Airmen denied reenlistment for refusing to swear an oath to God

[xBiffx]

Stop, just stop. I said that religion is the forming of a bond between a person and a paranormal entity. The belief of existence is the basic bond. So if you believe you have a spiritial unicorn protector then yes THAT IS RELIGION.

No its not religion. Spiritual ≠ religious.

Believing in any paranormal entity from ghosts, angels, pixies, spirits, bogarts, gods, or smurfs is forming a religion. It can be a formalized thing or not. Doesn't matter. The definition of the word doesn't have to be inclusive only to an organized formal religion at all.

Believing in something does not equate to religion no matter how much you want it to. Religion is more than just belief in something. Try finding a definition.

 

[xBiffx]

Jesus Christ is the title to a religious figure. if the oath was to someone from ancient Nazareth then it wouldn't necessarily be religious in nature. Might as well make an oath to Abe Lincoln or Henry the 8th. What difference would it make? The purpose of making such an oath is that you believe the person you are making such an oath can enforce the principles of that oath against you if you decide to break it. Making an oath to Abe Lincoln is stupid unless you think the spirit of Abe Lincoln will come from his grave to change your ways should you break your oath.

That would probably apply if the people here are making an oath to God. They aren't. They are making an oath to the citizens of the US by promising to uphold their rules and laws (constitution) and follow the leader that they have chosen (president). God is being invoked, that's it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That would probably apply if the people here are making an oath to God. They aren't. They are making an oath to the citizens of the US by promising to uphold their rules and laws (constitution) and follow the leader that they have chosen (president).

So why include the phrase "so help me God" in the oath? And why are you objecting to taking those words out if God's not part of the oath anyway? Your logic is all over the map here.

 

[xBiffx]

You can have an oath without mentioning God.

Sure you can. I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

 

[xBiffx]

So why include the phrase "so help me God" in the oath? And why are you objecting to taking those words out if God's not part of the oath anyway? Your logic is all over the map here.

I never objected to taking the words out. I only asked why and objected to the reasoning behind it. Take them out, fine, just be honest with why.

 

[The Merg]

Sure you can. I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

So why is it such a big deal to not have that phrase in the Air Force Oath?

- Merg

 

[xBiffx]

So why is it such a big deal to not have that phrase in the Air Force Oath?

- Merg

It isn't, at least not to me. Its the reasoning behind wanting to take it out that's making all the fuss.

 

[soulcougher73]

Religion is man's creation. If I believe in God, you can give it an artificial label but that's all it is, a label. Now saying someone is Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist is more than just a label. It describes an entire belief system. They believe in said religion, which part of it may be God or may not be God. Believing in God is a spiritual notion. Much like believing in the supernatural which isn't a religion by itself. Religions are more than that.

So if I believe in the existence of ghosts, does that make me religious? What about unicorns?

Nope, just has to be a god.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I never objected to taking the words out. I only asked why and objected to the reasoning behind it. Take them out, fine, just be honest with why.

What reasoning behind it did you object to? All you said earlier was "whiny atheist" and "whiny bitches." You're OK with taking out the words, but not for the reasons they argued? What reasoning should they have used, even though you apparently agree with them?

Fuck it, this logical tilt-a-whirl is making me dizzy. I'll just be sure to dig up your responses when judges declare a mandatory oath to God unconstitutional.

 

[soulcougher73]

So why include the phrase "so help me God" in the oath? And why are you objecting to taking those words out if God's not part of the oath anyway? Your logic is all over the map here.

Logic? You are giving him way to much credit.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It isn't, at least not to me. Its the reasoning behind wanting to take it out that's making all the fuss.

Because it isn't constitutional?

 

[HumblePie]

That would probably apply if the people here are making an oath to God. They aren't. They are making an oath to the citizens of the US by promising to uphold their rules and laws (constitution) and follow the leader that they have chosen (president). God is being invoked, that's it.

The statement, "so help me God" is an oath to God. You are asking for the help of a paranormal entity in following your oath which also implies that an individual would face reprisals from such a paranormal entity in their dereliction of their oath.

