RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath

[Death Metal]

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."

Technically the oath is an affirmation, not a test, thus a violation of establishment and free excersize.

A test would be more like "say the Lord's Prayer from memory backwards".

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Weak.
In the British Army, we shout "kill" in bayonet training.

The US Army dropped bayonet training two years ago, I believe.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

Swearing oaths to God is a sin as well. Jesus said so quite clearly according to the Bible.

So the only people who would be allowed to take this oath without committing a sin in their own eyes or being a silly liar are the Jews.

[Death Metal]

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

Swearing oaths to God is a sin as well. Jesus said so quite clearly according to the Bible.

So the only people who would be allowed to take this oath without committing a sin in their own eyes or being a silly liar are the Jews.

And Muslims. Though they'd probably prefer Inch'allah.

[Bythyrona]

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.

Weak.
In the British Army, we shout "kill" in bayonet training.

The US Army dropped bayonet training two years ago, I believe.

I can confirm that new recruits don't do it anymore. Just for the record, though, bayonet day went something like shouting "KILL! KILL! KILL!" and "THE BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW GREEN, DRILL SERGEANT!" at the top of your lungs while stabbing a dummy. It had been considered more of a motivational tool considering bayonets' obsolescence, though, before the training was removed.

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

Weak.
In the British Army, we shout "kill" in bayonet training.

The US Army dropped bayonet training two years ago, I believe.

I believe guts come from killing the enemy. It is very descriptive.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

[Freiheit Reich]

Weak.
In the British Army, we shout "kill" in bayonet training.

The US Army dropped bayonet training two years ago, I believe.

I can confirm that new recruits don't do it anymore. Just for the record, though, bayonet day went something like shouting "KILL! KILL! KILL!" and "THE BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW GREEN, DRILL SERGEANT!" at the top of your lungs while stabbing a dummy. It had been considered more of a motivational tool considering bayonets' obsolescence, though, before the training was removed.

Your memory is fresher than mine although words might vary slightly depending on drill sergeant. I told myself that it was part of the brainwashing done in basic training to prepare people to kill without being bothered by it (I expected this though so it didn't bother me too much, I viewed it as a game and not to be taken very seriously). I said things I didn't believe because I viewed most of my whole enlistment as a mostly depressing game in many ways. I am sure many other soldiers (and maybe airmen) have felt the same way. He reenlisted so he should have been used to saying things he didn't really believe by now.

Actually the bayonet is not obsolete. What happens if your rifle jams or you run out of ammo? The bayonet could save your life in combat. It can also save ammo by allowing you to kill dying enemy soldiers quickly without using precious ammo.

[Tekania]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

Airmen can say it..... they are just not FORCED to say it. Once again, the change made just reverts it back to being optional as it was in the AIr Force in its Pre-October 2013 state... and as it has remained so for decades in ALL THE OTHER branches of the Armed Forces.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

Airmen may say that part if they wish. It's simply no longer mandatory for nonbelievers and those who do believe, but whose religious tenets forbid that sort of oath.

[Sun Wukong]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

Yet more places where it should not be.

Especially the pledge. Aside of everything else, it throws off the rhythm of the piece.

[Freiheit Reich]

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution but It's on US currency ('in God we trust') and it's said every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (since Eisenhower was the leader). Students in public schools say it everyday but the airman can't say it? God is part of the fabric of the US govt.

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

I agree with this argument (politicians vs. military) although perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave. Take away God from the pledge and the children's behavior in school is likely to get even worse than it is now.

'In God We Trust' might be on the currency for the same reason. People need to be reminded that there is a higher power than the president. Perhaps putting God in the oath is to give the military the knowledge that they are allowed to go against a corrupt leader (like Hitler or Stalin) if he does savage acts which will displease God. Would you rather place a man or God as the one to obey? Placing God in the oath might actually help protect the USA against an evil tyrannical leader when you think about it.

[Farnhamia]

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

I agree with this argument (politicians vs. military) although perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave. Take away God from the pledge and the children's behavior in school is likely to get even worse than it is now.

'In God We Trust' might be on the currency for the same reason. People need to be reminded that there is a higher power than the president. Perhaps putting God in the oath is to give the military the knowledge that they are allowed to go against a corrupt leader (like Hitler or Stalin) if he does savage acts which will displease God. Would you rather place a man or God as the one to obey? Placing God in the oath might actually help protect the USA against an evil tyrannical leader when you think about it.

I won't comment on the need for the fear of God in order to make people behave, but I will remind you that this is only about the Air Force's oath. The other services do not include God in their oaths.

