[right-wing agnostic]

This seems to me that this is clearly unconstitutional according to art. VI cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Since the military is clearly a federally controlled entity, mandating that a service member to say "So help me God" as part of his oath, it amounts to a religious test to hold office. I'm not saying that I, as an agnostic, am against the oath generally. But dismissing a service member who is unwilling to say "So help me God" is clearly a violation of his constitutional rights. We're heading down a slippery slope by instituting this policy./rwa

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Yes.

[Ouchthatonehurt]

No. But Heaven is another matter entirely.

[Gay State Conservative]

As a guy who's proud to be,and feels fortunate to be,a Christian I'm not certain that they should be *required* to say it.They should,however,be *allowed* to say it.IIRC when one takes an oath,in a courtroom for example,they're allowed to “swear or affirm”.

[Responsibility2nd]

I think Article Six applies here...

 

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[B212]

millions of airman/women, have obeyed the rules....but this lone reject, would like the world to change to suit his concepts....Home hardware looking for stock boys, and there is no pledge of allegiance there....

[drbuzzard]

Personally I think that anyone who doesn’t believe in a god shouldn’t much care if he does say such a thing, and getting bent out of shape over it is indicative of larger issues with the person.

Now granted, I do agree that it is a questionable requirement given freedom of religion.

[lee martell]

We as Christians have bigger fish to fry. This was policy was just started last year. I think someone is trying to keep traditions as they have always been, and I understand why that would be of value. Things have changed, more people are willing to speak put about their honestly held differences. I would be more concerned about someone who would not swear to protect and defend the United States from dangerous intentions. In todays world, you will waste time, energy and money fighting to keep that as a requirement.

[gdani]

When Government requires belief in a god (or gods) from anyone then religious freedom, by definition, does not exist.

[Olog-hai]

Herbert Hoover apparently omitted “So help me God” from his oath of office.

This country was founded by men whose slogan was “No king but King Jesus”.

[SkyDancer]

Since atheists don’t believe that G-d is real to them what would be the big deal? Just say “yeah, yeah, whatever” ... like saying the Chevy VOLT is the best car out there.

[vetvetdoug]

This Airman already has a problem with authority and with this action shows that he would be a liability to his mates and his officers. Without any belief or respect of a higher being, this arrogance becomes a liability to those charged with the duty of a superior. In an extremely stressful situation, he has no one with which to ask for comfort other than his own arrogance. If he were to lay dieing would he be afforded a chaplain to comfort him into passing? Even if one were to give a rock to a Pagan, the Pagan would take comfort in that the Earth would see him pass. The atheist has only himself.

The military is not for everyone, it works only if there is respect for authority and faith in others. What purpose does one get from refusing to say, so help me God? If one doesn't believe it then it doesn't mean a thing to go ahead and say it.

This man is a troublemaker and is not material to have others depend upon him for anything. This is my opinion.

[all the best]

I believe the Bible says to let your yeahs be yeahs and nays be nays. No need to invoke the name of God in such an affair. If a man’s word is not good it hardly matters what he invokes.

[RJS1950]

No, the action to exclude the airman from reenlistment barring any other disciplinary or performance issues is illegal. I reenlisted numerous airman during the 80s and 90s and enlisted my son into the army in the 90s. I remember that they were told that when repeating the oath they could omit the reference to God. That may have been unofficial policy at the time but their oaths were considered fully taken. They are swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not any particular belief.

[NRA1995]

Yes

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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.

[corlorde]

Should be revised to be optional.

[TigersEye]

That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI.

I would like to know why that happened. Just an oversight in the update or was there some policy intent behind it?

[februus]

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?

[xzins]

There is already a way around this. This is flim-flam bluster with no basis in reality. It’s no different than a Jew being allowed to wear a yarmulke. A request is registered with a commander for an accommodation.

It’s that simple.