Posted on 09/10/2014 5:44:09 AM PDT by C19fan
The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.
In the latest religious controversy to roil the air force, the atheist airman last month was denied his request to re-enlist because of his refusal to swear to God -- and he is now poised to take the military to court, his lawyer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
why the fuss?
I wouldn’t have any trouble taking some oath that required me to say “so help me flying rainbow farting unicorns”.
They are deliberately Anti-Christian. They never say boo about Islam.
The Future of Atheists in Europe is kneeling on a prayer mat facing Mecca.
I don’t see what the problem is.
Now you have gone and done it for sure. Go and hide in a limestone cavern, I hear that the Unicorns can’t come after you in a cavern like that, be sure and sprinkle pixie dust around the entrance. After ninety days it will be safe to come out again. You may want to toss some salt over your left shoulder every day just for good measure.
"Freedom of Religion" is not really a thing. This term is a misunderstood compromise by the founders facing the prospect of making a nation out of many states with different official state religions.
Virginia was Anglican, Maryland was Catholic. Pennsylvania was Quaker, Massachusetts was Puritan.
When the founders used the term "Religion" most of them weren't referring to actually different religions from Christianity, they were using the word in the meaning that we now regard as "Denomination."
They more or less meant "Freedom of Denomination", more than freedom of any religion, but the contextual meanings of words sometimes change over the years.
Jefferson was a notable exception. He probably *Did* mean any and all religions, but at the time the Constitution was written, he was ambassador to France, and had no input in it.
The US Constitution has always had an inherent assumption of a Christian populace. It even ends with the words:
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
When Jesus is specifically referred to in the governing document, just how indulgent of other religions can it be?
-— 1) Is he an atheist, well, let him serve, he’s already done one turn.
2) Is he a Muslim? In that case, he’s lying about his reasons for not swearing on the Bible and since it’s OK to lie according to their book, he’s just doing what M told him to do. -—
An atheist believes that he is ultimately accountable to no besides himself, and is therefore untrustworthy in principle. Any individual atheist could be more ethical than any individual theist, but in principle and as a class, they are not. See DU.
Of course, the atheist could lie, but the oath serves as a safety, however weak. Some atheists will be honest.
Abraham Lincoln would disagree.
Actually, that condition would be preferable to them
over submitting to Christ.
Liberals/leftists/atheists/democrats are “ABC” when it comes to religion -
Anything But Christian
I agree.
The time will come soon when the CHRISTIAN forces of our CHRISTIAN republic will be called to do battle with the enemy in the East. We will win only if we go to war IN THE NAME OF JESUS. The sign of the cross must be a prominent part of the way we fight that war — put it on the rifles, the tanks, the planes, the artillery pieces. Let them know that we understand this is a holy war.
When the time comes to do that, we won’t want atheists on the battlefield complaining about it and calling their lawyers on cell phones!
-— But certainly freedom of religion includes the freedom
not to believe in a supreme being. -—
Yes, but it doesn’t grant you the right to serve in the military. Given the choice of an atheist or believer with you in a foxhole, which would you trust with your life?
This report and situation with the Air Force requiring the swearing of an oath is either a canard or someone in a command or staff position is really being stupid.
I was a Commissioned Marine Officer and when I “advanced’ one of my junior officers to the next grade, before the ceremony, I would ask them if they were going to “Swear” or “Affirm” their Oath of Office.
They do have a choice. And in all the years that I conducted the ceremonies, I had one lieutenant advance to captain and he chose to “Affirm” the Oath of Office. The reason was that he was agnostic. I was also aware of a fellow officer and good friend, who was Lutheran if I recall, who told me that he always “affirmed” his Oaths of Office. He told me that Lutherans were schooled, as it were, in Biblical tradition, not to “swear” oaths.
I also used the same tack when conducting re-enlistment ceremonies for my Enlisted Marines. I gave them a choice.
To this day, I am not sure if any of our Commissioned or Enlisted Military know or understand the subtle difference or that they have a choice. “Swearing” : “I do solemnly swear... So Help Me God.” “Affirming” : “I do affirm...” with NO “So Help Me God” at the end of the oath.
Matthew 5:33-37 (The NIV Bible reflects these words in RED meaning Matthew is quoting Jesus)
33. “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’
34. But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35. or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
36. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
37. Simply, let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your “No,’ ‘No;’ anything beyond this come from the evil one.”
Letting your “Yes” be “Yes” IMHO, is merely “Affirming.”
Anyone have a differing opinion or knowledge of something different?
So did Lincoln require a religious oath or force soldiers to attend services? If Lincoln wanted soldiers to have Sunday off that is fine. Congress takes off Sundays but people are free to do what they want on that day off.
I would think the term “God” would cover all religions!!!
I agree there is no right to serve in the military.
The military services certainly have the right to select the best candidates for their organizations.
He may not have lied before. He may have become an atheist during his term of duty.
So if the military can kick out an atheist then it can force these oaths:
“I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever.”
“I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous...”
If you wanted to be part of the Royal Navy or English (British) Army you were required to take that oath for 150 years until 1829.
The one who is the better shot.
An offended Christian will pray for them. An offended Muslim will kill them. Self preservation rules!
I did not say that lying in the past is a license to lie forever! You and I are bound by Jesus’ teachings, the atheist is not, so ultimately, the atheist has no basis for his morals, other than his ‘feelings’. If there is evidence that he has lied in the past, the point is that ANYTHING he says should be suspect; the fact that 99.999999999999% of us have lied on one occasion or another, not withstanding. HE has made his ‘honesty’ in not swearing to God an issue.
Unfortunately, the fact that the USAF dropped the option of someone swearing an oath other than, “...so help me God.” in 2013, is at issue. And yes, because the policy change was so recent, yes, he will likely win. A good lawyer for the USAF however, should be able evidence lies in this joker’s background, impugning his reputation, as noted above. He will likely win this case, but perhaps, his reputation will be shot and he will have to ask the question, “Was the defense of my subjective morals worth the destruction of my reputation?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.