RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

I will agree that all military branches should have had the same oath.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

I will agree that all military branches should have had the same oath.

And should that be one sworn to God or not in your opinion ?
I do empasise (again) that Jesus said christians should not swear such oaths - so if you include it true christians can not take it.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. The "so help me God" part is included as an optional part of the oath of service in the other branches, as it is again in the Air Force's now.

[Freiheit Reich]

I will agree that all military branches should have had the same oath.

And should that be one sworn to God or not in your opinion ?
I do empasise (again) that Jesus said christians should not swear such oaths - so if you include it true christians can not take it.

My concern is that the oath doesn't seem to have an allowance for a soldier to go against what the US president says. Superior officers must follow the UCMJ and soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders (such as killing innocent civilians). However, I don't believe the US president is under the UCMJ. Assuming that he decides to pull a Hitler and get dictator powers and change the US Constitution in one day, would a soldier have to obey the corrupt US President (assuming he wants to blindly follow the oath)?

If they take God out of the oath (which I will admit they probably should), they must find a way to ensure that soldiers don't have to obey the US President if he decides to become a dictator. I am not sure what they can add to to oath though. The words will have to be chosen carefully. Perhaps "the true Constitution of the United States" (the UCMJ can add a rule about what 'the true Constitution of the United States' really means-perhaps one that was not illegally changed through illegal seizure of power).

Current Military oath:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt ... enlist.htm

I, (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.

If other people were allowed to have 'so help me God' taken out of the oath, the airman shouldn't have had to say it either. However, I would have said it (if the officer required it after I asked him to exempt it) because it only takes a couple seconds and in my mind I would disregard that part. For him, the issue was worth making a big deal about but for me I would thought of the last sentence as 'so help me spaghetti monster' (since he didn't believe in God and I don't believe in the spaghetti monster it means the same thing. I hope he did this for the right reasons and not just to get attention though.

[Dyakovo]

And should that be one sworn to God or not in your opinion ?
I do empasise (again) that Jesus said christians should not swear such oaths - so if you include it true christians can not take it.

My concern is that the oath doesn't seem to have an allowance for a soldier to go against what the US president says. Superior officers must follow the UCMJ and soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders (such as killing innocent civilians). However, I don't believe the US president is under the UCMJ. Assuming that he decides to pull a Hitler and get dictator powers and change the US Constitution in one day, would a soldier have to obey the corrupt US President (assuming he wants to blindly follow the oath)?

If they take God out of the oath (which I will admit they probably should), they must find a way to ensure that soldiers don't have to obey the US President if he decides to become a dictator. I am not sure what they can add to to oath though. The words will have to be chosen carefully. Perhaps "the true Constitution of the United States" (the UCMJ can add a rule about what 'the true Constitution of the United States' really means-perhaps one that was not illegally changed through illegal seizure of power).

Current Military oath:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt ... enlist.htm

I, (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.

If other people were allowed to have 'so help me God' taken out of the oath, the airman shouldn't have had to say it either. However, I would have said it (if the officer required it after I asked him to exempt it) because it only takes a couple seconds and in my mind I would disregard that part. For him, the issue was worth making a big deal about but for me I would thought of the last sentence as 'so help me spaghetti monster' (since he didn't believe in God and I don't believe in the spaghetti monster it means the same thing. I hope he did this for the right reasons and not just to get attention though.

There's no reason for the president to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

[Death Metal]

There's no reason for the president to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Not to mention that adding "so help me God" after it doesn't provide a justification for going against the oath, and any argument along that lines is absolutely asinine. What such a statement means exactly what it says; that you hope Yahweh will aid you in fulfilling your oath, and if you go against your oath that Yahweh will also cease to be by your side.

So if you take the oath invoking Yahweh in this fashion, and decide your president is a dictator and try to overthrow him, you're going against Yahweh.

Source (it's a blog, but a well cited blog): http://americancreation.blogspot.com/20 ... -mean.html

[Freiheit Reich]

My concern is that the oath doesn't seem to have an allowance for a soldier to go against what the US president says. Superior officers must follow the UCMJ and soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders (such as killing innocent civilians). However, I don't believe the US president is under the UCMJ. Assuming that he decides to pull a Hitler and get dictator powers and change the US Constitution in one day, would a soldier have to obey the corrupt US President (assuming he wants to blindly follow the oath)?

If they take God out of the oath (which I will admit they probably should), they must find a way to ensure that soldiers don't have to obey the US President if he decides to become a dictator. I am not sure what they can add to to oath though. The words will have to be chosen carefully. Perhaps "the true Constitution of the United States" (the UCMJ can add a rule about what 'the true Constitution of the United States' really means-perhaps one that was not illegally changed through illegal seizure of power).

Current Military oath:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt ... enlist.htm

I, (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.

If other people were allowed to have 'so help me God' taken out of the oath, the airman shouldn't have had to say it either. However, I would have said it (if the officer required it after I asked him to exempt it) because it only takes a couple seconds and in my mind I would disregard that part. For him, the issue was worth making a big deal about but for me I would thought of the last sentence as 'so help me spaghetti monster' (since he didn't believe in God and I don't believe in the spaghetti monster it means the same thing. I hope he did this for the right reasons and not just to get attention though.

There's no reason for the president to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

[Laerod]

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

Nowhere near as dangerous as having "so help me God" in an oath. The likelihood of religious nutjobs abusing that to commit crimes or disobey orders is far, far greater than any President taking over the country and getting the Constitution rewritten to the point of it allowing autocratic rule.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

You ARE paranoid. The scenario you've presented is ridiculously implausible and I strongly recommend YOU look at how Hitler seized power because it's clear that your previous brushes with the topic have been ludicrously superficial.

