Posted on 09/10/2014 2:50:21 AM PDT by markomalley
A year after an airman at Maxwell Air Force Base was allowed to take an oath without saying "so help me God," the Air Force has quietly reversed course and once again made the phrase mandatory.
"Reciting 'So help me God' in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 U.S.C. §502," Air Force spokesperson Rose Richeson told Military.com, adding that Air Force Instruction on the oath is consistent with the language mandated in the law.
"Airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words 'So help me God'," she said.
The issue first came up last year when an officer candidate at Maxwell threatened to sue if made to say "so help me God" as part of graduation events. Airman Jonathan Bise was later allowed to take a secular oath and was reissued a new version of the written oath with any reference to God removed. At the time, Maxwell officials said they had operated under the mistaken assumption the phrase was required.
Air Force: Congress would have to change oath
The Air Force's instruction spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment and ends with the phrase "so help me God." The old version included an exception: "Note: Airmen may omit the words 'so help me God,' if desired for personal reasons." That section now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment without any options to leave out "so help me God."
The Air Force told Air Force Times it cannot change the oath unless Congress takes action to mandate such an alteration.
Use of the phrase came up again this month when an airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was told he would not be allowed to continue unless he recited the oath that referenced God.
The airman's attorney, Monica Miller, said the Air Force's decision was "unbelievable."
"The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being," Miller told Military.com. "Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts."
Miller is part of the American Humanist Association's Appignani Humanist Legal Center in Washington, which also handled the Maxwell case.
She said she has given the Air Force two weeks to allow the airman to reenlist using an alternative oath or face further legal action.
Personally, I think this whole thing is a setup in order to get a court ruling to outlaw the use of "So Help Me God" for everybody.
Good!
Sure, an obvious first amendment freedom is no more necessar than our antiquated second amendment. It’s time the proles got in line.
As annoying as it may seem to you, people have a right to come to their own conclusion about G-d or even whether or not it’s appropriate to invoke his name. That’s called freedom. It doesn’t challenge your’s to protect their’s.
We are established as one nation under God. An oath to protect this nation must acknowledge its foundation. The choice to serve in the military includes the decision to honor this nation’s foundational principles, natural law and acknowledgement of God’s authority among them.
Yes! One nation under God is what we are.
Mikey Weinstein is enraged.
Why should it be a surprize to anyone that a loyalty oath using God as a wittness removeal by executive order came about in the first place ?
The democrat (in name only) party which runs the executive branch and has control over the policy and operation of the armed forces as well as everything else. Had at their 2012 national convention first day meet when voting on party positions known as resolutions decided to remove any reference to God. Then at a following day second meeting the chair forced it back in on a voice vote which was jeered by the delegates because if a roll call vote were held it would not carry.
The amazing thing was that this demonstration was never used or even referenced then or since by the Republican opposition.
It’s odd then how the first amendment guarantees right in diametric opposition to your comments.
They can use “So Help me, God”, but they really don’t mean it.
I find this difficult to believe.
There have been atheists in the AF since the beginning of the AF. Do they not have first amendment rights? I don’t agree with them, but this sounds like BS.
I don’t thinnk so. The radical interpretation of free speech to include the right to deny free speech is not protected. Any so called right that denies the foundational principles of our Constitutional is not guaranteed.
You don’t seem to understand military service. When you serve some of your rights are modified, including the 1st Amendment.
I would have some sympathy to the atheist argument in this case if there were a draft.
But there isn’t. Service is voluntary. The oath wasn’t made up last Tuesday - it was known going in.
If the oath violates the conscience of the person asked to voluntarily take it, the proper course is to not take it and choose a different means of service or career path, IMHO, and then lobby the people and Congress to change it.
The founding fathers (and a bit past) had one heck of a time with this one. If you don’t have a core, ultimate, Eternity to answer to and swear an oath to, where is the common bond with the public to trust in the decisions of their political representatives? True moral character is to do the right thing when no one is watching or you know cannot possibly find out. Even with no human watching, an oath to God means that person IS ALWAYS being watched according to the taker of the oath. Some states passed laws not permitting individuals to be elected or hold public offices if they did NOT swear to God in an oath.
A sworn member of the armed services fall under the UCMJ, which is an extension of the constitution. Think of it as white-hat Sharia law, if you want some comparison.
I don’t see how this is a first amendment issue. We are not talking about forcing someone to affirm God in order to retain their freedom or property or individual right to do anything. We are talking about forcing an individual to affirm a belief in God in order to join a very exclusive group. This is a group who’s leaders have determined their members need to have certain qualities of which include a willingness to swear an oath to God.
I enlisted in the USAF in May 1972 and after a year in training at Kessler AFB, I served in SAC until Honorably Discharged in May 1976. As for the UCMJ, it clearly lays out your rights and responsibilities. I really don’t see a comparison of the UCMJ to Sharia law, white hat or otherwise. To many people today, an oath means nothing. Obama has taken the oath of office twice. The oath means nothing to most members of congress either. Maybe members of the military should just do as they please. Who needs cohesion?
To make my point about the first amendment guarantee to freedom of religion, how would you feel if the words of the oath were changed to “..so help me allah”?
Dont try to tell me it’ll never happen. We have a sitting CIC who refers islam to Christianity and a current member of congress who was sworn into office with a koran.
A person is free to practice the religion of his choice including a faith that eschews the use of G-d’s name in such an oath as well as the choice to practice no religion. It may warm your heart today to see such language but when officers are ordered to face the east to take their oath to allah, you may find yourself rethinking this.
I wouldn't like it and I would advocate for the leaders who made the change be removed from office/service.
For a time, you were not eligible to serve in the armed forces if you were an open homosexual. At the same time, is was legal to be an open homosexual civilian. I had no problem reconciling these two different standards.
Did you?
My concern is the motive. It is quite possible this administration took this action as the first step towards NOT defending it in court.
I see nothing in the Bill of Rights regarding sexual orientation. I see clear language regarding the establishment of religion by the government. Is that not clear to you?
When you mandate language referring to G-d into a civil oath required by the government you open the door for every muslim, wiccan, pagan, scientologist and all others to weigh in and start making their demands. Don’t try to tell me this won’t happen. I’ve found to my sorrow that if it sucks, the government will eventually require it.
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.