The Center for American Progress reports
An unnamed airman in the United States Air Force wants to continue to serve his country. Yet, the Air Force reportedly told him that his service is unwanted unless he swears an oath that concludes with the religious affirmation "so help me God." According to the Air Force Times, the airman crossed out the words "so help me God" when he signed his reenlistment contract. He was subsequently told that he must either swear this religious oath or leave the service.
In justifying this decision, an Air Force spokesperson pointed to a federal law, which requires "each person enlisting in an armed force" to take an oath that concludes with the four words this airman finds objectionable.[content behind scripts] He did agree to the other portions of the oath, which includes a promise to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
Although this Air Force spokesperson is correct that Congress did pass a law stating that members of the armed forces should swear an oath that includes the words "So help me God," the Constitution trumps an act of Congress, and requiring servicemembers to comply with this portion of the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court held that "neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'"
Admittedly, the courts often show greater deference to the government in military matters, but the Supreme Court has also indicated that this deference does not permit servicemembers to be forced to swear a religious oath. "The test oath is abhorrent to our tradition," the Court stated in its 1946 decision Girouard v. United States. "Over the years, Congress has meticulously respected that tradition and even in time of war has sought to accommodate the military requirements to the religious scruples of the individual."
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday September 06 2014, @12:29PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:04PM
You are mistaking here. The lightning is only there to support the pastafarian to cook his or her noodles for optimal consumption. No help from a fictional being is required as nature simply provides for us all tools to get cooking, even if it will be your last meal
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:53PM
Not help, instead you need to beg him for permission to pass.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 08 2014, @08:32AM
> As of 2013, that F35 is still vulnerable to lightning (among plenty of other weaknesses), so airmen may need some significant help from God.
Well if it's a lightning thing, maybe they should be praying to Thor instead.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:13PM
Why is this an issue?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99539230 [npr.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:27PM
Your link is about using the word "swear" vs. "affirm". The atheist is objecting to the plea to imaginary superman for help. It is not the same thing.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:33PM
If said superman is imaginary, then what is the problem?
If said superman is not imaginary, and was all good and all knowing, wouldn't that put at much greater risk those who beseech him while opening the bomb bay doors?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:36PM
ok, lets say the superman is imaginary (it is, btw, but lets just assume that for now).
why compel a modern human being to follow bronze-age superstition if he does not want to?
stating you believe in things that you do NOT is not genuine and that bothers a lot of us. I'd react the same way if someone demanded I make an offering to zeus. I'd say no, go fuck yourself, I'm not taking part in that stupidity.
same here. religion does not belong in the US in any FORCED way. voluntary, sure; but never EVER forced. the US was built, partially, to allow people to say NO to this kind of shit.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:47PM
I'm an ex-Airforce (2A0X1A) atheist and all, but I think this guy's a fucking idiot. Just say the goddamn word already and never worry about it again. The military has all kinds of silly traditions, of which the oath is only one.
Butting heads with your employer is a good way to get on their shit-list. He don't like it, he can easily get a job in the civilian world and put up with a lot less bullshit.
There's a popular saying, "choose your battles wisely." And this dipshit chose poorly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rune of Doom on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:53PM
Because the US armed forces, including the Air Force, are infested with Dominionists?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013313141640411792.html [aljazeera.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:39PM
I was summoned to a jury once. I noticed that all the witnesses promised to tell the truth and asked god to help them do so.
After about three of these I wrote a note to the judge asking if anyone planned to establish on the court record evidence that god was providing the requested help. Otherwise, I pointed out, I had heard no evidence, for I had no reason to think these witnesses were capable of telling the truth without the requested assistance.
At the next recess, the judge cleared the courtroom but asked me and the two attorneys to stay behind. He explained that each witness had the choice of "affirming" instead of "swearing". I asked if the phrase "so help me god" was also optional and the judge said he didn't recall that question coming up before. I repeated that I could not know whether someone was telling the truth when they had admitted their inability to do so without supernatural help, and therefore I had heard no evidence to date unless someone planned to present proof of god's help later.