[Death Metal]

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

Nowhere near as dangerous as having "so help me God" in an oath. The likelihood of religious nutjobs abusing that to commit crimes or disobey orders is far, far greater than any President taking over the country and getting the Constitution rewritten to the point of it allowing autocratic rule.

Like I said, the affirmation means nearly the exact opposite of what he thinks it means, and is more akin to "if I'm lying may the Lord strike me down". Making it optional is the way to go to allow free exercise of religion.

[Dyakovo]

There's no reason for the president to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

You do sound paranoid, and rather ignorant. The president can't unilaterally change the constitution.

[Death Metal]

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

You do sound paranoid, and rather ignorant. The president can't unilaterally change the constitution.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Those who most strongly call for the federal government to follow the Constitution tend to be the ones who understand it the least.

[Ifreann]

There's no reason for the president to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

Let us imagine for a moment that this is a legitimate concern and not ignorant paranoia. How would putting references to God in the oath military personnel swear help in that situation? If the president has become a tyrannical dictator is it somehow beyond him to claim that God wants him to do so? You know, like Hitler did.

[Death Metal]

Then it seems the soldier has no choice but to obey the US President even if he takes over the govt. and wrongfully changes the US Constitution to suit his needs. US soldiers must then blindly follow the dictator because they are held to the oath. It seems a bit dangerous.

I may sound paranoid but this has happened before. Look at how Hitler seized power.

Let us imagine for a moment that this is a legitimate concern and not ignorant paranoia. How would putting references to God in the oath military personnel swear help in that situation? If the president has become a tyrannical dictator is it somehow beyond him to claim that God wants him to do so? You know, like Hitler did.

And, for the third time, with the swearing to Yahweh, if a soldier takes the oath then goes against the President for any reason, Yahweh would be not on the soldier's side.

[Aethrys]

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.

I will agree that all military branches should have had the same oath.

Your concerns are eerily similar to someone I used to work with. I will tell you what I told him, Obama is nowhere near popular enough to pull off a military coup, particularly within that same military.

Attempting one would vindicate the millions of insane nutjobs who mutter about the possibility.

Seriously, you guys are almost as bad as those people that want all servicemembers to pledge not to oppose secession attempts, but at least you aren't quite at the point of encouraging mass conspiracy to commit treason.

[Condunum]

ITT: You can have religious freedom if you worship my god

[Condunum]

Let us imagine for a moment that this is a legitimate concern and not ignorant paranoia. How would putting references to God in the oath military personnel swear help in that situation? If the president has become a tyrannical dictator is it somehow beyond him to claim that God wants him to do so? You know, like Hitler did.

And, for the third time, with the swearing to Yahweh, if a soldier takes the oath then goes against the President for any reason, Yahweh would be not on the soldier's side.

Gods of war take that whole "loyalty to the emperor and state" thing very seriously.

[Death Metal]

ITT: You can have religious freedom if you worship my god

It should be worth noting that people who want to make people say the oath without the affirmation are as equally guilty of this as the ones who want people to be forced to say the oath with it.

The real religious freedom argument is making it optional without consequences either way. Xtians can say So Help Me God, Muslims can say Inch'allah, Wiccans can say So Mote It Be, Athiests or religious people who simply don't want to add the religious affirmation at the end, can say nothing, ad naus.

[Condunum]

ITT: You can have religious freedom if you worship my god

It should be worth noting that people who want to make people say the oath without the affirmation are as equally guilty of this as the ones who want people to be forced to say the oath with it.

The real religious freedom argument is making it optional without consequences either way. Xtians can say So Help Me God, Muslims can say Inch'allah, Wiccans can say So Mote It Be, Athiests or religious people who simply don't want to add the religious affirmation at the end, can say nothing, ad naus.

Well yeah, that's why they made it optional instead of removing it.

[Death Metal]

And, for the third time, with the swearing to Yahweh, if a soldier takes the oath then goes against the President for any reason, Yahweh would be not on the soldier's side.

Gods of war take that whole "loyalty to the emperor and state" thing very seriously.

Indeed. And depending on how much one puts into Dante, the deepest part of the Abrahamic Hell is reserved for traitors. Including political traitors.

[Death Metal]

It should be worth noting that people who want to make people say the oath without the affirmation are as equally guilty of this as the ones who want people to be forced to say the oath with it.

The real religious freedom argument is making it optional without consequences either way. Xtians can say So Help Me God, Muslims can say Inch'allah, Wiccans can say So Mote It Be, Athiests or religious people who simply don't want to add the religious affirmation at the end, can say nothing, ad naus.

Well yeah, that's why they made it optional instead of removing it.

I'm aware. I was referring to anyone who was against allowing the affirmation at all.

[Condunum]

Gods of war take that whole "loyalty to the emperor and state" thing very seriously.

Indeed. And depending on how much one puts into Dante, the deepest part of the Abrahamic Hell is reserved for traitors. Including political traitors.

If I'm accepting any narrative of the Christian hell, it's that one. I wouldn't call it the Abrahamic hell, considering that Dante was a Christian Renaissances poet.

[Tmutarakhan]

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.

Students cannot be FORCED to say it (the Supreme Court ruled on that many decades ago), and the airman can't be FORCED to say it.

[Dyakovo]

ITT: You can have religious freedom if you worship my god

It should be worth noting that people who want to make people say the oath without the affirmation are as equally guilty of this as the ones who want people to be forced to say the oath with it..

Who wants that?

[Tmutarakhan]

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

If you can't be admitted without it, it's a test.

"say the Lord's Prayer from memory backwards".

No, that's not how the word is being used there. At that time it was common to require some religious oath before you could hold certain governmental jobs, and that is precisely what is being forbidden.

[Tmutarakhan]

perhaps school children should say it to remind them that God is watching them and that they should behave

You reduce God to the level of Santa.