Airmen denied reenlistment for refusing to swear an oath to God

[Ryland]

The "So help me god" part is an affirmation that the oath is serious to you because a believer is scared of the consequences of pissing off their "god". Do you really want a non-believer to swear on a deity they don't believe exists so they aren't worried about consequences? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to swear on something they actually believe in?

"God" is only worshipped in a subset of religions (although it is a majority).

 

[xBiffx]

The government is supposed to have no say in what people want to believe in when it comes to religion. And God does not encompass all religion. Depending on how someone that is Hindu looks at their religion, they do not have a God. Someone that is Buddhist does not necessarily believe in a God. If someone is an Atheist, they believe that there is no higher power. As the Air Force is a government entity, if someone does not want to swear to God, they should not have to.

Until 2013, there was an exception clause for these conditions. I wonder why that changed.

- Merg

They're aren't requiring belief in anything here. That's the point people are missing. They are asking for the person taking the oath to make a statement with God in it. Belief in God not required by making the statement, nor does making the statement mean you automatically believe in God.

People still swear on the Bible in court. That doesn't mean they automatically think it makes a difference.

 

[mnewsham]

Why is it even required to be said I think is really the whole point here. There is no reason for it to be in place, someone who doesn't believe in god will serve just as well as someone who does. There was previously in place a clause which allowed you to forego the religious aspect of the oath, this was taken out in 2013. Congress needs to either allow the exception clause, or change the wording entirely. Separation of church and state alone should be enough to see this is obvious. Article VI of the constitution is pretty clear in that there should be no religious tests for office or government positions, it isn't a stretch at all to have that include the armed services.

Is it a HUGE deal? No not really. But can you honestly defend it being in place?

Sure, the guys could just get over it and lie, but they shouldnt have to, there is no reason anyone should have to. I'd love to hear an argument in favor of requiring it that isn't steeped in religion.

 

[xBiffx]

Why is it even required to be said I think is really the whole point here. There is no reason for it to be in place, someone who doesn't believe in god will serve just as well as someone who does. There was previously in place a clause which allowed you to forego the religious aspect of the oath, this was taken out in 2013. Congress needs to either allow the exception clause, or change the wording entirely. Separation of church and state alone should be enough to see this is obvious. Article VI of the constitution is pretty clear in that there should be no religious tests for office or government positions, it isn't a stretch at all to have that include the armed services.

Is it a HUGE deal? No not really. But can you honestly defend it being in place?

Sure, the guys could just get over it and lie, but they shouldnt have to, there is no reason anyone should have to. I'd love to hear an argument in favor of requiring it that isn't steeped in religion.

The only ones making this a big deal are the whiny bitches who want to make it a big deal. It's simple, say it or don't say it. If you don't then don't expect to be able to serve.

 

[The Merg]

They're aren't requiring belief in anything here. That's the point people are missing. They are asking for the person taking the oath to make a statement with God in it. Belief in God not required by making the statement, nor does making the statement mean you automatically believe in God.

Making the statement of "so help me God" absolutely implies that you believe in God. You are asking to be able to do something with God's help. If you don't believe in God, making that statement is hypocritical.

- Merg

 

[xBiffx]

Making the statement of "so help me God" absolutely implies that you believe in God. You are asking to be able to do something with God's help. If you don't believe in God, making that statement is hypocritical.

- Merg

No it simply doesn't. If you don't believe in God, the statement is meaningless. Much like swearing on the Bible in a courtroom. It carries no weight for some people but they are still required to do it.

If I say that Allah is great that doesn't mean that I believe it.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Going by that reasoning, we have a far greater problem in that the oaths we're asking for aren't actually oaths, just statements. The entire purpose of mentioning god in an oath is to threaten oathbreakers with divine retribution.

If you ask someone who doesn't believe in god to sweat to god, don't be surprised when it turns out to be a lie.

So, either the oath is utterly meaningless, or they are requiring belief. Which is it?

 

[mnewsham]

If you don't then don't expect to be able to serve

why? Because you say so? fuck off. I am a Buddhist who wants to serve in the air force who refuses to take an oath that implies belief in a god.

Are you saying I can't serve simply because I wont say the oath? When you could very VERY easily just allow me to serve by making an exclusion clause OR by removing that section entirely.