The lawyer who brought those witnesses, the plaintiff, looked pained but said nothing.
About a day and a half later, after some testimony that didn't go well, the judge announced that the parties had agreed to an out of court settlement and we were dismissed. I don't know what if any role the missing god had in that decision.
(Score: 2, Informative) by dcollins on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:51PM
Great story. Good for you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:55PM
PffHAhahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, dickhead!
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:06AM
Someone marked dcollins comment as "Offtopic" and dinged him. I had mod points so I bumped him to "Informative".
Should his comment be ranked higher than his "starting score of 2"? No. dcollins' comment is not informative, but there is no "Someone was being an asshole and dinged his karma for no good reason" option.
Did he add to the topic? Not really, but he was certainly NOT off topic. He just wanted to express an opinion about something that was very much on topic and communicate with the grandparent. There is nothing offtopic about doing something like that. Soylent News is a place to have conversations. Disagreeing with an opinion is not a reason to ding someone.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:42AM
> there is no "Someone was being an asshole and dinged his karma for no good reason" option.
Underrated is appropriate for undoing petty downmods.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Leebert on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:52PM
Gee, I wonder why. It couldn't have been because you were wasting everyone's time with pedantic asshattery, could it?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:59PM
> It couldn't have been because you were wasting everyone's time with pedantic asshattery, could it?
I'm not the one who made those witnesses ask for supernatural help, which to all appearances was not forthcoming.
We are not supposed to be living in a Church State. Too many people forget that. Sometimes a little reminder is needed.
Let me ask you if you consider gentle resistance to the Police State to be "wasting everyone's time with pedantic asshattery"? Police State, Church State, neither are Constitutional but both creep ahead unless resisted, nonviolently whenever possible.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:07PM
Well said JC. Also, good nick!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:09PM
The question is irrelevant. You're assuming that, because a witness who (presumably) believes in God is invoking his name in a manner that is intended to indicate the gravity of their oath, that means we're living in a church state. Now, if you were REQUIRED to invoke God's name (as the article seems to be saying), that's a different matter altogether.
So, to summarize: You being forced to invoke the name of or falsely profess a belief in God: Church state. Someone else believing in God: Not a church state. That would be what we like to refer to as "freedom of religion".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:14PM
> You being forced to invoke the name of or falsely profess a belief in God: Church state.
My point exactly, thank you. Those witnesses were forced to come to court to testify, and they were forced to say "so help me god" on pain of contempt and imprisonment. The judge admitted he had never considered whether the words might be optional.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:14PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:58PM
I see. You didn't make that clear. I've never been in a courtroom where "so help (me|you) God" was appended to the oath. I've only known it as the response that some people give as an emphatic "yes". In fact, as I recall, the history was from George Washington adding it to the oath of office without prompting, but I'm not in a place to check the history of that to be sure.
I'm curious: Where was this?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @01:31AM
> I'm curious: Where was this?
Practically anywhere in the USA [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by cafebabe on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:52PM
For some people, freedom of religion is freedom from swearing oaths [wikipedia.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:20PM
Just FYI the founding fathers were deists and wanted the USA to be a deist state, they simply wanted it to be open enough that you could trust in whatever deity you should choose. But if you look at their writings there wasn't an atheist in the bunch.
And I'm sorry but you were just being a troll, because the founding fathers also expected you to have common sense and understand the difference between worship and "going through the motions" like they did when they called upon a non-specific deity to insure the success of the first congress or to watch over this or that event.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by iwoloschin on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:42PM
So someone questioning why their beliefs are being trampled on is a troll, but the lawyers shouting objections left and right aren't?
The one time I was on a jury I specifically did not try to be an ass and get out of it, figuring I'd do my civic duty. I then spent all day being treated like a 5 year old by the lawyers and the judge, which is an incredibly frustrating and demeaning experience. To top it off, I was excused from the deliberations and shut in a room by myself where I had to sit there and twiddle my thumbs while everyone else deliberated. If I'm called to jury duty again I'd have no qualms with being a "troll" and asking about stuff like this, if only because then it would at least elevate the conversation to something more interesting than the kindergarten level.
(Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:44PM
Just FYI the founding fathers were deists and wanted the USA to be a deist state, they simply wanted it to be open enough that you could trust in whatever deity you should choose. But if you look at their writings there wasn't an atheist in the bunch.
The Founding Fathers lived in a day and age where to publicly declare atheism was dangerous and foolhardy. It would have left them open to physical abuse from the more fervent believers and self-appointed enforcers of "god's will" in the population and excluded them from engagement in public discourse.
They had to be very careful to be ambiguous and open enough to ensure that the US Constitution provided as much freedom as possible, including freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion. They had to ensure that they were honest and knew the limits of their radical, progressive ideas within the limits of social acceptability of the day.
Superstition goes hand-in-hand with religion. The Founding Fathers were not superstitious as a group.
The Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than you realise.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:44PM
One of my favorite quotes about religion was written by George Washington:
"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
It was brought to my attention by a very religious person as proof of Washington's faith. What he was blind to was that the quote proves the opposite -- that Washington believes religion is good for keeping the masses in line, but that smart educated people don't need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @01:14PM
The core of that statement is that a national morality can not be separated from religious principles. The leading qualifier suggests that he was involved in an argument whether it might be possible that "refined education" might be able to provide a moral compass for "minds of peculiar structure." He appears to believe those (smart) people are a clear minority and unable to affect popular behavior. So, even if he concedes that Gentlemen may be absolved of religious indoctrination, he certainly seems to think it's required for public order among the masses. If we're going to have one law that applies to all people, then it seems Washington would impose religious principle (if not belief) on those educated, peculiar minds, in order to preserve national morality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:28PM
So, even if he concedes that Gentlemen may be absolved of religious indoctrination, he certainly seems to think it's required for public order among the masses.
Yep smart people don't need it, stupid people do.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:43PM
There are a very large number of sentences, especially in matters not open to observation, where what a statement means depends strongly on what you believe before you hear it.
It logic these beliefs are called Bayesian Priors. It has been mathematically proven that there are sets of priors which are sufficiently different that no possible evidence can convert one set of beliefs into the other. (I.e., when the modified beliefs are used as priors for the next round of reasoning.) Weaker examples of this are common, e.g. the show Archie Bunker/All in the Family (I think that was the name) was shown to reaffirm and strengthen the beliefs both of those opposed to racism and those embracing it. (I don't know what the variance was, or if it was even calculated. And I never saw the survey questions. So there are gaps in this argument, but I find it intuitively plausible, so I didn't bother to check.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @09:28AM
The Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than you realize.
There, fixed that for ya
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:24AM
I hope you don't mind if I ask for a big fat [citation needed] on the entirety of your post.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:59PM
I wish i had your way with the words. I don't live in the states, but i have actually thought about what if i was in states and i was a witness or something and had to go to court and was asked to swear by god (yes, asking god to help is the same damn thing). I would flat out refuse to do that. Also no bible. If my word is not good enough, then fuck it. There's no god helping, i either tell the truth or not. No god helping in war either. USA, you have the freedom of religion as long as it includes a preaproved god.
(Score: 1) by CirclesInSand on Sunday September 07 2014, @12:07AM
No, not an oath: if not the face of men,
The sufferance of our souls, the time's abuse,
If these be motives weak, break off betimes,
And every man hence to his idle bed;
So let high-sighted tyranny range on,
Till each man drop by lottery. But if these,
As I am sure they do, bear fire enough
To kindle cowards and to steel with valour
The melting spirits of women, then, countrymen,
What need we any spur but our own cause,
To prick us to redress? what other bond
Than secret Romans, that have spoke the word,
And will not palter? and what other oath
Than honesty to honesty engaged,
That this shall be, or we will fall for it?
Swear priests and cowards and men cautelous,
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive mettle of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath; when every drop of blood
That every Roman bears, and nobly bears,
Is guilty of a several bastardy,
If he do break the smallest particle
Of any promise that hath pass'd from him.
