Posted on 09/11/2014 10:02:23 AM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The Stephen Losey (Air Force Times) reports (see also the American Humanist Association’s letter to the Air Force Inspector General):
An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath containing “so help me God,” the American Humanist Association said Thursday….
Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”
That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“millions of airman/women, have obeyed the rules....”
Millions of sheep.
“millions of airman/women, have obeyed the rules....”
Millions of sheep.
It is public law:
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 31 › § 502
10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer:
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: “I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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.”
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.”
Bad law, but it is the law until revised or overturned.
Well the AF writes the checks! Policy is policy! You want to be part of the firm get on board if not join something else!
Also I am an AF Vet and an oath is an oath and if you cannot live up to I don’t need you by my side!
Clarify the Air Force Instructions and restore the old language - probably just a oversight in the latest revision. The Air Force has more important things to worry about.
The USAF, no it has no say, but the courts? If the no religious test clause has any meaning this should be declared unconstitutional.
No, it’s like saying that a Chevy Volt that goes 1,000 miles on a single charge is the best car out there.
Should be revised to be optional.
I strongly suspect the courts will side with the legal reasoning in the article, and issue a ruling saying the law doesn’t really mean what it says. Courts do that all the time, and it is sometimes a worthwhile thing. After all, the person who updated the AFI probably didn’t have access to legal software to help track down every court case or exception - all they had was the text of the law itself.
Frankly, the ruling ought to say the words are a religious test and are unconstitutional.
My only point, as someone who has sometimes had to draft revisions to a regulation, is that the USAF’s hands are tied. The USAF has no business deciding the words are unconstitutional and must be stripped from the law.
Now, if I were the officer administering the oath, I might not catch an omission of those words by the oath-taker, if you know what I mean...
I would like to know why that happened. Just an oversight in the update or was there some policy intent behind it?
Read the full article at the link. The statute contains a cross-reference to a different statute which says that an "affirmation" can always be substituted for an "oath."
You are spot on!
Matthew 5:33-37. Matthew quoted Jesus as saying essentially: “Let your ‘Yes’ be your ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’” And that we shouldn’t swear oaths to God.
It is not required by DOD that one should swear an oath to God. Military members have a choice to “swear to God” or merely “Affirm.”
If anyone of you who says that a member should be required to swear an oath to God is ill-informed.
All this being said, I am a convicted Christian who attends church regularly, contributes monetarily and is a member of my Church Trustees. I am also a retired commissioned officer of the USMC and in my advancements to the next grade, I chose to “swear” and say “So Help Me God.” It was my choice.
Fire away!
And the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
Unfortunately, many commenting seem to have little respect for constitutional rights.
Oh yeah.... forgot to mention: It’s UNCONSTITIONAL. Kinda like making you purchase Obamacare.
“UNCONSTITUTIONAL” Can you tell I’m pissed?
What use are oaths and convictions to an atheist? You’re a ball of snot on a bigger ball of snot and you want to fly a fighter plane. Surely being a ball of snot and just created purely out of chance saying “So help me God” violates nothing, acknowledges nothing and bears no consequence. Your oath and everything you are dies with you. Why not say whatever you are told to get what you want?
From lowest cop to highest ranking military officer- one is 100 percent morally responsible for everything they do, saying “following orders” or “just going by procedure/ the letter of the law” is not, and never should be even the slightest mitigating factor.
It does? :)
“The statute contains a cross-reference...”
No, the statue does not. Some legal software will provide you with cross references, and that helps to build a legal case. One can also look at notes provided by Congress for fuller explanation, when they exist. But those are things COURTS do. The military takes a law at face value.
An affirmation usually means you have a religious objection to swearing an oath, as I do.
“Obeying, or enforcing, a bad law is every bit as bad as having written it. IMHO.”
So when we had people in the squadron who claimed GW Bush wasn’t legally the President and they did not need to deploy, should we have let them?
If Barack Obama doesn’t like immigration law, should he be allowed to “interpret” it his way?
Where does it end?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.