It is not an oath TO God. It is an oath WITH God. Still makes it religious in nature. Which means it puts an undue burden on those that don't ascribe to a "god" either from being an atheist or because the religion that person ascribes to doesn't have a "god" as a paranormal being.

Would you be upset if I prevent you from joining a public office if you must take an oath asking for the help of Satan's demons to carry it out?

 

[xBiffx]

What reasoning behind it did you object to? All you said earlier was "whiny atheist" and "whiny bitches." You're OK with taking out the words, but not for the reasons they argued? What reasoning should they have used, even though you apparently agree with them?

Fuck it, this logical tilt-a-whirl is making me dizzy. I'll just be sure to dig up your responses when judges declare a mandatory oath to God unconstitutional.

It's been stated as unconstitutional yet that hasn't really been backup up. It's also been stated that having it in there means that people are being forced to believe in God.

My reasoning behind being OK with it being taken out is that it could serve no purpose. If someone doesn't believe in God, its useless. Even if someone does, if they don't have any morals or principles, its also useless.

I'd be looking forward to the judge's decision if it is in fact thrown out because of constitutionality. First, I would think it need to be presented to a judge however.

 

[Oldgamer]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-


Looks like air force are being technically correct in enforcing this rule, however the rule itself should be changed by congress to avoid these situations in the future.

Looks like they sneaked it in recently as of Oct of 2013 and this is congress doing from what I am reading, and or congress is the only one who can change it. It directly conflicts with Article VI of the Constitution which prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.

As quoted from the article:

“Forcing [the airman] to swear to a supreme being as a condition of his reenlistment is tantamount to a ‘religious test’ and is therefore violative of this constitutional provision as well,” Miller said.

I wonder if this recent change was done on purpose because of the rising amount of Atheists in this country and this whole thinking of some kind of "war on christians"..makes me wonder.

 

[HumblePie]

No its not religion. Spiritual ≠ religious.



Believing in something does not equate to religion no matter how much you want it to. Religion is more than just belief in something. Try finding a definition.

OMG, spirituality is again a subset of religion.

Spirituality is defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals. You can not have spirituality without having religion. WTF dictionary do you use?

And yes, believing in a paranormal entity as real is the basic bond of forming a religion. That is by definition. If you don't believe in any paranormal entities you have no religion. Simple as that. Doesn't matter how you want to twist the definition of the word religion and other derivatives of that word. What you want the definition to be doesn't make it so.

Same thing like the idiots that believe the word agnostic is anything other than a description to a type of atheist.

 

[xBiffx]

The statement, "so help me God" is an oath to God.

No, its not. Invoking something isn't an oath to it.

 

[xBiffx]

OMG, spirituality is again a subset of religion.

No its not. One can be spiritual absent belief in a certain religion. Can atheists not be spiritual people?

Spirituality has many definitions. You've just chosen the one to fit your needs.

 

[HumblePie]

No, its not. Invoking something isn't an oath to it.

It most certainly is. An inclusion in the oath is an oath to oath.

If I stated the following oath,

"I swear to eat all the bacon on this planet, so help me xbiffx"

is swearing to you, xbiffx, that I will eat all the bacon there is. That my oath in taking your name constitutes you blessing, your help, and your reprisal should I fail. It is an oath to you as well as to myself. The people hearing such an oath are just affirming I said the oath as the oath is not to them unless I mention them by name or reference.

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you need a light xBiffX? That hole you are digging is getting deep enough that natural light may become scarce. Give up while youre ahead and admit you are wrong and save what little face you have left.

 

[jruchko]

 

[HumblePie]

No its not. One can be spiritual absent belief in a certain religion. Can atheists not be spiritual people?

Spirituality has many definitions. You've just chosen the one to fit your needs.

Atheists cannot be spiritual. The moment an atheist believes in something "spiritual" they are not an atheist. You have your definitions all screwed up. I didn't chose the definition at all. That is what is the common and root definition that word.

To elaborate, I think you are trying to state someone doesn't have to believe in a god, but only in their own "essence" or "soul" and just be spiritual. Thus they aren't religious.

