Air Force denying re-enlistment to an Airman refusing to say religious clause

[Майор Хаткевич]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/08/u-s-air-force-swear-to-god-or-get-out.html


Always an interesting issue that arises.


Just last week we had a SM promotion, and the SM stumbled on the "So help me god" line, taking a pause and saying "I affirm the same", which I though made it a bit awkward, but he did a very good job recovering from it.


I don't even care what his reason was for NOT saying - atheist, or religious and following rules of not overusing the words, whatever.


I know we've re-hashed the pledge of allegiance before, and have quite a range of views, but it does baffle me that organizations that push for honestly and integrity would force someone to break both by swearing to something they either don't believe in, or choose to keep private.


Edit: best quote I saw:

AF1
I retired from the Air Force last year. During that time there was a Christian invocation at nearly every unit event I attended. At some point, years ago, I stopped bowing my head. I would still stand, but I'd look around and wave or nod to the other heathens. I also choose the 'affirm' for oaths I took.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, whatever.

Or people could just "go with it" and move on.

If your belief is "nothing" then you are affirming nothing and there's no integrity issue.

I get it, atheists are "attacked" from all sides by religion, separation of church and state, blah, blah.  I just have no
energy to care.

It comes from within the religious community as well - chaplains who insist on invoking terminology
specific to their religion in mixed groups, etc.

I guess I am just "tired" in general, religion or religious "discussion" seems to be the basis for most of the pain, war, and general PITA
in the universe, and most of it is separate from the actual belief systems of those making the noise.

Being "right" isn't enough, you have to make sure everyone knows you're "right" and that
no one tries to infer you might accidentally be seen as not being "right".

Tired, tired, tired.

Edit: actually RTFM'ed.   Yeah it's weird this is still an issue.

[Майор Хаткевич]

While I agree, to an extent, it is certainly an issue of integrity. WIWA Leadership Officer, we said the PoA every meeting. My role was to call room to attention, lead the unit in reciting it, and then the Chaplain did his thing. Because I had to lead the PoA, I said the words. But every time I had a mental thought about it, and it simply didn't leave a good feeling. I don't care what people believe. Doesn't impact me unless they make policy based on it. But to say an Oath with something I don't believe in makes it empty at best, and untruthful at worst. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Some atheists wear it on their sleeve just as much as religious people do.

A former friend of mine is now a VERY outspoken atheist...I haven't seen him in a long time but his Facebook page is covered with banners leading to atheistic web sites.

He also flaunts his supposedly "superior intelligence."

I don't get involved in pissing contests like that.  I know what my religious beliefs are, I am proud of them - but I don't shove them down every throat I can find.

I know that there have been proposals to get "atheist/agnostic/humanist chaplains" in the military...I don't know how that has turned out.

[SamFranklin]

Yeah, whatever.

Or people could just "go with it" and move on.

If your belief is "nothing" then you are affirming nothing and there's no integrity issue.

Just the opposite. There is an integrity issue because the non-theist has made a promise based on a false pretense (that a god holds him accountable for his statement).

A coerced theistic oath is bad news for theists and non-theists alike. We all want to know that what an officer / juror / elected official is professing represents that individual's personal commitment no holds barred. How can I trust a non-theist officer when she is making a promise to someone she believes doesn't exist? I'd like more certainty than that. And so it's in the public interest, liberty claims aside, to allow non-theists to "affirm" their statements instead of disingenuously "swear" to them.

Wasn't this issue settled sixty years ago with compulsory school prayer? And more recently with public prayers at graduation ceremonies involving "captive" audiences?

[Майор Хаткевич]

No. We've got moments of silence now. Clearly different from prayer.

[Panache]

The Air Force has allegedly refused to allow a service member to reenlist, because he refused to use the phrase "so help me God" in his oath, the American Humanist Association asserts.

According to the group, which has come to the defense of the unnamed airman—as Air Force troops are known—commanders told the service member on Aug. 25 that he must use the religious language in his reenlistment contract or leave the military.

Emphasis mine.

So, we have a militant atheist organization making a stink over the fact that an anonymous person has allegedly been refused enlistment because he refused to utter "so help me God."

Color me skeptical.

I suspect that the truth of the matter is significantly different than what is presented here, assuming it happened at all and it's not just a case of the American Humanist Association trying to get their name in the news.

