RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath

[Korouse]

Ha. I'm sure that line would go over well if the Air Force made Christians finish their oaths with "Hail Satan!"

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

and did not offend a Christian*

[Laerod]

Ha. I'm sure that line would go over well if the Air Force made Christians finish their oaths with "Hail Satan!"

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same :)

You do realize this means that your viewpoint is different, right?

[Korouse]

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

You do realize this means that your viewpoint is different, right?

What do you mean? I meant my opinion of it would be the same, I.E. why are you complaining.

[Laerod]

You do realize this means that your viewpoint is different, right?

What do you mean? I meant my opinion of it would be the same, I.E. why are you complaining.

No man, what do you mean?

[Condunum]

Ha. I'm sure that line would go over well if the Air Force made Christians finish their oaths with "Hail Satan!"

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

This is the epitome of naive innocence. When a story like this breaks, you shouldn't consider the situation that brings that story unique. I can guarantee you this has been a silent gripe of any number of airmen. The fact that someone spoke up about it just means someone cared enough, because caring is not do or do not.

[Neutraligon]

Mhm.

Because the Air Force saw this and were so impressed they changed it, not because of political correctness.

just to reiterate this, it's a couple of sentences.

You mean the AF contacted the DoD legal arm who told them it violated the Constitution for those words to be non-optional and to revert it to being optional.

And It isn't even a few sentences, it is one phrase. That does not mean it is unimportant.

[Tekania]

Ha. I'm sure that line would go over well if the Air Force made Christians finish their oaths with "Hail Satan!"

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

Ummmm. this isn't a long established thing. The swearing to God portion of the oath had been optional in the USAF enlistment oath prior to changing in procedure made in 2013 (October of 2013 at that... it's was not even a year old policy yet) by the USAF, just as it has been in other branches for decades and decades. Mandating that one swear to God is the "new thing" here, where it had been optional before. So you just pretty much shot your own argument with this. The USAF policy has just been changed BACK to what it was before 2013.... making it optional again.

[Condunum]

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

Ummmm. this isn't a long established thing. The swearing to God portion of the oath had been optional in the USAF enlistment oath prior to changing in procedure made in 2013 by the USAF, just as it has been in other branches for decades and decades. Mandating that one swear to God is the "new thing" here, where it had been optional before. So you just pretty much shot your own argument with this. The USAF policy has just been changed BACK to what it was before 2013.... making it optional again.

IIRC the USAF required the religious oath prior to 2011.

Edit: Yeah the USAF does dumb stuff

[Dyakovo]

I hope arguing over a few sentences was worth it guys!

Fighting constitutional violations is always worth it.

[Dyakovo]

Seems to be worth it, considering USAF policy is now in line with the rest of the DoD branches and the Airman can now re-enlist without swearing to God.

Mhm.

Because the Air Force saw this and were so impressed they changed it, not because of political correctness.

just to reiterate this, it's a couple of sentences.

Obeying the constitution isn't "political correctness".

[Dyakovo]

Ha. I'm sure that line would go over well if the Air Force made Christians finish their oaths with "Hail Satan!"

Well if "Hail Satan" was apart of the U.S. Military Oath, and did not offend Christians until now, my viewpoint would be the same

Ah, so there's the problem. You have no idea what this discussion is about.

[Tekania]

Ummmm. this isn't a long established thing. The swearing to God portion of the oath had been optional in the USAF enlistment oath prior to changing in procedure made in 2013 by the USAF, just as it has been in other branches for decades and decades. Mandating that one swear to God is the "new thing" here, where it had been optional before. So you just pretty much shot your own argument with this. The USAF policy has just been changed BACK to what it was before 2013.... making it optional again.

IIRC the USAF required the religious oath prior to 2011.

Edit: Yeah the USAF does dumb stuff

IT should be noted that nothing really new was created in AFI36-2606 under its May9th, 2011 changes... other than the specific oath was printed into the publication (and then later edited to remove the section noting the optionality under the October 2013 revision of the instruction), simply prior to the May November 2011 publication of 36-2602 the oath or its specifics were not printed at all...... and given that in at least as far back as the 1998 publication of AFI36-2006 the USAF categorized the oath as one of a public trust.... thus placing it under the constitutional prohibition of religious tests in Article 6 of the US Constitution, something the DoD branches in general have been aware of for decades and decades, it has been an optional component for some time by those taking the oaths to omit.

[Dyakovo]

IIRC the USAF required the religious oath prior to 2011.

Edit: Yeah the USAF does dumb stuff

IT should be noted that nothing really new was created in AFI36-2606 under its May9th, 2011 changes... other than the specific oath was printed into the publication (and then later edited to remove the section noting the optionality under the October 2013 revision of the instruction), simply prior to the May November 2011 publication of 36-2602 the oath or its specifics were not printed at all...... and given that in at least as far back as the 1998 publication of AFI36-2006 the USAF categorized the oath as one of a public trust.... thus placing it under the constitutional prohibition of religious tests in Article 6 of the US Constitution, something the DoD branches in general have been aware of for decades and decades, it has been an optional component for some time by those taking the oaths to omit.

Indeed. I omitted the "God" part when I enlisted in '87.

[Tekania]

IT should be noted that nothing really new was created in AFI36-2606 under its May9th, 2011 changes... other than the specific oath was printed into the publication (and then later edited to remove the section noting the optionality under the October 2013 revision of the instruction), simply prior to the May November 2011 publication of 36-2602 the oath or its specifics were not printed at all...... and given that in at least as far back as the 1998 publication of AFI36-2006 the USAF categorized the oath as one of a public trust.... thus placing it under the constitutional prohibition of religious tests in Article 6 of the US Constitution, something the DoD branches in general have been aware of for decades and decades, it has been an optional component for some time by those taking the oaths to omit.

Indeed. I omitted the "God" part when I enlisted in '87.

No doubt.... we had more sense back then. Hell, some people omit the God portion because of their particular faith in God. None of this is anything new or novel.

No shock though the USAF wrestling with this kind of stuff, given the USAFA is parked in Fundamnetalist-Central.

[Geilinor]

I hope arguing over a few sentences was worth it guys!

I hope wasting your time posting here was worth it.

[Tekania]

I hope arguing over a few sentences was worth it guys!

I hope wasting your time posting here was worth it.

Indeed, how dare we say thing that indeed turn out to be right. He didn't want to play wit the ball anymore anyway!

[Freiheit Reich]

Stop making a stand and say God's name. He is making a big stink over the fact he just has to endure 2 seconds of mental pain. I would say the words because they are meaningless to me.

In the military, enlisted men are paid to do, not think. Officers are paid to think. That is a reason I had low respect for my job in the military and got out. He wants to reenlist so he should understand by now his role is to obey orders, even when they are stupid. Say the words and stop being a baby!

In the military you're taught not to follow illegal orders (Which being told he has to recite the oath with the "God" part is), so no, you aren't taught to not think.
In addition, why would you want soldiers who would swear a false oath?

Yes, we are taught not to obey illegal orders but saying a few words is far different from a Mai Lai massacre. Besides, stating an oath that has been around several years is not considered an illegal order.

You pick your battles. I never said I want soldiers to swear a false oath. The airman is wrong and being disrespectful to God. If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

[Fartsniffage]

In the military you're taught not to follow illegal orders (Which being told he has to recite the oath with the "God" part is), so no, you aren't taught to not think.
In addition, why would you want soldiers who would swear a false oath?

Yes, we are taught not to obey illegal orders but saying a few words is far different from a Mai Lai massacre. Besides, stating an oath that has been around several years is not considered an illegal order.

You pick your battles. I never said I want soldiers to swear a false oath. The airman is wrong and being disrespectful to God. If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

You mean that you should pick battle that you can win? I agree. The airman won.

He picked his battle perfectly.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, we are taught not to obey illegal orders but saying a few words is far different from a Mai Lai massacre. Besides, stating an oath that has been around several years is not considered an illegal order.

You pick your battles. I never said I want soldiers to swear a false oath. The airman is wrong and being disrespectful to God. If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

You mean that you should pick battle that you can win? I agree. The airman won.

