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.

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

IMO, the other branches have more real issues to worry about than trying to force people to say god.

Namely killing people and cleaning the pebble beds outside the HQ building.

Always in that order or is it at the CO's discretion?

CO's discretion, of course. They're not savages, old chap.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

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.

 carlos13th wrote:


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.

 carlos13th wrote:

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.

 carlos13th wrote:

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.

 carlos13th wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

It does if there are demands to remove the wording.

Except no one was demanding that. They were demanding the option to not have to swear to God.

 Orlanth wrote:

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?

Edit: Malus beat me to it.

 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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

chocmushroom wrote:
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/

Damn I am happy to live in France. Here it would almost be the other way around .

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mozzamanx wrote:

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.

Shouldn't he then say "Thor is my God"?

Not if he didn't believe in any other Gods.
It would just be Thor, therefore to the believer it would simply be Thor is God.

This is personal to the believer though.

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

Okay, champ, perhaps you should check your post for ambiguity because it certainly read that you were attempting to justify the difference.

Oath is non binding. Its your signature on the contract that's binding

 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"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Shouldn't he then say "Thor is my God"?

He could say either, they'd both be grammatically correct. In fact, he could also say "Thor is my god," but the connotation wouldn't be the same.

According to the constitution no-one, including Christians, should 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

God has no substance in the military

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?

It seems a bit like the phrase "In God we trust" that is printed on US money. It was certainly not put on there at the demand of hordes of atheists.

 Ketara wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

Exactly.