. Jews and Muslims also use the word God in certain contexts. It's not the only word they use, but they do use it.
purplefood wrote: I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?
Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.
purplefood wrote: I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?
Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.
Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.
purplefood wrote: I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?
Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.
Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.
Air Force changed it last year where it seems both the one taking the Oath and the One giving the Oath has to say it verbatim. Air Force change it to fall in compliance of what Congress approved in Title 10 thingofwhatthehelleverlikeIcarebecauseyouenlisted. The other four branches (Coast Guard) lets one able to omit "So help me God" being the rule "One can never take away but one can only add" is kept in play. Also we do not want to lag of dealing with personnel issues before re-enlistment because we do not want the individual to change their mind.
Example being
The US Army use to give the discharge paper right before the Service Member Re-Enlist.
purplefood wrote: I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?
Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.
Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.
Air Force changed it last year where it seems both the one taking the Oath and the One giving the Oath has to say it verbatim. Air Force change it to fall in compliance of what Congress approved in Title 10 thingofwhatthehelleverlikeIcarebecauseyouenlisted. The other four branches (Coast Guard) lets one able to omit "So help me God" being the rule "One can never take away but one can only add" is kept in play. Also we do not want lag dealing with personnel issues before re-enlistment because we do not want the individual to change their mind.
Example being
The US Army use to give the discharge paper right before the Service Member Re-Enlist.
chocmushroom wrote: The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'
I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.
Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.
A belief system can't say anything because a belief system is not a person - in addition, even in a belief system like Christianity there is a very large amount of diversity as to what people actually believe. As to what happens to non-believers, that is the subject of some debate even within the faith. If you want to argue and have a debate about whatever faith, that's fine, but throwing around terms like "sky daddy" isn't going to help your cause in any way whatsoever. The bottom line is, if someone wants to be respected, they need to show some respect in return - that goes for both atheists and believers.
Jihadin wrote: The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic
Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.
Some Hindus do use the word God in English. Jews and Muslims also use the word God in certain contexts. It's not the only word they use, but they do use it.
I'm not sure I made myself crystal clear in my first post.
I did not say that Atheists are going around saying to everyone they meet that their belief is false, and their sky daddy is just made up.
I was saying that 'I Think' that when some religious people hear that people are of a different religion, they think they are wrong and confused, but it does not cause the same reaction as when people say they are Atheists. Personally 'I Think that this is due to the basic fact of Atheism to them (some religious people) is not saying they may have the wrong god, or aspect of god they are following, but it's saying 'Your whole world view is wrong'
The Atheist does not even need to voice this, all they need do is say they don't follow any religion. This means the Atheist does not need to be disrespectful in any way, as to some religious people just being is disrespectful.
I will also say it works the same the other way round, and it's not all from one side to the other, my comment was about the findings that Atheist have the same respect as rapists.
Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.
What does that matter to any non-Christian? If you aren't seeking heaven, and don't believe that there's a hell headed up by a devil just waiting to shred anybody who hasn't given their life to Christ, is it a threat? Atheist tend to believe there's nothing after- so while Christianity would send the non-believers to hell, atheist would destroy heaven and slay god, if they are for some reason anti-Christian.
Or we could simply accept that we believe different things and carry on with our lives. When you talk about issues rather than sources for them, it tends to work better. This definitely sounds like one for the courts, and someone who set out to make themselves a test case. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems far easier to ignore some language you don't care for in the oath than to make an issue of it.
What does someone saying “Sky daddy” matter to a Christian?
It's condescending and disrespectful.
And I could say that to me, Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to my intellect and reason.
And I could say that being informed that a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation is condescending and disrespectful to my values how to treat human.
And I could say that the concept that a person is due punishment due to something their ancestor did is condescending and disrespectful to my sense of justice.
And I could say that being told that your own word is not good enough if it's not backed up by an eternal punishment by a god is condescending and disrespectful to my personal integrity.
So, if a person gets upset that I mentioned "Sky daddy" should I care if their whole concept of how the world works in their view, is condescending and disrespectful to myself?
