Airmen denied reenlistment for refusing to swear an oath to God

[MrPickins]

Actually, worship just means devotion as a definition. Devotion is just loyalty to a belief as a definition. So someone that believes in a supernatural entity at any level is having worship of that entity.

An expression of worship would be bowing, chanting, wearing funny clothes, doing certain actions, or whatever to gain some sort of reaction from the entity. That is just worship at a different level.

This is true, but I was using the term in the way that xBiffx would, so as not to confuse him further.

 

[HumblePie]

Because its the government and we have the first amendment that's why.

And article VI which precedes the first amendment.

 

[unokitty]

Can't find the figures for the Air Force. But if they are like the Army, there are going to be fewer people taking the reenlistment oath irregardless of what they believe.

Uno

 

[Oldgamer]

I like how when confronted with the issue the official response is to cite the AFI, including the fact that it was changed from before. Yet somehow, no one is coming forward to explain why it they felt it needed to be changed in the first place. Are they trying to limit the Air Force to only those that believe in a deity? What would be the advantages to this? It seems like it would just discourage non-theists from joining and shrink their recruitment pool.

 

[OutHouse]

I like how when confronted with the issue the official response is to cite the AFI, including the fact that it was changed from before. Yet somehow, no one is coming forward to explain why it they felt it needed to be changed in the first place.

umm no.

read the linked artical in the OP.

statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502

 

[Oldgamer]

umm no.

read the linked artical in the OP.

It was changed in Oct 2013.

Quote from the article:

The AHA’s letter also called attention to a quiet update last year of Air Force rules governing reenlistments, which now require all airmen to swear an oath to God.

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.

 

[mnewsham]

umm no.

read the linked artical in the OP.

it is a requirement that I don't think any of the armed services particularly followed, I know the army has an exclusion clause for theirs even after the air force removed their own in 2013.

 

[Oldgamer]

UPDATE: The pentagon has said in an official ruling /statement the air force is wrong on this issue and has been issued a time frame to reverse course or face a valid lawsuit. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-alone-so-help-me-god-requirement/15434695/

 

[xBiffx]

UPDATE: The pentagon has said in an official ruling /statement the air force is wrong on this issue and has been issued a time frame to reverse course or face a valid lawsuit. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-alone-so-help-me-god-requirement/15434695/

Where is the official ruling from the Pentagon? Oldliar at it again?

It also looks like the AF is waiting on the Defense Department's general counsel for some guidance. Let's see what they say.

 

[1prophet]

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.

The courts have said otherwise
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html

A.A. claims that it is a "spiritual" organization, and not "religious", and not a religion, but there is no great difference between the words "religious" and "spiritual." The distinction is artificial — just another deceptive word game.
In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:

[FONT=Lucida,Utopia bold,Utopia,Helvetica,Charter,Arial,sans-serif,Sans Serif,New Century Schoolbook] Alcoholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
[/FONT] — Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
​

All of these courts have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion or engages in religious activities:

• the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984.
• the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994.
• the New York Court of Appeals, 1996.
• the New York State Supreme Court, 1996.
• the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997.
• the Tennessee State Supreme Court.
• the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996.
• the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
• the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996.
• the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996.
• the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 7, 2007.

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to those rulings, or to change or over-turn those lower court decisions. By letting them stand, the Supreme Court has made them the law of the land.

[FONT=Times,Roman] But there is one very important exception to that statement — one case has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — the Griffin v. Coughlin decision, from the New York State Court of Appeals, 1996, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.

In Griffin v. Coughlin, the prison inmate David Griffin complained that state prison officials in 1991 told David Griffin, a self-described atheist with a history of drug abuse, that in order to be eligible for expanded family visitation privileges, including conjugal visits, he would have to attend a prison rehabilitation program patterned after AA's 12-Step model.[SIZE=-1]2

Griffin, then a prisoner at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, refused to attend the program, contending that the 12-Step approach requires participants to express a belief in a "power greater than ourselves" and to "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him." These requirements, his lawsuit against the state contended, violate the First Amendment's mandated separation of church and state.

Griffin lost in two lower courts, but won in New York State's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.

In Griffin v. Coughlin, Judge Levine, writing for the court's majority, concluded that the AA program is devoted to proselytizing for a religious belief. The court's conclusion was based on its reading of several profiles of early AA members as they are set forth in the AA Big Book and the AA Twelve and Twelve.