--Marcus Brutus, Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act 2 Scene 1, William Shakespeare
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @09:45PM
I once served on a jury in Arizona. As I recall, witnesses were called to "swear or affirm" that they would tell the truth. No mention of God was made. You can make of that whatever you will.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:51PM
No one pays attention to that silly "support and defend the Constitution" business any more; why should we be concerned about what any of the other words mean either?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:58PM
I don't get it. If he's an atheist (meaning he rejects the existence of any higher power), then why the fuck does it matter to him? Shrug, laugh it off, be a fucking man and amiably take it for what it is.
Here's a list of things it isn't:
1. A slap in the face
2. A gunshot wound
3. A malfunctioning rudder
4. A broken parachute
5. etc etc IT'S NONE OF THESE THINGS
I think WHOLEHEARTEDLY that this phrase "so help me God" should certainly be left in this oath. Any would-be serviceman who can't get over his/her own fucking ego just signing a contract (a contract, mind you, which has a purpose explicitly of "swearing an oath of service" but happens to include four words that -should be- quite literally ten thousand times less offensive to an atheist than any Microsoft EULA) MOST LIKELY isn't going to be very valuable when it comes time to take an actual order from a superior.
It's nit-picking of a degree that should be unacceptable, and apparently it worked out this time for the best.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:11PM
I don't get it. If four little words don't mean anything, or are insignificant, why is the government willing to fire him over them?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:17PM
It is the same when HR told you some clause in your employment contract "doesn't really mean anything" or "the company really won't do that". Why put any clause in there if the company isn't fully prepared to enforce each and every one of them?
So, yup, anyone who claims those four words isn't important, and yet insist on putting them in, is plainly lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @10:22PM
A couple of decades ago, I began work for an astronomical observatory in southern Arizona. As a condition for employment, I was required to sign a "loyalty oath". When I was presented with this oath to sign, I laughed at the lady who made me sign it; she laughed too. I did sign it but, to this day, I still can't quite figure out what they might have been so afraid I might get up to in my work at the observatory that I should be required to sign an oath affirming my loyalty to the state and federal governments. Now I work for the DoD which requires a security clearance and a signed NDA on file. I don't recall signing any loyalty oath as a prerequisite to employment. Very weird.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @02:45PM
the obvious response to that is "then it'll be no problem to take the clause out out"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @04:54PM
It means something to a religious person. It means nothing to an atheist. Behavior like this treats atheism like just-another-religion, and that is counter-intuitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:34PM
You seem to be under the impression that lying is a characteristic of atheism. Making such an oath is an implicit claim to belief in a god. Just because you don't believe a god is real doesn't mean you should be forced to lie that you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @12:25AM
There's a difference between "I don't believe in it" and "I believe it doesn't exist". The difference between these two philosophies is not subtle
You need to explain it rather than simply assert it.
In particular you need to explain how the difference between hard atheism and soft atheism matters in this context because I say neither one makes the implicit lie any less of a lie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:35AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:51AM
> Your collateral with the vow you're making is your very beliefs.
Ah, I get it. You have your own personal interpretation of how soft atheists define the word "God."
At best it is a "go along to get along" definition and at worst it is straight-up misrepresentation.
Good thing they have you to tell them how to be good little atheists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:02AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:24PM
I know, totally, right?
Stupid self-important atheists refusing to conform!
Who the hell do they think they are?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @05:49PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:30PM
> They're willfully misunderstanding the phrase
You are willfully misunderstanding the phrase, but your herd-mentality gives you the hubris to blame others for your lack of perspective.
> refusing to fulfill a prerequisite of their employment.
Bow down to authority!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:43PM
> You are willfully misunderstanding the phrase, but your herd-mentality gives you the hubris to blame others for your lack of perspective.
You'll notice that, despite all the diversity in the Air Force, this problem only recently came up.
> Bow down to authority!
Heh. Blowing it up to something it isn't then blaming others for their lack of perspective, just after an accusation of the same. Nice little display of hypocrisy, there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:15PM
> You'll notice that, despite all the diversity in the Air Force, this problem only recently came up.