WRONG. The definition of religion is to believe in a paranormal entity. Even if that entity is some cosmic spiritual form of your corporeal body, that is still a paranormal entity. By believing in it, you are thus forming a religion by definition of the word. Belief in the existence of ANY paranormal entity is a religion. I gave a small subset list before but I can expand it if you want. That list includes: souls, stardust, and auras.

 

[xBiffx]

It most certainly is. An inclusion in the oath is an oath to oath.

If I stated the following oath,

"I swear to eat all the bacon on this planet, so help me xbiffx"

is swearing to you, xbiffx, that I will eat all the bacon there is. That my oath in taking your name constitutes you blessing, your help, and your reprisal should I fail. It is an oath to you as well as to myself. The people hearing such an oath are just affirming I said the oath as the oath is not to them unless I mention them by name or reference.

An oath to an oath? WTF?

You're asking for my help or my blessing or just as a witness. That's not an oath to me. An oath is a promise for you to do something. You asking (invoking) me for something.

So if you think that this was an oath to God this whole time, how could we ever expect to uphold it? And why was any airmen ever discharged for failing to follow their oath? After all, it was to God and not to us the citizens of the US according to you. He should be the one deciding, shouldn't He?

If we get rid of God, who is the oath to then?

 

[HumblePie]

An oath to an oath? WTF?

You're asking for my help or my blessing or just as a witness. That's not an oath to me. An oath is a promise for you to do something. You asking (invoking) me for something.

So if you think that this was an oath to God this whole time, how could we ever expect to uphold it? And why was any airmen ever discharged for failing to follow their oath? After all, it was to God and not to us the citizens of the US according to you. He should be the one deciding, shouldn't he?

It's considered an "extra" penalty for making such an oath. Don't be strawmanning here. Just because I am making an oath to follow a duty, such as protecting the people of the US, while making that oath to god, doesn't mean that the only reprisal should come from God.

Don't be fucking asinine here. The point of such an oath to the deity is that even if you break the oath and don't get "punished" for it by some of those you are making the oath by, then the last reprisal will come from the paranormal entity you ascribe to.

Think of the oath people take on the stand for a court proceeding. The basics is as follows.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me <insert my favorite paranormal entity here>"

Think about why that last part is there? It's to instill into the person making the oath that if they lie and aren't caught the hope is that the paranormal entity they ascribe to will "catch" them eventually and mete out appropriate reprisal. Thus the oath is not just to the court proceeding and those there to, but also to that paranormal entity.

 

[thraashman]

I don't think I've ever seen someone so adamantly defend a so completely wrong and proven wrong premise as xBiffx in this thread.

The requirement of the "so help me God" line in the oath is a violation of the First Amendment.
This violation is insulting to anyone who believes in no god (or multiple or a non judeo-Christian god).
This requirement is actually in violation of Christianity as someone posted a link earlier, though it doesn't shock me that most Christians are unaware of or intentionally violate it.

 

[xBiffx]

Atheists cannot be spiritual. The moment an atheist believes in something "spiritual" they are not an atheist. You have your definitions all screwed up. I didn't chose the definition at all. That is what is the common and root definition that word.

To elaborate, I think you are trying to state someone doesn't have to believe in a god, but only in their own "essence" or "soul" and just be spiritual. Thus they aren't religious.

WRONG. The definition of religion is to believe in a paranormal entity. Even if that entity is some cosmic spiritual form of your corporeal body, that is still a paranormal entity. By believing in it, you are thus forming a religion by definition of the word. Belief in the existence of ANY paranormal entity is a religion. I gave a small subset list before but I can expand it if you want. That list includes: souls, stardust, and auras.

WRONG. Atheists can absolutely be spiritual. I'll give you one topic in which you can tell, death. Atheists handle the concept of death differently. Religion and spirituality are independent.

Religion is much more than belief in a paranormal entity. It's that, plus belief in it being a supreme, controlling entity, and the worship of said entity. So again, religion is more than just belief in something.

That's why belief in unicorns by itself isn't religion, nor is belief in the existence of ghosts. Its also why this crap about unconstitutionality is garbage.