Judge Levine said "While it is of course true that the primary objective of A.A. is to enable its adherents to achieve sobriety, its doctrine unmistakably urges that the path to staying sober and to becoming happily and usefully whole is by wholeheartedly embracing traditional theistic beliefs."

From its review of AA literature, the majority concluded that the AA Twelve Steps amount to a worship service and that the AA fellowship is dedicated to converting alcoholics to a belief in a traditional deity. Accordingly, the court found that, "The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-Step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization.

Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe."

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times,Roman] When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal, it sided with the atheist convict who said the New York Department of Corrections' attempt to link extra privileges for inmates with attendance at meetings modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[DominionSeraph]

Hmmm... I wonder why minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. It must be because the Democrats "give them stuff," not because they acknowledge the bias of the conservatard perspective which comes up with things like, "I see nothing wrong with the government treating those who don't acknowledge God worse than those who do because I acknowledge God so the downside doesn't affect me!"

 

[alzan]

exactly. every (male) should swear on their dongs, anyway.

I am 100% sure that the health of their dong is of more immediate concern to any of them--even the believers--than are the cynical opinions of mystical sky magicians.

True dat. I mean if your weewee don't work what's the point.

 

[1prophet]

Hmmm... I wonder why minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. It must be because the Democrats "give them stuff," not because they acknowledge the bias of the conservatard perspective which comes up with things like, "I see nothing wrong with the government treating those who don't acknowledge God worse than those who do because I acknowledge God so the downside doesn't affect me!"

Most minorities vote Democrat for the same reason your conservatards vote Republican, they have been told to all their lives and expected to do so, if they decide to think for themselves and vote for a third party they are told they are wasting their vote or hurting their party like Nader was accused of in 2000,

but woe unto them if they cross the line and vote for the other party as this prominent black woman found out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2f792b6-1229-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html

Stacey Dash supports Mitt Romney, gets racial backlash on Twitter: Not all blacks must be Democrats

By Crystal Wright
Crystal Wright is an occasional contributor to The Root DC and is the editor of the political site “Conservative Black Chick.”.
Actress Stacey Dash got slammed on Twitter for supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. (Evan Vucci - Associated Press)
Before she endorsed Republican candidate Mitt Romney for president, actress Stacey Dash forgot to read the “black memo” that states all blacks must vote Democrat — or else!


“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney”
When she tweeted that comment with a patriotic photo of herself clad in a red bathing suit, Dash uncorked racist rage from Obama supporters:
“RACIAL DRAFT: I LIKE TO REQUEST A TRADE TO SEND STACEY DASH TO THE CAUCASIANS TO ACQUIRE BILL CLINTON TO THE BLACKS,” wrote one person on Twitter.


Another tweeted: “We’ve been letting you slide for years! It's OVER.”
Both comments suggested Dash wasn’t “really” black because she had the audacity to vote for Romney. Still, another tweeted, “Stacey Dash had a perm since birth. . .I knew I couldn’t trust her.. Lol .”


The implication is that Dash, who has straight hair, “thinks she’s white” and therefore can’t be trusted to be a true black, as evidenced by her Republican nature.


When a black person steps out of the black Democrat box that liberals have assigned them to and most blacks have accepted, personal attacks ensue. “Sell-out,” “Oreo,” or “You think you’re white,” are just a few examples of the name-calling they must endure. I’ve never laid eyes on this “black memo” that warns blacks they must vote Democrat, but like Dash I have received a heap of hate mail mostly from other blacks questioning my authentic blackness because I choose to be a Republican.



Engaging in this gutter level name-calling aimed at black conservatives makes other blacks look ignorant, particularly of their history. A friend told me it’s not worth writing about the history of blacks and the Republican Party because that’s old news. I disagree.


Many blacks need to remember that after the Civil War, it was the Republican party that won passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and Republicans were instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act passed. Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington were both Republicans.
During Reconstruction, thanks to the help of Republicans, many blacks were elected to office. Sen. Hiram Revels (R-Miss.), Rep. Benjamin S. Turner (R-Ala.), Rep. Robert DeLarge (R-SC), Josiah Walls (R-Fla.), Jefferson Long (R-Ga.), Joseph Rainey (R-SC) and Robert B. Elliott (R-SC) were some of the first blacks elected to Congress in the late 1800s. Until the 1960s, many blacks voted Republican.