[Sun Wukong]

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

I agree with this argument (politicians vs. military) although perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave. Take away God from the pledge and the children's behavior in school is likely to get even worse than it is now.

'In God We Trust' might be on the currency for the same reason. People need to be reminded that there is a higher power than the president. Perhaps putting God in the oath is to give the military the knowledge that they are allowed to go against a corrupt leader (like Hitler or Stalin) if he does savage acts which will displease God. Would you rather place a man or God as the one to obey? Placing God in the oath might actually help protect the USA against an evil tyrannical leader when you think about it.

Yeah... seeing as how the German Army swore oaths to God under the Nazis, I'm thinking that doesn't work...

[Tekania]

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

I agree with this argument (politicians vs. military) although perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave. Take away God from the pledge and the children's behavior in school is likely to get even worse than it is now.

'In God We Trust' might be on the currency for the same reason. People need to be reminded that there is a higher power than the president. Perhaps putting God in the oath is to give the military the knowledge that they are allowed to go against a corrupt leader (like Hitler or Stalin) if he does savage acts which will displease God. Would you rather place a man or God as the one to obey? Placing God in the oath might actually help protect the USA against an evil tyrannical leader when you think about it.

Reciting the pledge is optional in public schools. A child cannot be legally compelled to recite any of it. They have the right to remain quiet and respectful during the recitation of it, without stating any of it. That to is not anything new.... I'll refer you to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). And note, this was from 1943..... from even before "under God" was grossly shoved into the pledge's wording.

[Death Metal]

Really, affirmations to any diety have no place in the government. Especially the US, which is by Constitutional law a secular government.

Why am I not surprised that the noted Alex Jones loving dominionist pretending to be libertarian is taking a stance that actual libertarians would be appalled at?

[Bythyrona]

I can confirm that new recruits don't do it anymore. Just for the record, though, bayonet day went something like shouting "KILL! KILL! KILL!" and "THE BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW GREEN, DRILL SERGEANT!" at the top of your lungs while stabbing a dummy. It had been considered more of a motivational tool considering bayonets' obsolescence, though, before the training was removed.

Your memory is fresher than mine although words might vary slightly depending on drill sergeant. I told myself that it was part of the brainwashing done in basic training to prepare people to kill without being bothered by it (I expected this though so it didn't bother me too much, I viewed it as a game and not to be taken very seriously). I said things I didn't believe because I viewed most of my whole enlistment as a mostly depressing game in many ways. I am sure many other soldiers (and maybe airmen) have felt the same way. He reenlisted so he should have been used to saying things he didn't really believe by now.

Actually the bayonet is not obsolete. What happens if your rifle jams or you run out of ammo? The bayonet could save your life in combat. It can also save ammo by allowing you to kill dying enemy soldiers quickly without using precious ammo.

...actually, the bayonet IS obsolete.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-abando ... isthenics/
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rumor- ... g-1.137356

"The Army’s last bayonet charge happened in February 1951 during the Korean War, but there were instances during Vietnam when troops fixed bayonets during intense combat, according to the Army.

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

'The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,' Larsen told The Rumor Doctor.

Worse yet, soldiers were bringing their own knives to the combat zone, and that proved to be dangerous they didn’t know how to fight with knives, Larsen said. Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.

'And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,' he said.

To make bayonet training relevant again, the Army got rid of the bayonet assault course, in which soldiers fixed a bayonet to the end of a rifle, ran towards a target while yelling and then rammed the bayonet into the target center. Instead, soldiers learn in combatives training how to use a knife or bayonet if someone grabs their primary weapon."

Please don't say LOL BUT MARINE CORPS STILL TRAINS ON BAYONETS, either. I'll start to get flashbacks of that Romney-Obama debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02123.html

"You fix bayonets when you expect to need the aggressive combat mind-set that's produced by the primal sight of massed blades. You fix them when you expect to search hidden places. You fix them when you expect the fight could push you within arm's reach of your enemy -- gutting distance. In modern warfare, that's extraordinarily rare."

[Death Metal]

Doesn't the M16 not work with bayonets anyway? Or is that just the A1 model?

A rifle butt to the head does the same thing in combat anyway.

[Fartsniffage]

Doesn't the M16 not work with bayonets anyway? Or is that just the A1 model?

A rifle butt to the head does the same thing in combat anyway.

The problem with that is even with the improvements made to the A2 model of the L-85, I wouldn't trust it to work properly after a hard blow like that.