Had an atheist friend post this picture to his FB wall:
Spoiler:
To which one of our mutual, uber-religious friends basically said "You need jesus no matter what, because only jesus has the power to save"
To my point of view, that is also rude, because it ignored the basic fact of the picture: being of one religion or another does not make one "good" or "evil"
I had also responded with "Or you can believe that Thor gives you all the strength you need, because you already have it. And then there's also the universal, unaligned power, The Power of Greyskull "
Which started off fairly serious enough (until I start talking about Greyskull of course)
@KK, I don't recall ever seeing Odin/Wotan as the "Sky Father", I do know for sure that he's sometimes referred to/named as "All-Father" though.
Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Though Bill Gates has caused untold suffering with Windows Millenium Edition...
What does someone saying “Sky daddy” matter to a Christian?
It's condescending and disrespectful.
And I could say that to me, Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to my intellect and reason.
And I could say that being informed that a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation is condescending and disrespectful to my values how to treat human.
And I could say that the concept that a person is due punishment due to something their ancestor did is condescending and disrespectful to my sense of justice.
And I could say that being told that your own word is not good enough if it's not backed up by an eternal punishment by a god is condescending and disrespectful to my personal integrity.
So, if a person gets upset that I mentioned "Sky daddy" should I care if their whole concept of how the world works in their view, is condescending and disrespectful to myself?
Your belief that Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to you is not the same as a Christian treating you in a condescending and disrespectful manner. You're welcome to dislike a religion, that doesn't mean you should treat its followers poorly for no reason.
Just as a Christian might not like atheism, that doesn't mean they should be demeaning to an atheist. All of those things that you listed, if a Christian said them to an atheist, would be rude. Just like an atheist making a comment about their "sky daddy" would be rude.
I'm not sure what's so difficult about disagreeing with a belief system or a religion and still being kind to its followers who you likely know nothing about outside of some concept of the label you are using to define them. Which is all that you have at this point. Christianity, among others religions, is quite diverse in terms of beliefs, and if you think every Christian believes those things you just posted, well, then you probably don't know as much about it as you think you do.
I'm not sure what's so difficult about disagreeing with a belief system or a religion and still being kind to its followers who you likely know nothing about outside of some concept of the label you are using to define them. Which is all that you have at this point. Christianity, among others religions, is quite diverse in terms of beliefs, and if you think every Christian believes those things you just posted, well, then you probably don't know as much about it as you think you do.
Most..of those are the basic tenets of Christianity that the varied Protestant's worship, while those like Methodists and baptists have different thoughts, most still believe that Christ is the only way to heaven, Genesis happened (Ancestor did), and that you need to be christian in order to be considered 'good'
Can't say for Catholic, I was protestant for the longest time under Methodist and baptist.
I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
Hordini wrote: Your belief that Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to you is not the same as a Christian treating you in a condescending and disrespectful manner. You're welcome to dislike a religion, that doesn't mean you should treat its followers poorly for no reason.
I am pretty sure that when I say sky daddy, it is being disrespectful to a religion, not its followers.
Hordini wrote: All of those things that you listed, if a Christian said them to an atheist, would be rude.
So thinking them is okay, saying to everyone that you believe in them is okay, but you should not say them directly. Only say that you believe in a book that says that. Uh.
Hordini wrote: Your belief that Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to you is not the same as a Christian treating you in a condescending and disrespectful manner. You're welcome to dislike a religion, that doesn't mean you should treat its followers poorly for no reason.
I am pretty sure that when I say sky daddy, it is being disrespectful to a religion, not its followers.
Hordini wrote: All of those things that you listed, if a Christian said them to an atheist, would be rude.
So thinking them is okay, saying to everyone that you believe in them is okay, but you should not say them directly. Only say that you believe in a book that says that. Uh.
I'm saying you should choose your words carefully if you're actually trying to engage someone with a different belief than you in a discussion.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
Original sin is not in the Bible, it's a doctrine that developed afterwards based on a number of verses by a number of different people. Its interpretation varies widely and there is enough there that it could easily encompass a thread of its own. If you're not sure how it's interpreted differently, I recommend you do some research on the subject. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I mean actually look into it, it's an interesting subject.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
My original post was about the survey that an Atheists in America is thought of as trustworthy as a convicted rapist. I mentioned that to these Christians all you had to say was that someone was an Athiest, and they would think the worse of you.
