Airmen denied reenlistment for refusing to swear an oath to God

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not sure this is an unintended consequence. Having a non-believer swear to god or keep them out of the air force seems to be the reason behind this change.

In your opinion..not backed up by any facts...

 

[xBiffx]

This violation is insulting to anyone who believes in no god (or multiple or a non judeo-Christian god).

The first amendment also carries with it the inherent right to be insulted.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Spirituality does not have to be the same thing as religion, I agree. That's immaterial though as I am unaware of any case in which an appeal to or mention of god has not been considered religious in nature by any US court. Unless you can find that, this is most likely unconstitutional.

You can't require people to ask a deity for assistance as a condition of holding a federal appointment. This seems like a pretty open and shut case.

 

[xBiffx]

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.

So again, I'll ask. If we remove God, who is the oath to? You conveniently skipped that.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

The moment an atheist believes in an after life they aren't an atheist. Simple as that. Belief in a paranormal entity, which includes an afterlife which has to include the essence of the deceased, is believing in a religious concept.

The basic of the word religion and formation of the word is the belief in a paranormal entity. Worship of that entity isn't required for a religion at all. Believing in Santa Claus, the boogey man, and the monster under your bed is the formation of a simple basic religion. One doesn't have to create an altar and present sacrifices to the monster they believe to be under one's own bed to have a religion formed upon that belief. The simple act of believing is that foundation. Everything else is extraneous to the religion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So you're saying since it's specifically implying the Christian god it's okay?

put words in peoples mouth often??

 

[xBiffx]

That's immaterial though as I am unaware of any case in which an appeal to or mention of god has not been considered religious in nature by any US court.

Easy, "In God we Trust".


Also, I did find this. Even though its the UK, its interesting what they decided.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...k-supreme-court-religion-does-not-require-god

You can't require people to ask a deity for assistance as a condition of holding a federal appointment. This seems like a pretty open and shut case

Apparently you can. Its been happening for years.

 

[soulcougher73]

So again, I'll ask. If we remove God, who is the oath to? You conveniently skipped that.

The oath is to the people of the US. Thus god and/or religion is not required to be in it. Thus..take if the fuck out and stop bickering about it.

But currently they are making it religious in nature swearing the oath to god at the end.

 

[HumblePie]

I see what is going on here with xbiffx is the quantified absolutes he is trying to apply. He, like others, are trying to define a "weak" atheist or some such crap. It's like saying something is "almost" perfect. It is perfect or it is not. Although the quantifier of almost perfect just means if look at a list of what would encapsulate perfection for the noun in question would make something "almost" if it had most of the list, but not all. Still the noun that is almost perfect is not perfect. Same thing with weak atheist. A "spiritual" atheist is like that quantified almost perfect descriptor. The problem is that those wanting to apply that descriptor want to do it in an asymptote style of mathematical definitions. Which is trying to equate a finite to the infinite which is just silly.

Someone that is a "weak" atheist or a "spiritual" atheist is not an atheist. An atheist is an absolute descriptor and to try to a quantifier in that case is just stupid.

 

[xBiffx]

The moment an atheist believes in an after life they aren't an atheist. Simple as that. Belief in a paranormal entity, which includes an afterlife which has to include the essence of the deceased, is believing in a religious concept.

Sure they are. Belief in afterlife does not require a belief in God. One can belief in souls and them moving to another plane of existence and not believe that there is an entity out there controlling everything, i.e. God.

 

[HumblePie]

Easy, "In God we Trust".


Also, I did find this. Even though its the UK, its interesting what they decided.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...k-supreme-court-religion-does-not-require-god



Apparently you can. Its been happening for years.

Are you seriously going to compare what the fuck the UK does to what the US is suppose to do?

 

[xBiffx]

The oath is to the people of the US. Thus god and/or religion is not required to be in it. Thus..take if the fuck out and stop bickering about it.

Something we can agree on.

 

[xBiffx]

Are you seriously going to compare what the fuck the UK does to what the US is suppose to do?

Well, we are talking about what defines religion and God now, that would apply to the UK the same as it would to the US wouldn't it?

What, don't like their decision?

 

[HumblePie]

Sure they are. Belief in afterlife does not require a belief in God. One can belief in souls and them moving to another plane of existence and not believe that there is an entity out there controlling everything, i.e. God.

Belief in an afterlife or souls is the belief in a paranormal entity. The souls or the afterlife become a "god" in that belief because it is now a controlling force in reality to that person. It doesn't matter that a "soul" of a person isn't an omnipotent god, anymore than a rain spirit isn't omnipotent either. I can't understand why you don't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

[xBiffx]

I see what is going on here with xbiffx is the quantified absolutes he is trying to apply. He, like others, are trying to define a "weak" atheist or some such crap. It's like saying something is "almost" perfect. It is perfect or it is not. Although the quantifier of almost perfect just means if look at a list of what would encapsulate perfection for the noun in question would make something "almost" if it had most of the list, but not all. Still the noun that is almost perfect is not perfect. Same thing with weak atheist. A "spiritual" atheist is like that quantified almost perfect descriptor. The problem is that those wanting to apply that descriptor want to do it in an asymptote style of mathematical definitions. Which is trying to equate a finite to the infinite which is just silly.

Someone that is a "weak" atheist or a "spiritual" atheist is not an atheist. An atheist is an absolute descriptor and to try to a quantifier in that case is just stupid.

Who is trying to apply absolutes here? I mean, saying that all atheists are equal is rather stupid.