A woman tweeted Dash would regret voting for Romney because she “thinks Mitt Romney won't cut off them unemployment checks she's receiving. Wrong again ma'am.” The notions implied here — that blacks want welfare checks, and welfare policies have benefited blacks — are ridiculous.


The breakdown of the black family is the root cause of blacks’ economic slide downward, something Romney wants to fix by encouraging marriage. In 1964, about 23 percent of black babies were born out of wedlock; today, as cited by The New York Times, it’s 73 percent. According to The Wall Street Journal, fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black. Half of murder victims are black, and of those 85 percent are black males. These are grim statistics for a race that represents only about 13 percent of the population.


President Obama isn’t serving up a great black agenda to address the problems keeping black Americans from advancing up the economic ladder. In fact, Obama’s policies have disproportionately harmed blacks. The black jobless rate at 13.4 percent is almost twice the national average of 7.8 percent.


After being barraged by what can only be described as a rain of insults and ignorance, Dash tweeted, “My humble opinion... EVERYONE is entitled to one.” Yes, all Americans, even black people, are entitled to different political opinions. Maybe if more blacks start examining Obama’s record, they would realize they, too, have a choice.

 

[Oldgamer]

Where is the official ruling from the Pentagon? Oldliar at it again?

It also looks like the AF is waiting on the Defense Department's general counsel for some guidance. Let's see what they say.

Quotes from the article:

And a Pentagon official said the issue is settled — and the Air Force is wrong.

"There is no legal requirement to say 'so help me God' in any federal oath or affirmation by a person taking the oath," said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the matter. "Saying 'so help me God' in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath, not the person administering the oath."

 

[shira]

Your analogy is way off base. No one is asking anyone to convert. They are asked to make a simple statement. Anyone not believing in God should have no issue with said statement because its meaningless to them. They only take issue because they are whiny bitches.

Secondly, its volunteer, you do it, or you don't. No one is forcing anything except the volunteer. There's a whole lot more degrading shit in the military than this simple statement. No one is asking for that to change anytime soon.

Again, Muhammad and Allah refer to one religion. God encompasses all religion. Atheist are essentially making a statement about something they think is imaginary, so big deal.

Imagine if the statute instead required the person to make the oath "so help me Satan." Would you think any religious Christian objecting to that phrase and refusing to take the oath was a "whiny bitch?"

The statute as written is requiring non-believers to lie. The phrase "so help me God" implies that the person making the oath believes in God:

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

The essence of the phrase is a request to divine agency to render assistance (help) by being a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question, and by implication invoking divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in his or her duty in this regard.

The incredible irony of all this is that non-believers are essentially being forced to lie while promising to be honest. If your cannot understand why a non-believer might be outraged at being put in such a position, you're brain dead.

 

[xBiffx]

Quotes from the article:

And a Pentagon official said the issue is settled — and the Air Force is wrong.

"There is no legal requirement to say 'so help me God' in any federal oath or affirmation by a person taking the oath," said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the matter. "Saying 'so help me God' in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath, not the person administering the oath."

Again, where is the official ruling, liar.

Also, look at the underlined, dipshit.

 

[xBiffx]

Imagine if the statute instead required the person to make the oath "so help me Satan." Would you think any religious Christian objecting to that phrase and refusing to take the oath was a "whiny bitch?"

The statute as written is requiring non-believers to lie. The phrase "so help me God" implies that the person making the oath believes in God:

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



The incredible irony of all this is that non-believers are essentially being forced to lie while promising to be honest. If your cannot understand why a non-believer might be outraged at being put in such a position, you're brain dead.

If I invoke Mickey Mouse during an oath I gave, I didn't lie. I just don't care about whether of not Mickey Mouse is going to witness it or even perhaps support me. Same goes for Satan. No lying required, I just don't care because I don't recognize either as anything worthy of much.

 

[xBiffx]

Update 9/18:

Looks like the Department of Defense decided to remove the requirement for oath takers to state the phrase "so help me God." Now its optional like the other branches of armed services.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/17/air-force-removes-so-help-me-god-requirement-from-/

 

[OutHouse]

Update 9/18:

Looks like the Department of Defense decided to remove the requirement for oath takers to state the phrase "so help me God." Now its optional like the other branches of armed services.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/17/air-force-removes-so-help-me-god-requirement-from-/

this is good, but is the USC going to get changed? if not then all branches are violating the law. will congress change it? lol no they are busy with golf and eating steak with some lobbyist.

“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502. (AFI 36-2606) is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God'.””