and did not offend a Christian*
Advertisement
by Condunum » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:14 pm
by Neutraligon » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:19 pm
Stormwind-City wrote:Korouse wrote: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.
by Tekania » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:23 pm
by Condunum » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:26 pm
Tekania wrote:Korouse wrote: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.
by Dyakovo » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:41 pm
Korouse wrote:I hope arguing over a few sentences was worth it guys!
by Dyakovo » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:43 pm
Korouse wrote:Tekania wrote:
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.
by Dyakovo » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:46 pm
by Tekania » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:12 pm
Condunum wrote:Tekania wrote:
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
by Dyakovo » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:20 pm
Tekania wrote:Condunum wrote: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.
by Tekania » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:26 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.
by Geilinor » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:44 pm
Korouse wrote:I hope arguing over a few sentences was worth it guys!
by Freiheit Reich » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:43 pm
Dyakovo wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote: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?
by Fartsniffage » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:48 pm
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. 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.
by Mavorpen » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:50 pm
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.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:51 pm
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. 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.
by Freiheit Reich » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:53 pm
Dyakovo wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
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.
by Freiheit Reich » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:58 pm
Yumyumsuppertime 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 can only reasonably defend one of these statements. Choose wisely.
by Dyakovo » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:11 pm
Freiheit Reich wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
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.
by Washington Resistance Army » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:13 pm
Freiheit Reich wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
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.
by The Rich Port » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:32 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, James_xenoland, Neu California, Singaporen Empire, The Huskar Social Union, The Selkie
Advertisement