Yes, it only came up recently because the requirement was only made mandatory less than a year ago.
And now that you've established your ignorance of the basic of facts of the case, this is no longer a debate over philosophy, it is simply an argument that is now over because the foundation of your position was false. Sayonara muthafucka!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:33PM
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:55PM
I think you strongly misunderstand atheism. Atheism is a religion. The logical position is agnosticism. So for an atheist to imply a belief in god is for him to violate his religious principles.
Personally I "sort of" believe in lots of "sort of" gods. I'd want to as whether I should make it plural, or which one they meant. I consider all "gods" people believe in to be "real", in the sense of they exist as patterns of information below the conscious level of the mind, and can be activated by being invoked...and occasionally in other, often unpredictable, ways. I don't believe that they engage in some sort of magical causation, but I do believe that they have a strong effect on people's minds, and on how and what they see in the world. And you need to be very careful just which one you get. Sun gods tend to be egocentric and intolerant. Gods of "truth" usually turn out to mean "the official word", i.e. worship of the king or other power structure, but recently many people have attempted to create a god of truth meaning "things that correspond to sensory impressions". I'm not sure how strong that one is, yet, though so I'd be very careful about attempting to invoke it.
Now as to names...the name of a non-observable entity means to the speaker whatever he means by it, and to the hearer whatever he guesses is meant, or, alternatively, whatever he would mean were he to say it. IOW, names of non-observable entities are nearly useless...for most purposes.
So, if you ask an atheist to swear by God, you are essentially asking him to lie, as well as to violate his religious beliefs.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:16PM
...in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:18PM
I think you strongly misunderstand atheism. And agnosticism.
The logical position is agnostic atheism [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @12:28AM
I think he's strongly misunderstood the point of posting in this thread.
I mean who the hell cares what his personal opinion of "sun gods" are, especially in a discussion of atheism.
What a nut.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @01:25PM
Pascal's dilemma. "So help me God" is very meaningful to believers, and so can be expected to increase their compliance with their oath/affirmation. "So help me God" is meaningless to non-believers, but their willingness to accept this simple instruction is representative of their willingness to comply with their oath/affirmation. You certainly don't want a believer who won't ask his god for assistance, and you don't want a non-believer who's going to question every little order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:30PM
> who won't ask his god for assistance, and you don't want a non-believer who's going to question every little order.
Compliance, it is the most important part of citizenship!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:34PM
You do realize that if he shrug and laugh it, then he can do the same for the rest of the statement ? Pointing out that he cannot respect these last 4 words also indicates that he intends to respect every single other word in the contract.
paraphrasing your idiotic statement: I think WHOLEHEARTEDLY that this phrase "so help me God" should certainly be removed in this oath. Any would-be serviceman who can't get over his/her own fucking religion just signing a contract (a contract, mind you, which has a purpose explicitly of "swearing an oath of service" but happens to not include four words that -should be- quite literally ten thousand times less significant to a believer than the Constitution) MOST LIKELY isn't going to be very valuable when it comes time to take an actual order from a superior that isn't God (or a priest).
Joke aside, both statements (yours and me paraprasing) are illogical. Therefore you're either a troll or a religious nutjob. We need neither.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by wbslingr2001 on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:11PM
"I think WHOLEHEARTEDLY that this phrase "so help me God" should certainly be left in this oath. Any would-be serviceman who can't get over his/her own fucking ego just signing a contract (a contract, mind you, which has a purpose explicitly of "swearing an oath of service" but happens to include four words that -should be- quite literally ten thousand times less offensive to an atheist than any Microsoft EULA) MOST LIKELY isn't going to be very valuable when it comes time to take an actual order from a superior."
I have a Major issue with this statement. This is not this man's first enlistment (He has served for 10 years.). in the signing of his first contract, the "So Help Me God." portion of the contract/oath was not required. The Regulation changed in October 2013.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pd [dtic.mil]
This was a big difference from his prior contracts, and he noted it by simply striking out the "offending" portion of the new contract.