So my next point was that I don't care that much if a few of my words upset people (during a discussion) was again in reference to the fact that people will think poorley of someone due to them not having any religion.
Personaly I don't think that most Chrisitans think about the little girl what I said. This does not make me wrong in pointing it out in a discussion, as following the doctrine of original sin, which I would say most Christians should follow (else why did Jesus have to die for your sins?) This is the essentially how I logical reason this 'salvation' with original sin, and what it means to five year olds. This is not how I veiw any christian I speak with, it was just a point in relation to how some christians react to Atheists.
Your point about 'nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god' This was in direct response to the topic of the thread, namley that you must swear an oath to God.
I will spell it out here how my mind works through this logic.
Now it seems that swearing to God the ONLY acceptable oath. This must mean there will be consequences for breaking that oath. These consequences must be more due to you wearing to God, so what can God due to the oath which other cannot do? I you betray your country, they can lock you up, maybe even in america sentance you to death. This seems like a pretty bad punishment for breaking your oath. This though is what they can do for breaking your oath, with nothing to do with the God part. To me this means there must be something else whcih must happen for breaking this God oath. In my mind, and knowning the majority of the religious doctorines of the christians, this leaves me with the fear of 'Eternal Punishment by God' for breaking the oath.
Overall I know that no-one had said anything like what I wrote down. All I was doing was doing a logical extrapolation on the topic how I see it, with regards to distrusting people just due to mentioning their religious beliefs, or non.
To which one of our mutual, uber-religious friends basically said "You need jesus no matter what, because only jesus has the power to save"
To my point of view, that is also rude, because it ignored the basic fact of the picture: being of one religion or another does not make one "good" or "evil"
I had also responded with "Or you can believe that Thor gives you all the strength you need, because you already have it. And then there's also the universal, unaligned power, The Power of Greyskull "
Which started off fairly serious enough (until I start talking about Greyskull of course)
@KK, I don't recall ever seeing Odin/Wotan as the "Sky Father", I do know for sure that he's sometimes referred to/named as "All-Father" though.
I find the picture good to start with, until I read it a second time, and I would have to change it if I was being both provocative and truthfull.
I would just need to change the wording, and after the last one we would have to say. Athiesm does not inform you how to live your life, it's just a lack of belief in a God or gods.
Hordini wrote: I'm saying you should choose your words carefully if you're actually trying to engage someone with a different belief than you in a discussion.
Do not worry about me. Back in first year of ÉNS Lyon, I had one friend who was at the same time very religious and obviously very uncomfortable and unwilling to talk about it. I never spoke of “sky daddy” with her. It turns out she did apostasy afterward, she was not comfortable talking about it because it did not actually made sense to her but she stick to it because she came from a very religious family (yeah, by the way, she came from the U.S. ). Going all aggressive on her would have been a real jerk move. But if someone is very arrogant about his believes, I would have no moral restraint toward hurling sky daddy to that person!
Just going to throw this out there, most of this thread has focused on the ramifications this has on atheists and polytheists, but nobody has mentioned those faiths (mostly monotheistic Christian derivatives) which stipulate that one may not swear an oath to God, as to do so violatss the commandment not to use Gods name in vain.
Orlanth wrote: , has anyone heard of the USAF discriminating against atheists,
Yes, actually, though not in an official capacity. I've known a number of atheists and pagans in the USAF(my wife isn't one, but she is in the AF and one of her best friends is an a-religious Officer) who are all but forced to hide their religious affiliation or lack thereof from their units for fear of unofficial persecution and discrimination. One of the GPS team commanders was actually allowed pretty much preach his literal translation dogmatic and non-evolutionary beliefs ON DUTY even after being complained about numerous times. There's very much a culture of "monotheistic religious belief or GTFO" in many AF units.
You should see the B-2 units, almost the entire aircrew are hyper-conservative christians, if not full-fledged fundamentalists, its pretty disturbing considering the implication that they are nuclear forces...