 

[xBiffx]

Belief in an afterlife or souls is the belief in a paranormal entity. The souls or the afterlife become a "god" in that belief because it is now a controlling force in reality to that person. It doesn't matter that a "soul" of a person isn't an omnipotent god, anymore than a rain spirit isn't omnipotent either. I can't understand why you don't seem to understand this simple concept.

Religion is defined as believing in a controlling entity and one that you worship. So again, atheists can still believe there is an afterlife and there are souls.

 

[fskimospy]

Easy, "In God we Trust".

Actually that motto was upheld because there was no coercive power coming from the state to endorse a viewpoint simply by having something printed on money, not that invoking god in an oath was not religious.

Also, I did find this. Even though its the UK, its interesting what they decided.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...k-supreme-court-religion-does-not-require-god

Now find a court that says you can have a god without religion and we can talk.

Apparently you can. Its been happening for years.

And it's likely unconstitutional. I don't even get what the argument is about. Having the government forcing people to appeal to god for help as a condition for employment should be repugnant to conservatives and liberals alike.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, we are talking about what defines religion and God now, that would apply to the UK the same as it would to the US wouldn't it?

What, don't like their decision?

What the UK constitutes as a religious test by their own twisted logic is what they do. Don't conflate that with US standards.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually that motto was upheld because there was no coercive power coming from the state to endorse a viewpoint simply by having something printed on money, not that invoking god in an oath was not religious

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/atheists-in-god-we-trust_n_3916762.html

Seems the reason was:

But in dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect," according to the Associated Press. Baer also ruled that the federal appeals courts "have found no constitutional violation in the motto's inclusion on currency," and that the placement of the phrase didn't constitute a "substantial burden" on atheists.

You said cases where God was mentioned and its not considered religious. I found you one. Stop moving the goal posts.

Now find a court that says you can have a god without religion and we can talk.

Asking me to produce something that could never constitutionally happen is pretty kind of you.

 

[xBiffx]

What the UK constitutes as a religious test by their own twisted logic is what they do. Don't conflate that with US standards.

Definitions of religion and God are hardly the purview of just the US. Sorry that that refutes what you've been saying. Sorry an entire nation appears to agree with me. Deal with it.

 

[HumblePie]

Religion is defined as believing in a controlling entity and one that you worship. So again, atheists can still believe there is an afterlife and there are souls.

No, no, no.

Belief in a soul and afterlife is belief in something that happens to a paranormal entity after you die. Thus to access the afterlife, you are being controlled by a "god" being that of your own soul to access another paranormal entity which is the realm of the afterlife. Thus the controlling factor in the belief is that one can't reach that realm without having a soul and dying. Thus the soul and realm become "gods" or deities for a person that believes in them to strive for. The in turn is the essence of worship.

So, an atheist that believes in any form of afterlife, souls, or karma is believing those paranormal entities as gods. Thus they aren't atheists. An atheist absolutely cannot believe in the existence of any paranormal entity.

 

[xBiffx]

No, no, no.

Belief in a soul and afterlife is belief in something that happens to a paranormal entity after you die. Thus to access the afterlife, you are being controlled by a "god" being that of your own soul to access another paranormal entity which is the realm of the afterlife. Thus the controlling factor in the belief is that one can't reach that realm without having a soul and dying. Thus the soul and realm become "gods" or deities for a person that believes in them to strive for. The in turn is the essence of worship.

So, an atheist that believes in any form of afterlife, souls, or karma is believing those paranormal entities as gods. Thus they aren't atheists. An atheist absolutely cannot believe in the existence of any paranormal entity.

Controlling entity, worship. You'll get it some day. And calling them gods for your own self serving purposes doesn't mean squat.

 

[HumblePie]

Definitions of religion and God are hardly the purview of just the US. Sorry that that refutes what you've been saying. Sorry an entire nation appears to agree with me. Deal with it.

Redefinitions of words by a group of people doesn't mean much. It always happens then a new word form to be the label for the previous ideal that had it's label redefined. The definition of the word religion has been around for many, many, many years and it is recently that some subsets of people are trying to redefine it for their own purposes. But just because a political party in the UK wants to make up their own definition for those words doesn't mean those changes unilaterally apply to the rest of the world.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/atheists-in-god-we-trust_n_3916762.html

Seems the reason was:

You said cases where God was mentioned and its not considered religious. I found you one. Stop moving the goal posts.

There was no attempt to move the goalposts, but I should have been clearer. Additionally, the ruling was not that invoking god was not religious, it was that such a statement had a secular purpose and therefore did not violate the establishment clause. It said nothing whatsoever about the religious test clause.

Can you explain to me how you think requiring someone to request the aid of a deity to hold a position is not a religious test?

Asking me to produce something that could never constitutionally happen is pretty kind of you.

Of course that could constitutionally happen if belief in a god was separable from religion.

I honestly don't see how this case could be any clearer. You can't require a religious test for office, which means you can't require people to appeal to god for help. If the air force doesn't give in this will go to court, and I'm quite confident the air force will lose.

Again, as a conservative, why do you want the government to be able to require individual to appeal to a deity in order to hold a job?

 

[MrPickins]

So again, how are they equivalent when you just said its only a subset of religion? God and religion are independent and certainly aren't equivalent. Some religions don't even have God or gods as part of their faith.

Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram for you to understand subsets and supersets?


Edit:

God is a subset of religion. Not all religions have a "God" but all "God(s)" are part to a religion. You really need to learn math.

:thumbsup: