Who else thinks the AF is going to get burned on this one? - Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say "so help me God"

Maj Matt Hylton — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:37:12 -0400

I think the AF is going to get burned bad by this. While 10 USC 502 may include the four words "so help me god" and the AFI no longer states that it is optional; Article VI, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution trumps US Code:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I have never forced anyone to say those words when administering the oath nor have I had anyone require me to say them when I was reciting the officer's oath of office at my commissioning ceremony and subsequent promotions.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-

EDIT:

The AF ended up changing course (rightly so according to the DoD legal review).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140917/NEWS/309170066/Air-Force-nixes-help-me-God-requirement-oaths

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 10:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:50:58 -0400

I hope this issue is more publicized. It needs resolution. I'd consider this a "religious test". We think that the literary tests for voting, back in the day, were discriminatory and ridiculous. To exclude a soldier from serving based on this prerequisite, to me, is pretty similar.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 11:45 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:45:37 -0400

Ok, so after researching the AFI 36-2606 (5.6), it does state an edit in 2011 version that "Airmen may omit the words "so help me God" if desired. However, on 30 Oct 2013, the AFI was amended to add the statement back into the oath. “Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Also, the Air Force said it cannot change its AFI to make “so help me God” optional unless Congress changes the statute mandating it. The AFI was made for a reason, if you can't follow an oath, what other rules will you break? If they don't like it, get out. It's voluntary. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. This upsets me just as much as elementary schools no longer requiring students to stand during the pledge of allegiance. While I am on my soap box, did anyone pay attention to the soccer teams during the World Cup in Brasil? Nearly every other country other than the USA energetically sang their anthems before each game. Our sorry team members couldn't even lip sync the words. Pitiful. I bleed red, white, and blue. Do you?

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 5 at 2014 7:25 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:25:36 -0400

Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF will get a hold this.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Sep 5 at 2014 7:34 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:34:34 -0400

I am glad that I read the article before I responded. As of the time I retired, "So help me, God" was optional (in the Army, anyway), and you had the choice whether to 'swear' or 'affirm'.
According to the article, Title 10 USC 502 requires the phrase. IF the article is correct (emphasis on IF) then the USAF is correct (by law) but I don't think I'd fall on my sword over enforcing the letter of the law in this case. This one, I believe, will ultimately be overturned as unconstitutional. I also have to wonder if the verbiage in the USC is intentional or if something was just overlooked like so much other verbiage in all the piles of paper that comes out of the Congress.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 5 at 2014 7:48 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:48:11 -0400

This whole "religion war" going on from both sides is STUPID. When we took our oath at MEPS, I just didn't say that part. Like the 4 additional words are going to change the world.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 7:51 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:51:21 -0400

Though I'm a faithful servant, I too agree that this is wrong. You CANNOT force down religion into anyone's throat. The extreme example of that is ISIS. Though we may be far from that ideology, it can turn awfully sour awfully quickly if we start mandating divine elements in the military.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Sep 5 at 2014 8:03 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:03:19 -0400

Although I am a Christian, I do not believe one should be excluded from enlistment/reenlistment or commissioning for not reciting the words "So help me God" in the oath of enlistment/commissioning.

I believe this will be overturned in the courts; and it should be.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Sep 5 at 2014 10:17 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:17:09 -0400

I am a Christian but I feel the phrase is out of place. What does it mean really. Christian's know that God is going to help them and don't need to say it in an oath. It has nothing to do with my Christianity.
However.....if I were an atheist and wanted to serve in the military and the only thing preventing me from doing that was to say 4 words in reference to someone who I don't believe exists; I think I'd just say it. You don't believe in God so who cares if I say something about something that's not real.
If God was replaced with Santa Clause, I'd think it was stupid but I'd still say it because that's what I need to do to serve and could care less if Santa Clause existed or not.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 11:32 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:32:21 -0400

I was deployed to Afghanistan at the time of my promotion to CW2 (25 Jul 2010), and the LTC who administered the oath to me when I got pinned pulled me aside before my promotion and asked me if I wanted to say "So help me God" because it was optional...

I didn't, because of my religious beliefs, and he said "Okay", and that was that. No repercussions.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 6:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:09:52 -0400

I've commented on this once already, but I spend way too much time thinking.

I do believe, the phrase "So help me God" was a part of my original enlistment...second enlistment...and reenlistment. But as an atheist, I don't recall being offended. It was just part of a formality. No biggie. Never occurred to me to challenge it as the oath before it meant much more to me.

But this Airman DID decide to challenge it. Which makes me wonder, would I be in the service now?

And that line of thought is disconcerting, because it leaves more questions than answers. So if the Airman, again, tried to reenlist, and parroted the words, would he be successful? Is he barred from re-enlistment? Is he the exception to the rule?
CPT Jason Torpy is the MAAF President, and a member of RP. He's pretty bogged down with military cases, but hopefully, he can shed some light on this issue...because it will come up again!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 6:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:49:19 -0400

Until it's changed, then that's the oath! No exceptions have been made for the atheists, muslims, catholics, jews, christians, etc..... that took the oath that are currently serving. For many serving today, the oath of enlistment meant nothing to them anyway, so they had no issue in reciting it. Burned...don't think so...will it lead to changes, possibly, but hope not! It is what it is. It has been good for the country and the military thru today! It's time those who have issues with American traditions and customs either accept ours as they want us to accept theirs....or, go somewhere else or where they came from.

Response by MSgt Lancia Stewart made Sep 5 at 2014 7:41 PM

MSgt Lancia Stewart — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:41:22 -0400

Pssht. Ain't no thang, and it shouldn't be to anyone else. Our Pledge of Allegiance, originally, did not have "God" in it. Besides - no enlistment until the paper is signed. :)

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 10:22 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:22:22 -0400

Do we really want to lose good men and women to four words. As much as some of us have faith in The Lord and the words are no problem. No one should be forced to recite what one does not believe in. It seems so simple but is made so complicated.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 10:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:37:12 -0400

I am against him being denied on the basis of religion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 3:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 03:17:09 -0400

When I commissioned, the MAJ doing the process made it VERY clear that "swearing to God" was an optional statement. I'm smelling some BS on this article considering it's using "unnamed sources". Appears to be some click bait with little reality.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 8:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 08:49:39 -0400

I am an atheist, Secular Humanist, and a member of MAAF (and friend of CPT Jason Torpy) and the American Humanist Association, the parent organization of the legal center that sent the letter to the AF on behalf of this airman. I'm also a Humanist Celebrant, the legal equivalent of a minister.

When I commissioned, I was an agnostic theist. I said those four words in my Officer's Oath of Office, even though I wasn't sure I believed them. When I made Major and re-did the ceremony (not a requirement but a custom), I affirmed rather than swear and left them out. I will admit, there were a few confused people, but overall nothing big about it. It is a well-established legal principle and a rather minor point of accommodation for the military to make.

No matter what the AF says about its requirement to follow statute, a facially-unconstitutional statute necessarily negates that requirement, and the illegality of requiring those words hasn't been in dispute since the Supreme Court case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). One of the things that case helped settle was that states couldn't use such tests to prevent atheists from running for office, serving as a notary public, serving on juries, or giving sworn testimony. The history of these kinds of shenanigans (by the religious majority) is rife with abuse and discrimination against nonbelievers, and it is for that reason that we will *NOT* let it slide.

// BREAK //

I think it's interesting to note that one outcome of this is that the illegality of requiring "So help me God" is so firmly established that the Officers in charge actually may lose qualified immunity, and be personally liable (which means they can be sued individually), rather than only the AF being sued.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Sep 6 at 2014 9:44 AM

PO1 Michael G. — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 09:44:37 -0400

PO3 Matt Haag Sir, this is surprising, because when I enlisted, before we actually went into the swearing-in room, the person at MEPS made a pretty big to-do out of telling us that "So help me God" was optional. His explanation of it being optional was getting into beating-a-dead-horse-territory, actually.

But, yes, I agree, sir: this is going to come back and bite somebody.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Sep 6 at 2014 11:01 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:01:06 -0400

Lots of people have made lots of good points here already on multiple sides of the issue, and I don't want to spend weeks getting sucked into a "no religion in the public sphere" argument - been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

However, I think one thing is worthy of clarification. A "religious test" is a requirement that you either do or do not belong to, or believe in, a specific religious creed (i.e. Catholics can't be mayors, only Baptists can be mayors, no Buddhists need apply, etc.).