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity
The church that I grew up in's take on this was that there's no true hard "age" at which one no longer gets the "babies get a free pass" thing. I think that many churches like the one I grew up in take a stance of "once a child KNOWS right from wrong, then they are old enough to understand the relationship with god and heaven vs. hell" And I always took that a bit further, because knowing right from wrong is a bit subjective, because by the age of 2, most kids know that touching the stove/oven in the kitchen is "wrong" but they really don't know why... and often times, many of them still won't really know why until they are 5, 6 or even 7+ years old.
@chaos, yeah, most modern christian denominations do have a New Testament prohibition on swearing oaths.... But I think that the patriotism in ignoring that, and PROVING beyond a doubt that you are not a pinko commie bastard is worth asking Jesus to forgive you taking his daddy's name in vain
Well I know when one of my friends commissioned into the USAF a couple years back he opted out of the 'so help me God' for that exact reason. I was actually surprised because he was a very religious Catholic (so much so that he was known as Catholic Steve amongst our circle of friends), but then he said he sees it as taking the Lords name in vain and I was like "oh, okay."
At the time there wasn't any issue with it, a lot of my friends opted out during their enlistments/commissioning
chaos0xomega wrote: You should see the B-2 units, almost the entire aircrew are hyper-conservative christians, if not full-fledged fundamentalists, its pretty disturbing considering the implication that they are nuclear forces...
It was bad enough at the Air Force Academy that a Chaplain spoke out about the problem a few years ago.
The relationship between the US Air Force Academy and evangelical Christian organizations has been in the news for years now...to the point where it must be wondered if those organizations have actually infiltrated the Air Force, in which case its a national security issue, and if it weren't for the fact that so many Congressional politicians are beholden to the same organizations, this innapropriate relationship would have squashed a long time ago.
jasper76 wrote: The relationship between the US Air Force Academy and evangelical Christian organizations has been in the news for years now...to the point where it must be wondered if those organizations have actually infiltrated the Air Force, in which case its a national security issue, and if it weren't for the fact that so many Congressional politicians are beholden to the same organizations, this innapropriate relationship would have squashed a long time ago.
Ah but infiltration by fundamentalists is only a problem if it's a religion which is not christianity
jasper76 wrote: The relationship between the US Air Force Academy and evangelical Christian organizations has been in the news for years now...to the point where it must be wondered if those organizations have actually infiltrated the Air Force, in which case its a national security issue, and if it weren't for the fact that so many Congressional politicians are beholden to the same organizations, this innapropriate relationship would have squashed a long time ago.
Ah but infiltration by fundamentalists is only a problem if it's a religion which is not christianity
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Actually, even if he repented, Hitler has zero chance of getting into Heaven since he committed suicide(if you're of the inclination to believe in Heaven and Hell). Many Christian faiths view suicide as the ultimate sin that earns you a one way ticket to Hell regardless of what you did previously because you're taking life and death out of God's hands and only God has the right to determine when someone lives or dies.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Actually, even if he repented, Hitler has zero chance of getting into Heaven since he committed suicide(if you're of the inclination to believe in Heaven and Hell). Many Christian faiths view suicide as the ultimate sin that earns you a one way ticket to Hell regardless of what you did previously because you're taking life and death out of God's hands and only God has the right to determine when someone lives or dies.
That probably goes into a theological debate that would require a whole separate thread
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Actually, even if he repented, Hitler has zero chance of getting into Heaven since he committed suicide(if you're of the inclination to believe in Heaven and Hell). Many Christian faiths view suicide as the ultimate sin that earns you a one way ticket to Hell regardless of what you did previously because you're taking life and death out of God's hands and only God has the right to determine when someone lives or dies.
That probably goes into a theological debate that would require a whole separate thread
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
A child is already clean and innocent by virtue of the fact that they are too young to be held accountable.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Actually, even if he repented, Hitler has zero chance of getting into Heaven since he committed suicide(if you're of the inclination to believe in Heaven and Hell). Many Christian faiths view suicide as the ultimate sin that earns you a one way ticket to Hell regardless of what you did previously because you're taking life and death out of God's hands and only God has the right to determine when someone lives or dies.
That probably goes into a theological debate that would require a whole separate thread
Yeah, that's definitely up for debate (more about the suicide, rather than the Hitler).
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.