He picked his battle perfectly.

It's hilarious how much he lives in his own little universe. I mean, he literally said that this wasn't illegal, and yet the edited thread title itself is more than enough to tell him that yes, it actually WAS illegal.

The persistence he has when it comes to ignoring facts and just plain reality in general is mind boggling sometimes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

In the military you're taught not to follow illegal orders (Which being told he has to recite the oath with the "God" part is), so no, you aren't taught to not think.
In addition, why would you want soldiers who would swear a false oath?

Yes, we are taught not to obey illegal orders but saying a few words is far different from a Mai Lai massacre. Besides, stating an oath that has been around several years is not considered an illegal order.

You pick your battles. I never said I want soldiers to swear a false oath. The airman is wrong and being disrespectful to God. If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

You can only reasonably defend one of these statements. Choose wisely.

[Freiheit Reich]

You say it so you can keep your job. I said things I didn't believe all the time in the military to fit in and keep the superiors happy. Including motivational chants like 'guts, guts, guts, makes the green grass green.' Just say the words, I am sure he has said things he doesn't mean before such as 'no honey, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all' or 'I can run to Texas just like this....all by myself.' Do you really think he meant those things also??

You were clearly never in the military.

Oh, why do you say that? We said the guts chant in basic training (not after that though). I just thought of it as a light form of brainwashing at the time but it was also meant to motivate people. It was said during bayonet training.

'I can run to Texas just like this, all by myself, all the way to Houston and never quit'' was sang during runs. It was one of the easier cadences, you could simply change the state and city (or fort) as you want. I guess you could technically do this if there is no time limit. The 'Honey, you don't look fat' comment is common among men married to overweight women. Even if the airman never said this phrase, I am sure he said things he didn't believe. Ex. 'How is the food?' 'The food is great' (without meaning it).

If he has lied before, than he can say a few words about a God he doesn't believe exists.

[Freiheit Reich]

Yes, we are taught not to obey illegal orders but saying a few words is far different from a Mai Lai massacre. Besides, stating an oath that has been around several years is not considered an illegal order.

You pick your battles. I never said I want soldiers to swear a false oath. The airman is wrong and being disrespectful to God. If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

You can only reasonably defend one of these statements. Choose wisely.

The airman is wrong because God exists and he needs to respect God's power. Being anti-God is not cool or hip (as the airman and many other atheists seem to believe). He will find out the truth in a few years on Judgment Day. Apparently, the fact he is alive and the sun rises and falls every day is not proof enough for this gentleman.

[Dyakovo]

You can only reasonably defend one of these statements. Choose wisely.

The airman is wrong because God exists_{[citation needed]} and he needs to respect God's power_{[citation needed]}. Being anti-God is not cool or hip (as the airman and many other atheists seem to believe)¹. He will find out the truth in a few years on Judgment Day. ² Apparently, the fact he is alive and the sun rises and falls every day is not proof enough for this gentleman³.

1: Being an atheist is no more about being cool or hip than being a theist is about being cool or hip..Also, neither refusing to swear a false oath nor acting to uphold the constitution is being "anti-god".
2: Unlikely.
3: Neither being alive nor the earth orbiting the sun are evidence of "God".

[Washington Resistance Army]

You can only reasonably defend one of these statements. Choose wisely.

The airman is wrong because God exists and he needs to respect God's power. Being anti-God is not cool or hip (as the airman and many other atheists seem to believe). He will find out the truth in a few years on Judgment Day. Apparently, the fact he is alive and the sun rises and falls every day is not proof enough for this gentleman.

I'm guessing you have evidence for all these claims?

[The Rich Port]

Which the Air Force summarily changed when confronted with the reality of their violation of the Separation Clause.

Actually, the separation clause does not apply to anyone but Congress.

You do realize the Constitution applies to everyone, not just Congress, it being "the supreme law of the land"?

In fact, your own terrible interpretation fails you. It doesn't specify which Congress; a congress could be any collection of legislative officials voting on laws.

It could be all state Congresses as well.