Whether right or wrong, this is not what is at issue in this case. Cpl Christopher Bishop was on the right track. It is about the seriousness of the oath, and the seriousness with which you take it. Back in the day (and today, for that matter), there was an understanding that there are promises and then there are PROMISES. The thought process (it may be flawed, but that is a separate matter) went along these lines, someone wouldn't invoke the name of god unless they were REALLY serious. Also why the same construction is used when testifying in court. It HAS been allowed over the years to replace $DIETY_OF_CHOICE in the place of "god" in the oath. For the person who asked if "so help me Allah" be acceptable?", (leaving aside the fact that it is actually the same dude....) the answer would conceptually be yes. As for Odin, I don't know anybody who actually is a follower of any old norse faiths, so I would be skeptical.

That said, title 10 says what it says, and is the law until it is not. This means that the Air Force is correct in its following of the law. The Army is wrong, if title 10 states the wording is non-optional. It is the job of the courts and/or the legislatures (and the people!) to remove bad law. The one branch of government that should NOT be involved in deciding what the law is the executive (that's us!).

Personally, I will keep right on being wrong because I agree with CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member that any society needs to intelligently know what to overlook. And this is not a hill for dying on, on either side.

Side note one: I expect that in time the title 10 language will be changed. I hope that it is, sooner rather than later.
Side note two: Interestingly, the "or affirm" language was a religious accommodation. I forget all the details, but basically one or more groups successfully argued that swearing violated their faith.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 4:48 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:48:51 -0400

Article VI, paragraph 3, US Constitution:

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Response by SGT Yovonne Autrey-Schell made Sep 6 at 2014 4:53 PM

SGT Yovonne Autrey-Schell — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:53:28 -0400

The US Air Force certainly SHOULD be burned for this egregious breach of Article VI of the Constitution! It doesn't matter if lip service to a God (whichever one) was the status quo or how long that may have been the case, what matters is that the oath to defend our country and our Constitution should not break said Constitution!

I served in the US Army for 15 years (medically retired out) and I did not say the words 'so help me God' in any enlistment/reenlistment ceremony. I still uphold my oath to defend the Constitution, however and whenever I can, and that includes speaking out against this sort of bureaucratic idiocy at the highest levels.

Response by SSG William Jackson made Sep 6 at 2014 7:03 PM

SSG William Jackson — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 19:03:11 -0400

God is NOT optional, if you are at least not willing to trust in God verbally
you are trusting in the Devil which means you are an enemy of our country

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Sep 6 at 2014 9:01 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:01:40 -0400

The Air Force tends to best cover itself in paperwork, and thus one would logically reason that it would be least likely to do something like this.

So it's kind of surprising to see this coming from the Air Force and not, say, the Marines! In Okinawa, we had a Marine who beat up his room mate because he refused to pray with him. Woops!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 10:12 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:12:33 -0400

Am I the only one thinking there is more to the story than just the "So Help Me God" part of this? I cannot imagine a reasonable person disallowing a reenlistment because someone wont say this phrase.

I suspects sumptin a lil fishy goin ons here....

Response by Sgt Don Davis made Sep 7 at 2014 6:36 AM

Sgt Don Davis — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:36:49 -0400

While all uniformed personnel swears an oath to the constitution you can not immediately on your own decide to disobey an order such as an Air Force Instruction unless a certain standard is met. The standard for immediate disobedience of unlawful order is it must "Shock The Conscience" The correct procedure should be to put everything on hold and pass on to higher authority that the issue in question violates the constitution. However it will take either a civilian authority (SecDef, SecAF or a deputy Sec) or a General officer to do this. ie someone in Washington not at Creech AFB. Since this made the AF Times I expect a quick resolution soon.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Sep 7 at 2014 10:00 AM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:00:23 -0400

Clear violation of the Establishment Clause and the Airman's rights. I am sure it will get taken care of (If it hasn't already) since it's a slam-dunk case.

Whenever I am honored to reenlist a Soldier, I always ask them if they would like to swear or affirm and if they would like the "So help me god" bit at the end. I do whatever they ask. It's their day, it's their choice.

