WWTBAM Bored

According to this story, an Air Force sergeant is being told he cannot re-enlist unless he takes an oath that concludes with the phrase, "so help me God." This is a patent violation of the Establishment Clause, not to mention Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution. And it's troubling to me that a military whose job is to uphold the Constitution is so willing to cavalierly violate it. --Bob

[quote="Bob78164"]According to this story, an Air Force sergeant is being told he cannot re-enlist unless he takes an oath that concludes with the phrase, "so help me God." This is a patent violation of the Establishment Clause, not to mention Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution. And it's troubling to me that a military whose job is to uphold the Constitution is so willing to cavalierly violate it. --Bob[/quote

Too bad, so sad. If he's an atheist, the oath means nothing to him anyway. Or are you saying that atheism is a religion and he's an apostate? He can pretend the words are " itsy bitsy spider" and be on his way. Why does he not conscientiously object if there is that for oaths.

Plus, maybe his god is fomenting, in which case he's fine. No one is defining god for him. He must have known this. Media whore much?

Bob's right

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Bob's right

I actually don't care. Did this gent have to complete this oath originally?

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Bob's right

I actually don't care. Did this gent have to complete this oath originally?

And to clarify, there have been so many "constitutional" conundrums in the last few years I find this pissant in the grand scheme. Only an atheist would pick this out as some culturally defining, hooorible death knell of our republic. Gimme a fucking break.

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Bob's right

I actually don't care. Did this gent have to complete this oath originally?

No. The Air Force changed its oath since his last enlistment.

How would you feel if in order to keep your job, you had to swear an oath to Allah on the Koran?

This is someone who is willing to fight and die for his country. He shouldn't be asked to compromise his principles to do so, particularly when there's a specific provision of the Constitution aimed directly at this conduct.

And as an atheist myself, I am more than a little offended by the concept that it's necessary to profess a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to hold any government job. I want those who share my beliefs to be equally eligible to serve in an official capacity, limited only by their aptitude for the job they're seeking. Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster certainly isn't one of those qualifications. And the willingness to pretend in such belief shouldn't be either. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Bob's right

I actually don't care. Did this gent have to complete this oath originally?

And to clarify, there have been so many "constitutional" conundrums in the last few years I find this pissant in the grand scheme. Only an atheist would pick this out as some culturally defining, hooorible death knell of our republic. Gimme a fucking break.

Here's the language that's being violated:

James Madison in Article VI, Section 3 wrote:[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I really don't see that there's any room for interpretation here. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
I actually don't care. Did this gent have to complete this oath originally?

And to clarify, there have been so many "constitutional" conundrums in the last few years I find this pissant in the grand scheme. Only an atheist would pick this out as some culturally defining, hooorible death knell of our republic. Gimme a fucking break.

Here's the language that's being violated:

James Madison in Article VI, Section 3 wrote:[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I really don't see that there's any room for interpretation here. --Bob

What's the definition of religious test? There's no requirement to assert a belief in the oath. And to reiterate, I'm not worried about an imminent fundamentalist deist, Christian threat of theocracy overrunning our government. Nor would I want one because Christians don't all believe the same thing. I'd be more worried about a shariah laden sort of thing first. Cause we're not all into convert or die. Like that.

Again, there are oaths, invocations, blah blah all over the place in governmental ceremony. "God" may mean wallpaper to someone. The oath doesn't say so help me Jesus, so your Koran thing doesn't fly.And, unfortunately for you, most people in the US subscribe to some belief in a higher power. My giveashitometer rating on this is -70000000. I'm sure my constitutional rights will be severely abridged by his horrible experience.

Beebs52 wrote:Again, there are oaths, invocations, blah blah all over the place in governmental ceremony. "God" may mean wallpaper to someone. The oath doesn't say so help me Jesus, so your Koran thing doesn't fly.And, unfortunately for you, most people in the US subscribe to some belief in a higher power. My giveashitometer rating on this is -70000000. I'm sure my constitutional rights will be severely abridged by his horrible experience.

LOL! With 6 of the 10 posts in this thread so far! I think you just busted the Giveashitometer®, lady....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Again, there are oaths, invocations, blah blah all over the place in governmental ceremony. "God" may mean wallpaper to someone. The oath doesn't say so help me Jesus, so your Koran thing doesn't fly.And, unfortunately for you, most people in the US subscribe to some belief in a higher power. My giveashitometer rating on this is -70000000. I'm sure my constitutional rights will be severely abridged by his horrible experience.

LOL! With 6 of the 10 posts in this thread so far! I think you just busted the Giveashitometer®, lady....

lb13

And we have a FOUND IT!!!

WOOO let's get this board a rockin'

Beebs52 wrote: What's the definition of religious test? There's no requirement to assert a belief in the oath.

So you're okay with a requirement that those who don't have any strong religious beliefs one way or another can BS their way through, but that devout Buddhists, Wiccans, or practitioners of other religious beliefs can't in good conscience agree to. In essence, what you're saying is that the language of the oath isn't important. Perhaps the part about supporting and defending the Constitution or obeying the orders of superior officers... that's all just BS in order to get a good steady job for the next couple of years.

There's a couple of journalists in Iraq who found out the hard way what happens when a military unit allows religious principles to dictate their actions.

This is the enlistment oath. The words "so help me God" are optional, except in the Air Force:

I, _____, 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."

Sounds like all that proselytizing at the Air Force Academy finally paid off.

I admit my error on this federal sort of issue. I concede defeat. I still don't care about that guy's plight; and am so happy that no one is planning on beheading him for bringing the issue up. I will also concede that this is just one more in a recent line of horrid constitutional atrocities assailing American individuals (notice I didn't say citizen because that would omit the illegal aliens). Mea culpa.