The fact that this Airman is an atheist, and likely has been for his entire term of enlistment has absolutely ZERO effect on his ability to follow orders.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fadrian on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:46PM
I don't get it. If he's an atheist (meaning he rejects the existence of any higher power), then why the fuck does it matter to him?
Because he believes in his rights and wants to keep them? It's a creeping acquiescence to arbitrary violations of civil rights that greases the road to tyranny. And, no, I'm not a Libertarian asshat, talking like that, but I do know when they actually get something right and this is one of those situations. And I do know what happens when you let assholes get ANY power that can be used arbitrarily against others. We are a nation of laws or we are nothing. Besides, what's the difference between losing your religious liberties and your right to be safe in your body? It's just a slippery slope from one violation to another - not that the whole bodily violation thing is upheld anymore for many people (ref Guantanamo, Ferguson, etc.).
In short, I see no reason for discrimination based on ones presence or lack of religious convictions. In fact, this young man shows a fuck of a lot more character in standing up for what he's fighting for than some damn asshat moron from the peanut gallery like you who says "Fuck your beliefs. They don't matter. Just take your (now worthless) oath, shut up and do your job. With an attitude like that, just have everyone sign the contract and be done with it, huh? If it doesn't mean anything, it shouldn't matter to us, right?
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:24PM
> Because he believes in his rights and wants to keep them?
what's funny is that you think we actually have rights.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:08PM
So if it's no big deal, why not put Allah akbar in there and make everyone swear to that?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:12PM
he's doing his duty to defend the constitution by ensuring that the first amendment does not get undermined any further than it already has.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:15PM
Is the four words really that big of a deal? It isn't like they're forcing him to attend church or commit to Bible study.
If the "Muh constitution" atheist crowd want public respect, they should probably go after important matters (e.g. the state constitutions that ban them from serving in public office). Not very trivial matters that--yes--violate the US constitution, but are tiny in the grand scheme of things.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:39PM
Well, it isn't like he is forcing anyone to become an atheist either.
It's not tiny matter, it's important, it's about respect of our belief (lack thereof). Just like that oath that kids have to take at school, or witnesses during trials, or the "in God we trust" on every bank note. Add it all these "tiny" things and you get the grand scheme of things: separation of church and state in the US is a joke.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dcollins on Saturday September 06 2014, @04:28PM
Of course, the "it's not a big deal" argument cuts both ways. If it's really not a big deal, then let him cross the words out -- like he could when he first enlisted, up until the rules change last year, per the article.
For what it's worth, this seems like one of the more winnable points in the debate; it's very concrete issue that if it gets before the Supreme Court should be decisively won (in alignment with precedent), and you need the one person to be harmed in order to bring the case. Thus it argues for some winnable momentum in regards other issues. And better now, within the year of the extra-religious rules change, rather than letting it become fossilized in the regulations for posterity.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by High Five on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:45PM
Jesus's word's from very early in the New Testament-
Matthew-5:33 [biblegateway.com]
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:19PM
If he's an atheist what does he have to lose by simply going along with it? Is the boogie man going to get him for forsaking atheism? Another thing: take his wallet and confiscate his cash. Each note says "in god we trust." He doesn't want any money, he just hasn't realized it yet.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:21PM
If I use your logic, whats wrong with the Air Force simply going with his preference of omitting it? He's willing to serve and potentially give up his life in service, all he's asking is that they not make him lie...
Does the Air Force as an entity, like the NSA, Police Departments, etc., etc., have the upper hand over a citizen's constitutional rights?
I'm not American, so that was not a rhetorical question..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @01:22AM
The Air Force, and all armed forces, in practice does have more power over individuals than the constitution allows. Citizens cannot be told to do things that would result in their death. Citizens cannot be punished for not going to church on Sunday (as happens off the record during some training by obligating non-church goers to extra physical training). Citizens also do not enjoy some privileges and support that service members do. Functionally, being in the US military is unofficially a higher class of citizen and not a citizen at all.