NationStates

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:42 pm**

Ainin wrote:
Talanzaar wrote:Why is it such a big deal? Was he really that offended by 4 words? Really? Truly? Why doesn't he just say them, doesn't mean that they mean anything to him.

Then I presume you would take no offence if a Christian was forced to say "allahu akbar" in order to gain US citizenship?

Ok , everyone, don't hound me. I could understand why this guy would like to see that part of the oath taken away, he doesn't want to swear onto them. But if I were him I would just be over with the meaningless oath and get on to work. But thats my opinion and I support fairness.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:48 pm**

Talanzaar wrote:
Ainin wrote:Then I presume you would take no offence if a Christian was forced to say "allahu akbar" in order to gain US citizenship?

Ok , everyone, don't hound me. I could understand why this guy would like to see that part of the oath taken away, he doesn't want to swear onto them. But if I were him I would just be over with the meaningless oath and get on to work. But thats my opinion and I support fairness.

Why? He has someone representing his legal rights, and is EAOS was not till November. Time to bring challenge and get it fixed.... as it has been, and still be able to re-enlist.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:50 pm**

Tekania wrote:
Talanzaar wrote:
Ok , everyone, don't hound me. I could understand why this guy would like to see that part of the oath taken away, he doesn't want to swear onto them. But if I were him I would just be over with the meaningless oath and get on to work. But thats my opinion and I support fairness.

Why? He has someone representing his legal rights, and is EAOS was not till November. Time to bring challenge and get it fixed.... as it has been, and still be able to re-enlist.

He should go ahead and do it then

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:51 pm**

Talanzaar wrote:
Tekania wrote:
Why? He has someone representing his legal rights, and is EAOS was not till November. Time to bring challenge and get it fixed.... as it has been, and still be able to re-enlist.

He should go ahead and do it then

He likely will now that he can take the oath without swearing it to God.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:51 pm**

Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:53 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

Incorrect. Article VI, paragraph 3.... United States Constitution.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:02 pm**

Talanzaar wrote:
Ainin wrote:Then I presume you would take no offence if a Christian was forced to say "allahu akbar" in order to gain US citizenship?

Ok , everyone, don't hound me. I could understand why this guy would like to see that part of the oath taken away, he doesn't want to swear onto them. But if I were him I would just be over with the meaningless oath and get on to work. But thats my opinion and I support fairness.

The oath isn't meaningless.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:04 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

"I am angry because we WASPs only control most of the power and not all of it anymore. Filthy heathens." - You, just now

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:10 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

Secular Theocracy? Do you even know what those words mean m8?

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:27 pm**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

Secular Theocracy? Do you even know what those words mean m8?

Considering he doesn't seem to show knowledge of Earth in general, I'm going to guess no.

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:48 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

A Secular Humanist Theocracy?

Isn't that a bit like having one's hair color be bald?

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:48 pm**

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

A Secular Humanist Theocracy?

Isn't that a bit like having one's hair color be bald?

Surprisingly enough.... no. Bald as a hair color makes more sense.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:05 pm**

Dyakovo wrote:
Tekania wrote:
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.

And look how you turned out

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Dyakovo wrote: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.

Yes, that's why this airman simply raised an objection which was given due legal consideration, whereas the appropriate response to the Mỹ Lai massacre would have been to shoot dead those responsible in defence of the civilians they were raping and murdering.

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.

So fucking what? He's an airman, not a priest, he can disrespect God if he wants.

If he doesn't believe in God, he should say the words anyways. Pick your battles.

You're aware that this airman won this particular "battle" yes?

Fartsniffage wrote:
Freiheit Reich wrote:
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.

More than won, he won easily.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

A Secular Humanist Theocracy?

Isn't that a bit like having one's hair color be bald?

Anything is possibly through the power of Ken Ham.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:20 pm**

The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:21 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

What a load of sweaty bollocks.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:27 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Where, exactly, is "God" mentioned in the Constitution? Besides, in order to have "made america a thing," one would have to exist, which is debatable.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:30 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:37 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Ummmmm, the closest thing to God mentioned in the United States Constituion is the sole reference at the end of the main body relating to the signing, of the date in refering to the "year of our Lord".

That being said, I really fail to see how he is being disrespectful to Christian beliefs in not wanting to personally swear an oath to God, something which is NOT legal to compel in context of the 3rd paragraph of Article VI. Indeed, swearing an oath to God would not be acceptable to some Christians either, for religious reasons. This Airman isn't insulting people, if you want to see an insulting person I'd suggest you look in a mirror.

The airforce policy that caused this issue was one created in an October 2013 change of the USAF regulations in AFI36-2606. The change now implemented reverts it back to make it acceptable for those taking the oath to affirm the oath rather than swearing it to God. Something which has been optional as part of the oath for decades upon decades, and which even after the USAF change in 2013 remained and is still optional in all the other service branches. Seriously, when I took my own oath in 1991 I affirmed it rather than swearing to God..... same with Dya when he did his in '87...... none of this is new, and the omission is NOT an insult in any shape or form.... REQUIRING it would be an insult.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:49 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs.

No, he's not, or at least there's nothing in the story that shows that he is. He simply does not want to swear to a God that he doesn't believe in. He's not trying to keep anyone else from doing so if they wish to.

It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years.

Interestingly, a Muslim could take that oath, since Allah and God are synonymous in that religion.

It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution,

Where?

the god that is considered to have made america a thing,

By believers. Not disbelievers.

the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name

I don't think that God is so hypersensitive as to think that a refusal to swear by his name is the equivalent of stomping on it. Why do those who claim the greatest faith always seem to assume that God has the emotional maturity of a five year old?
'

and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers

.

See previous answer.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence

.

Again, refusal to follow a belief is not the same thing as insulting that belief.

This guy is a total troll

Hey, pot, do you know kettle? You two should talk, you have a lot in common.

and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced,

Except that would be a violation of his rights.

the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Quack.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:50 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs.

Not sharing those beliefs doesn't make one intolerant.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:17 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Well, there isn't anything unconstitutional about having to swear 'so help me God', just more saber rattling by the secularists, I would suppose. Welcome to the Secular Humanist Theocracy.

it's funny how religious people want him to lie. Lying is a sin.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:36 pm**

To the claim that there's nothing wrong or unconstitutional about forcing someone to swear to Yahweh (as "God" in the Eurocentric world, which America being an ex-European colonial state is part of, outside of some fantasy medium with it's own in-universe religions, refers to the Abrahamic diety)...

1) Morality is subjective, and so while a Christian would see nothing wround about the Oath, a non-Christian

2) First clause of First Amendment guarantees no establishment of relgiion and free excersize of religion. A mandate to swear to Yahweh would violate both of these things.

Also, the Presidential Oath has no mandatory swearing to Yahweh. It's only been done because every POTUS so far has been Christian. Just saying.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:52 pm**

You think this is funny. You should see what ol' Pat Robertson is saying about this stuff linky. He blames all of this on "Jewish radical" Mikey Weinstein. Of course anyone who has paid attention to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity should expect them to have a problem with a Jewish radical.

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:58 pm**

Tekania wrote:You think this is funny. You should see what ol' Pat Robertson is saying about this stuff linky. He blames all of this on "Jewish radical" Mikey Weinstein. Of course anyone who has paid attention to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity should expect them to have a problem with a Jewish radical.

Ziing. (The extra i is for extra zing).

(Supercookie anyone who can catch the reference)

Posted: **Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:59 pm**

Sauvage wrote:The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

The Constitution (Article VI) says "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

NationStates

RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath