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

The airman has to ask himself one question and one question only: "do I want to keep getting a paycheck?" It's that simple.
Say the words, get paid. Don't say them, pound sand and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
That young man's father needs to tell him to straighten up and fly right.
HA! Funny because he's in......well you know.

BTW you stole that last part from Obama's State Of The Union Address!

If I'm ever a father I'd hope to teach a son that his word is something to stand by.

Your inability to answer my questions is noted. Here they are again, just in case you missed it:

So, before you ask me about Santa Claus, let's get these earlier questions out of the way.

Are you pretending to leave for the 50th time?

This is very much the case. The Air Force Academy in particular, where the officer corps is primarily drawn from, has been well known for harassing and failing to advance and fairly judge cadets who don't fall into line religiously.

^I don't see why they bother.

I would like to think I'm a Christian and I think everyone should be.

But forcing someone to take an oath won't make them a Christian anymore than forcing someone to turn toward the East daily and pray will make them a Muslim.

No, but I do wonder how you tie your shoes every day without having a stroke.

Drama queen much?

You and I both know it's not about this guys honor and "corrupting the integrity of their oath"

So why don't we just dispense with the bullshit?

Were you saying something LJC?

It is something to stand by. There is "your word" as in person-to-person dealings, then there is doing things your employer demands. Big, big difference here.
If he ever let somebody down or ratted out a friend or other weasly shit I'd be disappointed. So far he has proven himself to be a stand-up guy.
I'm not a religious man, but if I were I'd say I have been doubly blessed by having two great children. And of course my awesome kitties.

When you say "you and I both know" it is wise to make sure you actually know.

We both know no such thing, unless you know details of the case that you aren't sharing with the rest of us?

You're assuming it's about that. In this particular case, maybe the individual involved is just trying to stir up shit, we don't know so the best thing to do is take it on face value. You definitely seem to have a bias though, since the accusations you make against this member of the Air Force seem to extend to others who have said they wouldn't want to swear an oath they don't believe in.

I don't get why several people in this thread can't possibly understand that someone stands on their convictions because they believe in them. Again, forcing someone to swear an oath and allegiance to a god, or gods, they don't believe in is wrong.

I don't believe in a heaven or a hell. I don't believe in a governing karmic force that will somehow equalize things one day. I am a free agent, so my words and my actions are what binds me. They're what gives me respect, authority, and trust. If I make an oath, I have to believe in what I'm saying, or the oath is invalid. To Volpone and Archangel, they may just be words to muddle through; empty promises to get what they want, but I don't work that way, and it's possible that this guy doesn't work that way either. He has sworn to serve his country, not to serve one man's idea of a god, and in a country that has a secular government, to require him to do so is outright bullshit.

"You can't possibly have a moral code without objective morals from a cosmic lawgiver! ".

Maybe...just maybe I would give the "convictions" argument to the airmen.

All his sudden new friends using him for their agenda...not a chance.

You use "agenda" like it's a bad thing when, in truth, it depends upon the agenda. If the agenda is to cheat or hurt a person or group of people, then yes, that's wrong. If, on the other hand, the agenda is to remove a statute or law that coerces people into breaching their rights, then it is a worthy agenda to have. Having an agenda doesn't make a group wrong. It's like the word "quality." Alone, it describes nothing. It requires a point of view to make it have value, and that value can be positive or negative.

What agenda would that be?

Liberty and freedom in action I see.

Nothing you'd be likely to grasp. No.

Yeah, that's probably true.

I don't speak retard.

I sure didn't. And do you want to know why? It's because I don't believe in Santa Claus.

The last thing I wanted was to have to explain to my kids, once they were a bit older, why I lied to them, and have them wondering how much else of what adults told them in all seriousness was lies that the adults didn't believe themselves. And I sure didn't want them to believe that lying is acceptable, either.

I bet you were a fun dad...

Or English either, apparently.

It's so cute that I have a little fan...

Fan?!?

And with this, Dayton proves himself to be quite a bit more intelligent than Volpone or Archangel.

Agree it may be morally wrong, but not legally wrong. The two are rarely in synch. I'll put it this way - every single commie rat rotting (rightfully) in prison today convicted of domestic espionage in this country took this oath at one time. The oath is words....just "mouth sounds" parroted back. A foreigner speaking no English could memorize the sounds phonetically and repeat the oath not knowing what they are saying at all.

Aha! The oath has no meaning to deceitful liars, so it should have no meaning to all, that explains so much.

There are plenty of times when pledges are legally binding.

When I became an Australian citizen there was plenty of paper beforehand, but the thing which completed the process was attending a ceremony and reciting the oath.

You can have all the paperwork complete, but until you speak the oath it doesn't legally count.