So my choices are lie, or never be able to joined the armed forces of the country I was born and raised in since birth and would defend with my life if necessary.

 

[nehalem256]

Making the statement of "so help me God" absolutely implies that you believe in God. You are asking to be able to do something with God's help. If you don't believe in God, making that statement is hypocritical.

- Merg

Does the phrase "God damn it" also imply you believe in God?

As clearly the phrase is asking God to damn whatever it is the annoyed you.

Do you think Atheists never use that phrase in order to avoid being a hypocrite?

 

[mnewsham]

It carries no weight for some people but they are still required to do it.

No you aren't, an atheist is in no way required to swear on a bible in a court room in the US.

Affirming instead of swearing an oath has been around in courts in Briton since 1695, the US constitution specifically mentions affirming instead of swearing an oath four times.

 

[xBiffx]

Going by that reasoning, we have a far greater problem in that the oaths we're asking for aren't actually oaths, just statements. The entire purpose of mentioning god in an oath is to threaten oathbreakers with divine retribution.

If you ask someone who doesn't believe in god to sweat to god, don't be surprised when it turns out to be a lie.

So, either the oath is utterly meaningless, or they are requiring belief. Which is it?

That's all an oath ever is, a statement. It's a faith based gesture to begin with. You have no idea if a person is going to live up to the oath or not. Many people break their oaths but I highly doubt that the oath that they made was at the forefront of their decision making when they did whatever they did to break it. Let me know when someone is discharged for not believing in God because its against the oath that they took.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The statement isn't excluding them from employment. The volunteer is making a choice which is excluding them from employment.

That argument isn't really going to withstand much scrutiny. Are you sure you want to use it?

The constitution says nothing about God, it says establishment of religion. Mentioning God doesn't have anything to do specifically with establishment of religion.

One might say that there is an erroneous assumption on the part of some that the Establishment Clause as used is Constitutionally based and I would agree. It's roots come from elsewhere. Freedom of religion does not mean the exclusion of references to it and that's why I don't fret about the oath permitting a willing expression which acknowledges a god BUT being coerced to do so? I cannot believe that would meet with approval of the majority of the founders in intent. I don't see that as a right not retained by the people.

 

[xBiffx]

No you aren't, an atheist is in no way required to swear on a bible in a court room in the US.

Ok, but they still have to take an oath affirming they will tell the truth. But if they don't tell the truth, them taking the oath was pointless, was it not?

So why does it matter what they say? Like here, does it matter? Some people are going to do whatever they are going to do regardless of some statements they made.

 

[xBiffx]

That argument isn't really going to withstand much scrutiny. Are you sure you want to use it?

Absolutely. Because if they chose to not say any other part of the oath the same outcome would happen. Again, it wasn't the statement precluding them, it was their choice not to say it.

One might say that there is an erroneous assumption on the part of some that the Establishment Clause as used is Constitutionally based and I would agree. It's roots come from elsewhere. Freedom of religion does not mean the exclusion of references to it and that's why I don't fret about the oath permitting a willing expression which acknowledges a god BUT being coerced to do so? I cannot believe that would meet with approval of the majority of the founders in intent. I don't see that as a right not retained by the people.

The intent was never to exclude religion from the public square. The intent was that government should have no say in what religion could and could not exist in the public square. They did not wan to promote or deny any religion. That was mainly the reason that people moved here to begin with and setup the United States, to get away from the church in England.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

That's all an oath ever is, a statement. It's a faith based gesture to begin with. You have no idea if a person is going to live up to the oath or not. Many people break their oaths but I highly doubt that the oath that they made was at the forefront of their decision making when they did whatever they did to break it. Let me know when someone is discharged for not believing in God because its against the oath that they took.

Then why bother asking for an oath at all? It's pointless.

 

[Tombstone1881]

You betcha!

If you want a job killing people on behalf of our government,
you damned sure better swear your allegiance to a God of peace and love and forgiveness!

 

[mnewsham]

Ok, but they still have to take an oath affirming they will tell the truth. But if they don't tell the truth, them taking the oath was pointless, was it not?

So why does it matter what they say? Like here, does it matter? Some people are going to do whatever they are going to do regardless of some statements they made.

the whole point behind swearing an oath was to get people to tell the truth and be worried of divine punishment for withholding the truth or obscuring the truth.