[PHall]

The Air Force has allegedly refused to allow a service member to reenlist, because he refused to use the phrase "so help me God" in his oath, the American Humanist Association asserts.

According to the group, which has come to the defense of the unnamed airman—as Air Force troops are known—commanders told the service member on Aug. 25 that he must use the religious language in his reenlistment contract or leave the military.

Emphasis mine.

So, we have a militant atheist organization making a stink over the fact that an anonymous person has allegedly been refused enlistment because he refused to utter "so help me God."

Color me skeptical.

I suspect that the truth of the matter is significantly different than what is presented here, assuming it happened at all and it's not just a case of the American Humanist Association trying to get their name in the news.

Yeah, this doesn't pass the smell test with me.

Might be time to check Snopes on this one.

[lordmonar]

I'm gonna call BS on this one too.

I'm an atheist and retired Air Force, and this just does not smell right.

I can't see anyone in the USAF sticking their neck out on this one, not in today's climate.

The ACLU would be all over it in 20 seconds.

[LSThiker]

Color me skeptical.

I suspect that the truth of the matter is significantly different than what is presented here, assuming it happened at all and it's not just a case of the American Humanist Association trying to get their name in the news.

Regardless of whether this happened or not, this does not exactly help the USAF:

"Reciting 'So help me God' in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502," Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Thursday. 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.' "  The Air Force said it cannot change its AFI to make "so help me God" optional unless Congress changes the statute mandating it.

Especially since apparently the Army can omit the words without a Congressional change:

Oath of enlistment/reenlistment. Verify with soldier to determine if he or she prefers to "swear" or "affirm." The
phrase, "so help me God" may be deleted for soldiers electing to "affirm." For soldiers electing to "affirm," prepare a
3- by 5-inch card, editing the oath, for use by the administering officer.

[SarDragon]

10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Emphasis mine.

So, they added "(or affirm)" back WIWOAD to get rid of one problem, and then they add this other thing back in. Makes no sense at all.

[PHall]

10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Emphasis mine.

So, they added "(or affirm)" back WIWOAD to get rid of one problem, and then they add this other thing back in. Makes no sense at all.

It's congress, you expected logic?

[LSThiker]

Emphasis mine.

So, they added "(or affirm)" back WIWOAD to get rid of one problem, and then they add this other thing back in. Makes no sense at all.

Albeit not the Oath of Enlistment, but for Oaths of Judges, Clerks, Deputies, etc, this was added:

The last sentence of section 512 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., reading "The words 'So help me God.' shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath," was omitted as unnecessary because on affirmation such words would not be included. As revised, the section conforms with section 453 of this title

Although a little convoluted in how it is stated, but essentially they removed the requirement of omitting "So help me God" because an affirmation by its own nature does not require those words.  Therefore, if a Service Member affirms, US law requires the words "So help me God" be removed.  Basically, someone in the USAF, if such statement is true, has an axe to grind and did not take legal advice. 

[Flying Pig]

This is such a non-issue.... For over a decade or more courts haven't even required people to swear to God when swearing in to testify. 

[MHC5096]

The same applies for the oath of office for federal employees and the oath of allegiance that we require new citizens to take. The "So help me God." part is regularly omitted due to affirmation.

[Flying Pig]

Im a Christian, but my thought is that if you believe in God and that means something to you, then say it.  If it doesn't mean anything to you do an affirmation or whatever it is and that means something, then do that.   When I swore in to the military there was a whoooooole bunch of us in a room.  When I said "So help me God"  Im sure there were a number of us who had different images flash into our minds about who we were talking about.  And Im sure there were a few who chuckled and thought about santa claus. That was in 1992.  Im not sure what the regs were then, but I seriously doubt that saying you didnt believe in God would have kept you out of the military. 

[raivo]

I can confirm (secondhand, anyways) that it did actually happen, and that the news reports on it are pretty accurate.

Curiously, it appears that the change to the AFI (and the AF's sudden insistence that the oath had to be given exactly as written in 10 USC) took place right after a very similar incident last year where an OTS trainee was told they could not commission unless they said "so help me God."

Coincidence?

[JeffDG]

For a pretty good legal discussion of the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/08/should-atheists-who-refuse-to-say-so-help-me-god-be-excluded-from-the-air-force/