Atheism vs The US Air Force Oath

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Source

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.

**BlaxicanX**

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

**Howard A Treesong**

Why did they change from offering options to a religiously restrictive choice of oath in 2013?

**BobtheInquisitor**

Because we're at culture war.

**k7eb**

The funny thing is they thought this could be slipped in and no one would notice or complain. I think it will be shot down quick and hard.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**d-usa**

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**

d-usa wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
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.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-49137

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.

**Kilkrazy**

Why have the other services not complied?

**d-usa**

Edit: if it turns out that this excuse is bogus then I am perfectly willing to put the blame back on the AF.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why have the other services not complied?

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.

**sirlynchmob**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why have the other services not complied?

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.

**Chongara**

This is not a fight I'd be fighting, it seems wasteful. It's his conscience though, I guess.

**Hordini**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why have the other services not complied?

Because it's unconstitutional would probably be a good starting point.

**Ahtman**

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**

If he's atheist, then the phrase should have as much meaning as "bippity boppity boo" and not worth abandoning a job.

**DarkTraveler777**

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?

**RAWRAIrobblerobble**

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.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120311/NEWS/203110301/Air-Force-struggles-find-balance-religion

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.

**Jihadin**

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf

**Brian2112**

Great. The one branch of the service that has control of most of the nukes is being run by more and more religious nut jobs.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why have the other services not complied?

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.

**Ahtman**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not sure what exactly you mean

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.

**AegisGrimm**

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.

**Orlanth**

'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.

**Ahtman**

Orlanth wrote:
'So help me God' is a fairly harmless phrase

Then it won't be a problem to remove it, obliviously.

**Ensis Ferrae**

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?

**Jihadin**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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....

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:

Why has the new requirement of the Oath of Enlistment not been pounced on by EO's in the USAF I wonder....

Because they're all a bunch of soft little sissies, and not *really* in the military??

**Orlanth**

Ahtman wrote:
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.

**Ahtman**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

Why has the new requirement of the Oath of Enlistment not been pounced on by EO's in the USAF I wonder....

Because they're all a bunch of soft little sissies, and not *really* in the military??