[Kouralia]

...actually, the bayonet IS obsolete.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-abando ... isthenics/
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rumor- ... g-1.137356

"The Army’s last bayonet charge happened in February 1951 during the Korean War, but there were instances during Vietnam when troops fixed bayonets during intense combat, according to the Army. ...

But on the other hand...

In defence of the bayonet: cold steel always has the psychological edge
Tom Coghlan: Analysis

"They don’t like it up ’em . . .”

It is the rallying cry of Corporal Jones in Dad’s Army — and it is still relevant today, according to the Ministry of Defence.

“Our Service personnel are trained to use a bayonet as part of their mandatory basic training. This is an essential part of close-combat training which prepares them for eventualities they may face in theatre,” says a spokesman for the ministry.

The trend in the recent history of warfare has been towards picking the opponent off long before “cold steel” might become necessary, but British troops have been forced to resort to the use of bayonets in the not-too-distant past.
Related Links

* Heat, dust and bayonet charges: life on the Afghan front line

* US Army finally calls time on the bayonet

Bayonets were fixed and used in the Falklands and the Army conducted its most recent bayonet charge in Iraq in 2004, when 20 soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment attacked 100 insurgents in the Battle of Danny Boy, a fierce fight at a British checkpoint of the same name. Last year Lieutenant James Adamson was awarded a Military Cross for taking on two Taleban fighters in Afghanistan with the bayonet attached to his SA80 rifle.

British Forces now carry a greater variety of weapons, such as light support machineguns, heavy machineguns, snipers’ rifles and SA80s with underslung grenade launchers that cannot be fitted with a bayonet. However, serving soldiers still assert that a bayonet has a powerful psychological effect on the user and the potential foe, and in certain circumstances the bayonet can save a soldier’s life.

“Closing with the enemy is a massively psychological act,” says Colonel Stuart Tootal, who commanded a parachute battalion in Helmand province.

“Fixing bayonets bolsters the will to close with and kill an enemy and seeing soldiers with bayonets fixed has a psychological effect.

“I don’t criticise the US Army for choosing to focus on other weapons but, personally, while I recognise that the bayonet will be used less often, I wouldn’t give it up.”

[Yorkopolis]

There have been legal challenges to the Pledge, and I personally feel "In God We Trust" has no place on a secular nation's currency. The Pledge is regulated under the US Flag Code, which has no real force as a law. I wonder how many students say it every day and how many mumble their way through it. If the President and Members of Congress can affirm in their oaths and not swear by God, why shouldn't this airman be afforded the same privilege? He's a citizen, too, after all.

I agree with this argument (politicians vs. military) although perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave. Take away God from the pledge and the children's behavior in school is likely to get even worse than it is now.

'In God We Trust' might be on the currency for the same reason. People need to be reminded that there is a higher power than the president. Perhaps putting God in the oath is to give the military the knowledge that they are allowed to go against a corrupt leader (like Hitler or Stalin) if he does savage acts which will displease God. Would you rather place a man or God as the one to obey? Placing God in the oath might actually help protect the USA against an evil tyrannical leader when you think about it.

I must honestly say I do not believe "God" actually makes anyone's behaviour better or worse. If you do, I pity you my friend. I, for example, am not scared of some God punishing me if I misbehave at school. Above all, the addition of all the pledges to schoolrooms and such - which are supposed to be secular - in a constitutionally secular state is not just unconstitutional, it's basically forcing someone to believe something they might as well not believe in.

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.

Intolerant of Christian beliefs? Lol? I don't believe in the Christian god either, so that must make me intolerant, too? Because, if I may be honest, I shall not swear an oath to a deity I don't believe in.

Besides that, more than enough deaths have been caused in the name of your god in what? 1000 years, at the least. Mind you there were crusades, there was slavery done in the name of god, there were genocides in the name of god - Spain in the Americas, most specifically. So, really, see now how worthless the bickering about Allah is, when there have been more than enough crimes committed in the name of the Christian god as well? It's an absolute nonargument.

[Dyakovo]

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.

How is the airman intolerant of christian beliefs?

[Dyakovo]

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.

Maybe it ain't on the US Constitution <snip>.

Not "maybe", definitely.

[Lemanrussland]

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."

Technically the oath is an affirmation, not a test, thus a violation of establishment and free excersize.

A test would be more like "say the Lord's Prayer from memory backwards".

Actually, by test they mean that public employees cannot be forced to adhere to or accept any religion or religious belief. You can't say "you have to be Christian to hold this job", or "you have to swear an oath to God to hold this job". You can't use religious beliefs as a test for public employment, basically.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled a similar oath unconstitutional because it violated Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution in 1997 (and the First Amendment as well).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverman_v._Campbell