I reenlisted a fellow atheist who asked to affirm and the retention NCO came up to me at the end and said I did the oath wrong. I thought he meant I forgot to say something since I do it from memory, but he said I was supposed to say, "...do solemnly swear or affirm" and finish it with "So help me god" regardless of whether or not the Soldier swore or affirmed. When doing it for one person, you omit either swear or affirm--whichever is applicable. When administering the oath to numerous people, you do the whole thing. It's up to the person swearing in how they choose to do it.

When I affirm, it means something to me. If I swear to god, it doesn't mean anything to me. There would be no point in it, and I would feel that my oath were insincere.

Response by Sgt Don Davis made Sep 7 at 2014 10:52 AM

Sgt Don Davis — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:52:39 -0400

The signature line of Air Force Instruction 36-2606

DARRELL D. JONES, Lt General, USAF

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107939/lieutenant-general-darrell-d-jones.aspx

Who apparently retired Feb 2014

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 11:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:10:35 -0400

Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath. It does not say anywhere that you may "omit" the phrase "So Help Me God". To me, If you don't say the oath word for word it is the same as not saying it at all- that's just my personal opinion though. I have read in places that officers have allowed on a case by case basis for re-enlistees to omit the phrase anyways. I also read that the Airman crossed out the phrase on his contract. Now if I didn't know any better I would say that the Airman was being belligerent. He had to take the oath to enlist in the first place- likely that he said it once before. If I were in his shoes- I would have just sucked it up and said it so I could go on about my business. I do not believe that there will be any legal ramifications on the Air Forces behalf- as it would take a Congressional Action to change the statute.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 11:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:41:07 -0400

Look.......I'm pagan and call my supreme being differently than Christians, but I will still say the words "so help me god" if it means I got to stay in and progress in a career that I love and that provides for my family. This guy that's upset about having to say a couple words is just looking for attention. The more he's fussed over because of this issue you feed his need and make him feel like he's more important than the traditions of the US Military. If you ignore this person he will go away and everyone can continue on with their lives.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 12:55 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 12:55:50 -0400

I read several responses, and to me I believe this Airmen had a right to be offended. Some say the oath doesn't mean anything by it! If that is the case then this belief means you had no intention of keeping this oath. Playing the devil's advocate, if you were expected to speak the words "in the name of Thor, Zeus, Krishna" or some other deity that was not of your faith, would you feel compelled to take this solemn oath/vow?

Response by PO1 Tony Peters made Sep 7 at 2014 1:25 PM

PO1 Tony Peters — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 13:25:58 -0400

I (state my name) do solemnly 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 UCMJ, So I affirm

I said this 5 times in my career, it was never a problem and for the record I'm not a christian. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps still allow affirmation for those who wish to omit God. this is a very bad precedent for the Airforce to try and set....

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 6:41 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 18:41:03 -0400

why not just affirm the oath? Instead of saying "I swear" you say "I affirm" and then you don't say the "so help me God" part.

Response by CPO William Hughes made Sep 8 at 2014 11:08 AM

CPO William Hughes — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:08:12 -0400

Wonder if this is connected with the recent push by Air Force Academy officials to prosthelitize to cadets? Someone high up in the chain of command had to have pushed for the "correction" to the oath, nothing else makes sense.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 12:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:51:30 -0400

Sir, I am an Asatru Pagan, classified by the military under the umbrella term of "Greater Nature Religions". For my re-enlistment, i was allowed to substitute God for my own deities oh Odin, Thor, and Tyr, with no fuss at all.

Response by MSgt Michael Eichler made Sep 8 at 2014 5:22 PM

MSgt Michael Eichler — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:22:15 -0400

The argument that the four words “…so help me God” are a religious test is a bogus argument. If it were a religious test then does everyone who uses US currency or has US currency in their wallet a Christian or are the words there because of historic precedent?
I can understand the want to maintain one's integrity by not making a proclamation that would indicate one believed in or did not believe in God. I affirm wanting to maintain one's integrity. So if the individual has not proclaimed God's name either in praise or condemnation since becoming an atheist then I would venture to state he is maintaining his integrity. To do otherwise is in essence declaration to some higher power (God) and would therefore lend credence to disqualify his claim.
However, will the AF likely be forced change their stance regardless of historical precedent...based upon how I interpret the news, yes they will. However, I would venture to say the AF will insert or blank out the phrase to accommodate each individual's doctrinal beliefs (religious or non-religious) as was done before with the words “I affirm” to replace “I swear.”

