Atheist airman must swear 'so help me God' or get out in November

An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada has until November to change his mind and swear a reenlistment oath to God, the Air Force said.

The unnamed airman was denied reenlistment Aug. 25 for refusing to take an oath that concludes with the phrase “so help me God,” the American Humanist Association said in a Sept. 2 letter to the inspectors general for the Air Force and Creech. In her letter, Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, said the airman should be given the choice to reenlist by swearing a secular oath. She said the AHA will sue if the airman is not allowed to reenlist.

In a Sept. 5 email, Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said the airman is still serving and will continue to do so for at least two more months.

“The airman’s term of service expires in November 2014,” Richeson said. “He has until this time to complete the Department of Defense Form 4 in compliance with the Title 10 USC 502.”

The four-page DD Form 4, which is titled “Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States,” contains a “confirmation of enlistment or reenlistment” oath that reads, “I, [insert name], 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.”

The AHA said the airman crossed out the last four words in that oath, and was told Aug. 25 that the Air Force would not accept it for that reason. The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.

The AHA said that is unconstitutional and unacceptable and that Article VI of the Constitution prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.

The Air Force used to allow airmen to omit the phrase “so help me God” if they so chose. But an Oct. 30, 2013, update to Air Force Instruction 36-2606, which spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, dropped that option. Since that quiet update to the AFI, airmen have been required to swear an oath to a deity when they enlist or reenlist.

The Air Force said last week that the change was made to bring its oath in line with the statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502. The Air Force said it cannot change its AFI to make “so help me God” optional unless Congress changes the statute mandating the oath.

Air Force Times is still awaiting more information from the Air Force on the change to the rule.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...ear-help-me-God-get-out-November?sf30886492=1



Now, it's true that servicemen and women do not have the full legal protections of the Constitution afforded to civilians, but to my knowledge nowhere does the UCMJ allow religious tests either. Seems pretty open and shut.

Ignore the inevitable flashy trollbait.

Pretty much. Swearing to a deity is of one's own convictions; upholding the Constitution and supporting the President, not so much.

FFS, we got the gays serving openly, but we shove the athiests into those same closets?

Absolutely disgusting. Out and out persecution. No other word for it.

Having said that, if it were me I probably would have just said the oath as I regard the words as meaningless, particularly as the very act of voluntarily signing up signals an individual's intent to serve and defend their nation. But credit to the guy for standing up against inequality.

Demanding displays of piety only creates hypocrites.

You'll love God or else!

This is just stupid, attention whoring and agenda pushing.

I'm surprised it's still in the oath actually given how in the last few years the military has gone after religion.

And is being an Airman in the Air Force a "holding office or public trust"? I don't think that really applies to enlisted men or the military as much as it does political figures.

But still they should just toss it.

I am Wiccan. Wicca is recognized by the U.S. Military. If I joined up, I could have it stamped on my dog tags, use the chapel for Wicca-related things, and whatever else the military allows religion-wise. If I made the above oath, I could be thinking of pretty much any god I want at the end there. Odin, Aphrodite, Lord Ao, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Tom Jones... Sometimes people manage to get the word "Atheist" stamped on their dog tags, but it's a pain in the ass. usually they just say "NO REL PREF," which is different.

Wicca is at least 11 times more batshit insane than any atheist could ever hope to be. I believe I can cast magic fucking spells, and the military is more willing to trust me than some dude who thinks all the god nonsense is a little far-fetched.

Even more... whatever, is that I'm essentially an Atheist. My belief in God is little more than a philosophical point, has no affect on anything outside my own mind, and has very little effect on things inside it. The only practical difference between me and an atheist is that I sometimes play with candles and incense when I really need to focus on something, and when asked "Do you believe in God?" I make a bunch of vague quasi-philosophical statements instead of a simple "no."

I don't remember what point I was trying to make here, but I definitely made it.

You can't trust atheists. They are more likely to steal nukes and blow them up.

And the Air Force only wants Wiccans in case shit gets real and spells start happening. It's got a ready made force of spell casters.

Or the man has principles. Crazy, I know. Just like I would be against the government forcing a Christian to deny Jesus, I'm against the government forcing an atheist to believe in God, even if it's only for useless administrative purposes.

He may or may not have principles...the raging idiots who are using him as their current rallying cry are exactly as stated.

If he is an atheist, repeating the oath is just meaningless words, not really the same as a believer denying god.

Finally...

Most of the military is mired in antiquated traditions, he's going to have deal with them sooner or later, and playing martyr with an agenda isn't going to work.

Hell, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he wants out, and his excuse got out of control.

Sorry, pretty much all of the these oppressed atheist stories stink of political agendas and faux principles.

They should follow the model set by the courts in England. When someone gives evidence the tradition was to "swear by almighty God" on the bible. Now if you are of another religion you can substitute it accordingly, so Jews swear on the Old Testament, Muslims on the Koran and so on. In turn, Athtiests are permitted to "solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm" rather than swear by God, and that seems to me to be an incredibly simple solution that the US military would do well to implement.

This should be an extremely clear-cut case. There's no way anyone should have to swear (which means you really believe what you are saying) to God if he or she doesn't believe in God.

I am part of a very religious scout movement here in France, and "with the help of God" is part of our scout oath. Yet even we tell the kids very clearly that those who don't believe in God, or don't want God involved in their lives, are quite welcome to leave out those words. We state very explicitly that what you believe where religious values are concerned has no bearing on what you can do as a scout.

If we, as a religious organization, take a stand like that, then a secular structure such as the military should do it even moreso. I find it completely mystifying that, in our day and age, those words are still required. And there's no way they will hold up in court.

Our courts allow this as well. I don't think it a coincidence that they were allowing people to omit it, but when Force Reduction came into play it gone thrown out the window.

I don't see the connection?

Force Reduction means they are looking for reasons to kick people out.

But surely that would give rise to a legitimate legal case against the Army?

It might but I'm guessing the people in charge don't really care, since in all likelihood the people affected by it will be separated and that will be that.

That is complete and utter bullshit. My view of my morality and my identity is not irrelevant to my oaths, just because they don't happen to be the same as those of a monotheist.

However, I would assume that any honest religious person would be even more outraged than any atheist at the idea that atheists are encouraged to take the supposed Lord's name in the most extreme form of vain you could imagine. Jesus recommended that even believers should not swear by God, both because it's overreach and because it detracts from their personal honesty. Now Christians want nonbelievers to reach even farther and completely throw honesty out the window while swearing an oath?

Then there's that whole "integrity first" thing...

Yeah, as if an atheist could want their word to mean something.

I will happily attend church, bow my head in prayer, even sing along to some hymns. However I'll never say anything along with a prayer or vow that I don't believe, because to do so is to be dishonest with my words, and even worse, to diminish the significance of those I know who do believe and say those words with meaning.

We have a winner! The military does not care if you the individual stay in or get out. There's always somebody to take your place.
And Force Reduction means standards and rules change.
And standards and rules don't have to make sense or have any real meaning, they just have to be followed (or circumvented if possible).

The military doesn't have to go so far as England for an answer, our courts use the same set of options.

As a retired military member I have learned this - we don't have to follow The Constitution, we just have to defend it.
Damn am I a profound wordsmith or what?

Defend something you do not wish to live by? That makes sense....

Sure - I'd defend gay lifestyles, but I don't live by them.

And? By definition, an "atheist" doesn't believe in God--any god. So why should he care if he's asked to swear to him? Shit, ask me to swear to Santa Claus. Or Spiderman. Or Captain Kirk. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Now if he were a Satanist, then he'd have a valid point. But what is the harm in making a promise on an imaginary thing?