Airmen denied reenlistment for refusing to swear an oath to God

[OutHouse]

So you think this is the same as forcing someone to convert to a particular religion to get a job?

I'd say the fail is all yours.

THEY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE AS A REQUIREMENT TO SERVE IN OUR MILITARY.

its not about forcing to convert to a religion its about being completely unconstitutional.

 

[xBiffx]

Egads, another bigotry thread. Do you have any, I mean ANY substantial proof that the regs were changed to prevent promotion by those who aren't Christians? Well, I suppose they must be pro-muslim because Allah is God to them so Christians and Muslims are forming a conspiracy. Good grief, time to look under the beds.

That's all this thread was ever designed to be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd have to say that considering the time period that it was changed it was most likely part of the ongoing attempts to differentiate us from the godless communists. (sort of like the pledge of allegiance)

Wait, when did the AF make the change to require saying the last part of the oath or one could not join? When was this guy refused?

 

[mnewsham]

Egads, another bigotry thread. Do you have any, I mean ANY substantial proof that the regs were changed to prevent promotion by those who aren't Christians? Well, I suppose they must be pro-muslim because Allah is God to them so Christians and Muslims are forming a conspiracy. Good grief, time to look under the beds.

There are plenty of examples of fundamental Christians favouring other fundamental Christians over other religions or irreligious people. There is even a foundation created around fighting blatant cases of discrimination of religion in the military. There are also plenty of retired military who will affirm this. If you are openly atheist, do not expect to go very high in the officers corps.

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

 

[OutHouse]

OR we could just drop the religious bullshit all together

this.

 

[glenn1]

If it was symbolic, then omitting it from the Oath to serve a government office shouldn't prevent the person from obtaining said office. The fact that the person in the OP is denied access to that government position because of that religious test is what is unconstitutional and needs to be fixed.

Having it as part of the Oath that could be omitted,as it was previously prior 2013, is something I would consider "basically harmless" as the individual omitting the phrase in the Oath was not penalized for the omission. Since there is now a penalty involved it is no longer basically harmless.

Not going to disagree. This is a situation where narrow adherence to the rules is colliding with a common sense outcome that's better all the way around. As an analogue, this is like refusing to allow the guy to reenlist because he signed the form with an ink pen that was purple rather than the "legally required" blue or black. Sure, the 'god oath' is in there just like the color of the pen, but ultimately it's a pointless detail to enforce.

 

[soulcougher73]

Bad analogy, again. No one is required to make a statement about their beliefs here. One does not have to believe in God to mention Him, nor does mentioning Him mean you believe in God. I don't think unicorns are real, but I just talked about them.

Just mentioning the word God does not mean you believe, but its all based on context. "So help me god" implies you do believe in god though.

 

[smackababy]

I have a former student in the Air Force reserves. Apparently he's looking at a situation where upon graduation, there may not be enough jobs for all of them; he may have to do Reserves first, before his active enlistment.

I wonder if the AF is simply looking for ways to downsize?

The AF has been downsizing for quite awhile. They don't need to use some kind of silly "get rid of atheists with our oath" tactic to do that. They literally do a random draw on career fields and say "Sorry, but your career is downsizing. You've got 8 months to get your shit in order." And, if they were really hard up being overstaffed, they could just raise the PT standards again. That usually gets quite a few people out.


This is likely due to some lacking of regulation that was allowing people to not fully complete the oath of enlistment. So, they put in some blanket rule that ends up being incredibly stupid. They do that kind of shit on a routinely basis and have to go about amending it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Wait, when did the AF make the change to require saying the last part of the oath or one could not join? When was this guy refused?

The oath requirements were changed at the end of last year removing the option to say the "So help me God" part making it mandatory.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yup, air force is pretty heavily Christian in the officer ranks, and anything past Major requires you to brown nose and kiss ass anyway, and if you're openly irreligious...not likely to get that promotion. This of course continues the cycle and the boy's club stays intact.

The Airforce Academy is in Colorado Springs which is home to a large number of far right religious organizations. They have a large amount of control on the Academy and why its a really shitty place unless you are exactly like them.

 

[xBiffx]

THEY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE AS A REQUIREMENT TO SERVE IN OUR MILITARY.

its not about forcing to convert to a religion its about being completely unconstitutional.

They are forced to say and do a lot more, should we give other things an exception too?

It's not unconstitutional. It has nothing to do specifically with religion, which is the only thing in the constitution. Requiring no laws respecting the establishment of religion does not mean there can be no mention of God.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, when did the AF make the change to require saying the last part of the oath or one could not join? When was this guy refused?

Two separate changes. The change to the oath of enlistment happened in 1962 or whatever, this guy was just recently denied.

For this to happen it seems you not only need a particularly obstinate enlistee but a particularly obstinate enlistment officer. This is particularly odd considering at least in the Navy (and I wouldn't be surprised in other branches), re-enlistees are allowed to choose the officer that will administer their enlistment oath.