But, BUT, I DID piss off Beast enough to make him comment in a thread!!! Neener neener neener. And make a new avatar. So there. Next time I'll keep my responses under 5.

Beebs52 wrote:But, BUT, I DID piss off Beast enough to make him comment in a thread!!! Neener neener neener. And make a new avatar. So there. Next time I'll keep my responses under 5.

You obviously need lessons in properly pissing me off. I'm sure "someone" out there can give you some tips...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:But, BUT, I DID piss off Beast enough to make him comment in a thread!!! Neener neener neener. And make a new avatar. So there. Next time I'll keep my responses under 5.

You obviously need lessons in properly pissing me off. I'm sure "someone" out there can give you some tips...

lb13

Why, I do declayah, I needs me some edumacatin'. No. Really. Apparently I do...

Beebs52 wrote:I still don't care about that guy's plight; and am so happy that no one is planning on beheading him for bringing the issue up.

Here's the thing. It's easy to get up in arms about the freedoms of people who agree with you. But I think a peculiar strength of Americans is our willingness to defend the freedom of those we passionately disagree with. And that's why I find apathy in the face of a violation this clear cut so disturbing. --Bob

I so hate being brought into threads I was only, just, like, reading. At least my name wasn't directly used, but I guess I'm the only person left on the board who actually p*sses lb off; has he chased the rest away? Well, OK, I can immediately think of one other, but they don't often interact these days.


Anyway; when my Dad was Domestic Relations Referee in Nameless County, Ohio, he used to swear people in with "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth, so shall you answer to G-d"? I dunno where he got it, but he had to use it because he loved that turn of phrase at the end, as so do I. I should have made a case to him that as Jews we needed to be sensitive to religious stuff staying out of civil stuff. But I didn't. For all I know, the original Nameless County oath had the "so help me G-d" in it already, & they just put up with his substitution.


I bring it up only because I got subverted into this thread, but if you're swearing an oath about answering to G-d & you don't believe in G-d, how valid is your oath. I guess no more or less valid than with the "so help me" phrase. Oh well.


A Domestic Relation Referee is a judge without the title or pay level, but in Nameless County they got appointed, not elected; various people at various times offered to put my Dad up for elected judgeships, but he didn't want to go through that process. But believe me, some of those people in Domestic Relations Court almost needed a real referee. The job did Bad Stuff to his view of other people, which used to be that he thought the best of them until proven otherwise; he'd have been a lot happier as Traffic Court Judge.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:I still don't care about that guy's plight; and am so happy that no one is planning on beheading him for bringing the issue up.

Here's the thing. It's easy to get up in arms about the freedoms of people who agree with you. But I think a peculiar strength of Americans is our willingness to defend the freedom of those we passionately disagree with. And that's why I find apathy in the face of a violation this clear cut so disturbing. --Bob

I'm not going to apologize any more for my posts-just, again, try to clarify. There's some sarcasm in some of my responses today, in case you didn't catch it. I think there are more clear and present dangers to our freedoms than this guy's prob.

And, I find it interesting that recently it's always atheist people/groups who are up in arms about the usage of "God" in oaths or pledges, etc. The generic "God" used in these ceremonial activities doesn't describe the God in which I believe, therefore, I probably should have complained when I was sworn in as a juror a couple of times in Texas that I was being deceived.

And I have no problem with no prayer in public schools for that very reason.

Yeah, the oaths don't really often carry much truth to them as is evidenced by certain elected officials, from local to national, who readily lie while swearing to uphold the constitution yada yada yada. I'll raise you my faux apathy and call on the treachery.

Beebs52 wrote:
And, I find it interesting that recently it's always atheist people/groups who are up in arms about the usage of "God" in oaths or pledges, etc.

Isn't it funny how it's always the minority that gets upset when the majority tries to impose its religious views on them?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
And, I find it interesting that recently it's always atheist people/groups who are up in arms about the usage of "God" in oaths or pledges, etc.

Isn't it funny how it's always the minority that gets upset when the majority tries to impose its religious views on them?

There is no particular religion involved in those oaths. I mean what is this god religion being enforced?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
And, I find it interesting that recently it's always atheist people/groups who are up in arms about the usage of "God" in oaths or pledges, etc.

Isn't it funny how it's always the minority that gets upset when the majority tries to impose its religious views on them?

It's also historically inaccurate to say that these issues have been pressed by atheists. The flag salute cases were brought by Jehovah's Witnesses. If I correctly understand their doctrine, they'd have the same issue with the Air Force's oath that the sergeant has. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
And, I find it interesting that recently it's always atheist people/groups who are up in arms about the usage of "God" in oaths or pledges, etc.

Isn't it funny how it's always the minority that gets upset when the majority tries to impose its religious views on them?

It's also historically inaccurate to say that these issues have been pressed by atheists. The flag salute cases were brought by Jehovah's Witnesses. If I correctly understand their doctrine, they'd have the same issue with the Air Force's oath that the sergeant has. --Bob

I said "recently" since online, in the internets, academia, it's the cool thing to push atheism. Recently means in the last decad or so.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Isn't it funny how it's always the minority that gets upset when the majority tries to impose its religious views on them?

It's also historically inaccurate to say that these issues have been pressed by atheists. The flag salute cases were brought by Jehovah's Witnesses. If I correctly understand their doctrine, they'd have the same issue with the Air Force's oath that the sergeant has. --Bob

I said "recently" since online, in the internets, academia, it's the cool thing to push atheism. Recently means in the last decad or so.

As opposed to "coolly" pushing Christianity all the way to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case? If memory serves, that case occurred in the last decade or so.