A religious oath is legally binding, as is an affirmation given by someone who is refusing to swear an oath. Legally they both hold the same weight, the only difference being the religious implications on the oath.

So an oath would work just as well as an affirmation, but the point is as a non-religious person, the government should have no right to make me swear on any deity. Could I just lie about it? Of course. BUT I SHOULDNT FUCKING HAVE TO. It doesn't hurt anyone by having affirmation instead of swearing an oath, just as no one is effected by them taking out "so help me god" from the oath of service.

If no one is hurt by it, then why not just take it out? You have no real reason to keep it the way it is now besides the fact that it doesn't go against your religion. I don't see why you are against being inclusive of people who don't want to swear to a god.

 

[xBiffx]

Then why bother asking for an oath at all? It's pointless.

It's part of tradition. It's a promise and a symbol of someone's principles. Any and all oaths are pointless if you come from the standpoint that they don't prevent anyone from breaking them.

It's a way to help guarantee an organization's principles, rules, and values and that certain standards are met. Notice the word help, its not infallible. Some people have no principles and so having them take an oath is meaningless.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Can you say Military SNAFU?? Restore the exception and be done with it.

 

[xBiffx]

If no one is hurt by it, then why not just take it out? You have no real reason to keep it the way it is now besides the fact that it doesn't go against your religion. I don't see why you are against being inclusive of people who don't want to swear to a god.

Why take it out if no one is hurt by it. Tradition dictates it be there, otherwise you've got a different set of principles and therefore standards when you change the oath. I would think that all servicemen would have to retake their oaths so that there is one standard. But then by doing that, it would mean that statement is far from meaningless, I guess.

 

[mnewsham]

Why take it out if no one is hurt by it. Tradition dictates it be there, otherwise you've got a different set of principles and therefore standards when you change the oath. I would think that all servicemen would have to retake their oath so that there is one standard.

Are you serious? Why take it out? Because a fairly large portion of the population don't believe in the god that is mentioned in the oath. You are asking anyone who joins who doesn't believe in god to take a legally binding oath to a god they don't believe in. When they could just as easily make EVERYONE happy and bring the exclusion clause back, or change the wording entirely to a completely secular oath.

Tradition actually had an exclusion clause you daft wise and beautiful woman. It was removed last year.

 

[xBiffx]

Are you serious? Why take it out? Because a fairly large portion of the population don't believe in the god that is mentioned in the oath.

Tradition actually had an exclusion clause you daft wise and beautiful woman. It was removed last year.

Define fairly large portion because most estimates put atheism at 6-10%.

Nice, gotta resort to insults when the debate isn't going the way you want?

Traditionally it did not have a clause. That was added without approval and why it was removed. It's the whole standards thing again, imagine that.

 

[mnewsham]

Define fairly large portion because most estimates put atheism at 6-10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States it is estimated over 30% of the population is not religious, either unaffiliated("spiritual" but not religious), agnostic, or atheist.

Traditionally it did not have a clause. That was added without approval and why it was removed. It's the whole standards thing again, imagine that.

Actually it depends on the service, the army specifically allows you to forego the oath even though congress mandates it. Also, it was the air force brass who removed the exception clause from the air force oath, congress didn't ask them to change anything even though it technically is against what congress has mandated.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Why take it out if no one is hurt by it. Tradition dictates it be there, otherwise you've got a different set of principles and therefore standards when you change the oath. I would think that all servicemen would have to retake their oaths so that there is one standard. But then by doing that, it would mean that statement is far from meaningless, I guess.

Tradition? It was optional until last year when it was changed to mandatory. Prior to that anyone could omit it based on their beliefs. Why make it mandatory suddenly?

 

[xBiffx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States it is estimated over 30% of the population is not religious, either unaffiliated("spiritual" but not religious), agnostic, or atheist.

Atheism is the only one of those that means no belief in any God. The rest don't necessarily mean you don't believe there is a God. And again, atheism is only 6-10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Actually it depends on the service, the army specifically allows you to forego the oath even though congress mandates it.

And I'll guarantee you that changes as well when/if this gets settled by Congress. The law still requires them to say the entire oath.