Technically of course you need to say the whole oath or it doesn't count but I wouldn't be surprised if up until this point if one person or the other had an objection reasonableness won out and it was ignored.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I suspect some lower level clerical staff accidentally got/found a copy of an old instruction file and included some new instructions without realizing what had been done. The easy and correct fix is to remove oath section and install the section that allows an exception to the oath. The oath with the requirement to state "so help me God" is clearly unconstitutional and needs to be corrected.

 

[OutHouse]

They are forced to say and do a lot more, should we give other things an exception too?

It's not unconstitutional. It has nothing to do specifically with religion, which is the only thing in the constitution. Establishment of religion does not mean there can be no mention of God.

holy fuck you have one thick head. just stop posting.

swearing a oath to God has everything to do with religion. its a religious statement moron.

 

[OutHouse]

I suspect some lower level clerical staff accidentally got/found a copy of an old instruction file and included some new instructions without realizing what had been done. The easy and correct fix is to remove oath section and install the section that allows an exception to the oath. The oath with the requirement to state "so help me God" is clearly unconstitutional and needs to be corrected.

“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,”

 

[SlowSpyder]

They are forced to say and do a lot more, should we give other things an exception too?

It's not unconstitutional. It has nothing to do specifically with religion, which is the only thing in the constitution. Requiring no laws respecting the establishment of religion does not mean there can be no mention of God.

You sound a lot like someone trying to say the second amendment doesn't mean what it does indeed mean.

 

[fskimospy]

They are forced to say and do a lot more, should we give other things an exception too?

It's not unconstitutional. It has nothing to do specifically with religion, which is the only thing in the constitution. Establishment of religion does not mean no mention of God.

It's probably unconstitutional. I'm not aware of any other circumstances where someone is required to make any statement about god in order to serve in a federal appointment. The relevant laws allow for an affirmation instead.

 

[xBiffx]

holy fuck you have one thick head. just stop posting.

swearing a oath to God has everything to do with religion. its a religious statement moron.

They aren't swearing an oath to God, they are swearing an oath to the people by swearing to protect the Constitution and follow the order of the Command in Chief.

I would think you would know that.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's not unconstitutional. It has nothing to do specifically with religion, which is the only thing in the constitution. Requiring no laws respecting the establishment of religion does not mean there can be no mention of God.

You can believe what you want, but the only person agreeing with you here is nehalem, and I wouldn't trust his views on the Constitutionality of laws. I'm just quoting this for posterity on the off-chance this actually gets to the point of judicial review, as I'm fairly confident that a judge won't agree with you about making "under God" not optional for military service.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are plenty of examples of fundamental Christians favouring other fundamental Christians over other religions or irreligious people. There is even a foundation created around fighting blatant cases of discrimination of religion in the military. There are also plenty of retired military who will affirm this. If you are openly atheist, do not expect to go very high in the officers corps.

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

Well at least there's something on Wiki.

I have one too

Black Liberation Army[edit]
Main article: Black Liberation Army
A splinter group made up of the more radical members of the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army (BLA) sought to overthrow the US government in the name of racial separatism and Marxist ideals. The Fraternal Order of Police blames the BLA for the murders of 13 police officers. According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the group was suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1980.

Obviously blacks are terrorists and Ferguson is their foothold. Well, maybe not. In truth there's no evidence that this was done or not done for any religious reason, but you did find "a small subset", to use your wiki article. I did the same thing and using the approach of some I "rationally" conclude- well anything I want. That however does not make it true.

 

[fskimospy]

They aren't swearing an oath to God, they are swearing an oath to the people by swearing to protect the Constitution and follow the order of the Command in Chief.

I would think you would know that.

And the oath as it currently exists requires them to ask for the assistance of god in so doing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They aren't swearing an oath to God, they are swearing an oath to the people by swearing to protect the Constitution and follow the order of the Command in Chief.

I would think you would know that.

When you add "so help me God" it become religious as well.

 

[xBiffx]

It's probably unconstitutional. I'm not aware of any other circumstances where someone is required to make any statement about god in order to serve in a federal appointment. The relevant laws allow for an affirmation instead.

Probably? Where is religion here? Where is the government making a law concerning the establishment of such religion?

Those should be easy questions if its unconstitutional. Again, mentioning God has nothing specifically to do with religion, especially the establishment of it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Two separate changes. The change to the oath of enlistment happened in 1962 or whatever, this guy was just recently denied.

For this to happen it seems you not only need a particularly obstinate enlistee but a particularly obstinate enlistment officer. This is particularly odd considering at least in the Navy (and I wouldn't be surprised in other branches), re-enlistees are allowed to choose the officer that will administer their enlistment oath.

Technically of course you need to say the whole oath or it doesn't count but I wouldn't be surprised if up until this point if one person or the other had an objection reasonableness won out and it was ignored.

Up until recently an out was included in the oath. From the OP

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.

Whether or not this was an intended consequence, who knows. But by the letter there is no option to omit any portion of the oath.

 

[xBiffx]

When you add "so help me God" it become religious as well.

Sigh.

God ≠ religion.