Actually, even if he repented, Hitler has zero chance of getting into Heaven since he committed suicide(if you're of the inclination to believe in Heaven and Hell). Many Christian faiths view suicide as the ultimate sin that earns you a one way ticket to Hell regardless of what you did previously because you're taking life and death out of God's hands and only God has the right to determine when someone lives or dies.
My faith holds that only those with perfect, undeniable knowledge of God that rebel against it will go to hell. I am fairly certain Hitler did not have that knowledge.
My faith holds that only those with perfect, undeniable knowledge of God that rebel against it will go to hell. I am fairly certain Hitler did not have that knowledge.
My faith holds that only those with perfect, undeniable knowledge of God that rebel against it will go to hell. I am fairly certain Hitler did not have that knowledge.
I was raised by Pentecostals. Do I get off too?
I was influenced with Buddhism as I was growing up so yes
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
A child is already clean and innocent by virtue of the fact that they are too young to be held accountable.
The faith I was apart of for quite sometime did not hold that view at all. But I digress that's in the past now.
Well, the advantage is that a theory on something that never happened to exist cannot be proven wrong.
The very slight drawback is that it is totally useless, but who cares about this kind of details?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, the advantage is that a theory on something that never happened to exist cannot be proven wrong.
The very slight drawback is that it is totally useless, but who cares about this kind of details?
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
A child is already clean and innocent by virtue of the fact that they are too young to be held accountable.
The faith I was apart of for quite sometime did not hold that view at all. But I digress that's in the past now.
This certainly goes both ways, but keep in mind the faith that you were a part of, whatever it may be, is not the only one. That's important to note, simply because you often hear sweeping statements about how "Christians believe this or that" with the implication that all Christians hold the same belief or theological view on things, when in actuality there is very often a large amount of debate on the matter if you look a bit deeper (and outside the denomination/flavor of your choice). There certainly are Christians who believe the way you did, but there are also a significant number who don't.
BlaxicanX wrote: I hope it goes to court, and I hope the Military loses.
I think we can find a better way to express the rest of your sentiments yes ? Thanks. reds8n
Religon is a weapon used by society, i'm a levayan satanist by definition but i do not judge other people of other creeds, if you want to go defend me then yes i give you this is a big problem with alot of people these days, thinking that their "god" or religon is the alpha of the herd, People deserve to worship whatever they want, if they think the coffee pot is god so what,who cares? Nobody knows if "god" or "gods" are real let alone the founding fathers of the united states despised religon.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure believing a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity, nor is telling people that their word isn't good enough if it's not backed up an eternal punishment by a god. The concept of original sin is also not something that every Christian agrees with, and interpretations of it vary widely.
The first one is the basis of Original Sin, that all are not purified except through asking forgiveness from Christ. It's pretty much in the bible itself and I'm not sure how it's interpreted differently.
They are not evil just 'unclean' and will not enter through to heaven.
A child is already clean and innocent by virtue of the fact that they are too young to be held accountable.
The faith I was apart of for quite sometime did not hold that view at all. But I digress that's in the past now.
This certainly goes both ways, but keep in mind the faith that you were a part of, whatever it may be, is not the only one. That's important to note, simply because you often hear sweeping statements about how "Christians believe this or that" with the implication that all Christians hold the same belief or theological view on things, when in actuality there is very often a large amount of debate on the matter if you look a bit deeper (and outside the denomination/flavor of your choice). There certainly are Christians who believe the way you did, but there are also a significant number who don't.
It is hard to avoid that view however, while some groups may know they are a different thought on the faith at hand, they may just believe the rest are fallowing a false faith that masquerades itself as Christianity and that it isn't "Apart of the true faith and does not count". It is hard to distinguish at times when someone says Christianity it's hard not to fall back to the old thoughts on the matter that there is no other because, Well "They are wrong". I do not mean offense, it's just hard to avoid falling back into old habits when discussing old faith.
A little foreign language never hurt anyone!
.
this is a big problem with alot of people these days, thinking that their "god" or religon is the alpha of the herd, People deserve to worship whatever they want, if they think the coffee pot is god so what,who cares? Nobody knows if "god" or "gods" are real let alone the founding fathers of the united states despised religon.