Response by MSgt Michael Eichler made Sep 8 at 2014 5:34 PM

MSgt Michael Eichler — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:34:53 -0400

I can understand the want to maintain one's integrity by not making a proclamation that would indicate one believed in or did not believe in God. I affirm wanting to maintain one's integrity. So if the individual has not proclaimed God's name either in praise or condemnation since becoming an atheist then I would venture to state he is maintaining his integrity. To do otherwise gives what appears to be in essence a declaration to some higher power (God) and would therefore lend credence to disqualify his claim of integrity.
However, will the AF likely be forced change their stance regardless of historical precedent...based upon how I interpret national news, yes they will. However, I would venture to say the AF will insert or blank out the phrase to accommodate each individual's doctrinal beliefs (religious or non-religious) as was done before with the words “I affirm” to replace “I swear.”

Response by SSG William Jackson made Sep 8 at 2014 6:34 PM

SSG William Jackson — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:34:36 -0400

Not really surprised at the responses. (Odd for people to be against you if you dont believe what most do) At least the top leaders are Anti-GOD yet religious. The military should not be a place to take political correctness it is supposed to be a killing machine when needed it is not that today. it has become dangerous to serve. Between sodomites, transvestites, leadership continually being found in improper conduct, As the Lord said we are in the END times all need to Repent and turn to JESUS CHRIST.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 6:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:40:46 -0400

What kills me is that this issue is going on in the Air Force while in the Army we let Bradley Manning, or Chelsea Manning, get gender reassignment treatment.

Response by MSgt Shawn Wood made Sep 8 at 2014 8:44 PM

MSgt Shawn Wood — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:44:00 -0400

I was in the Air Force long enough to know that anything can be waived. This sounds like there is more to it; like another avenue to separate people to meet manning goals. There is no way this would stand up in a court of Law the Air Force will definitely loose the battle if this goes to the courts.

"Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013"

Also the Air Force Leadership has an obligation and a duty to do what is right and just even if it is wrong in a regulation. Those at the top have a chain of command that can and should be used to redress this gross oversight quickly and equitably.

Response by PO2 Phillip Kurtz made Sep 8 at 2014 8:58 PM

PO2 Phillip Kurtz — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:58:34 -0400

It's the oath of office.. We all have taken it, and I think it should be the same for ALL military personnel. If he wanted to re-enlist that bad, he would have manned up and said the words and moved on. It's the military, not a damned holiday cruise. I say he should get over it and move on.

Response by Maj Matt Hylton made Sep 9 at 2014 12:44 AM

Maj Matt Hylton — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:44:53 -0400

A lawyer explains why the Air Force is wrong to deny this airman's re-enlistment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/08/should-atheists-who-refuse-to-say-so-help-me-god-be-excluded-from-the-air-force/

Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

Yes, the Air Force seems to say. Yes, says former Rep. Allen West. No, say the Constitution and federal statutes.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Sep 9 at 2014 11:29 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:29:10 -0400

It all comes down to respecting others' opinions, I think. If he really had a problem with saying those four words, then he should be able to opt out. It's not like those four words are what REALLY makes the enlistee a service member.

Response by SFC Ronald Burris made Sep 9 at 2014 1:25 PM

SFC Ronald Burris — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:25:09 -0400

Well, God is our Creator and if He doesn't want to say" so help me God" maybe He has something to hide. Of course, I know that some people who are atheist and don't believe in God will contradict God as our Creator but when they all pass from this life, they will be shocked to find the truth that there is a God. However, there has never been a requirement to be forced to say so Help Me God. So, not sure what this Airman's problem is except to try and make a name for Himself or try and cause problems since there are so many people trying to take God out of everything and they wonder why America is not as prosperous as we once was or why we are not protected like we once was. When God was in this Country we never had our enemies attack within the US. But look at 911 and after where the Arab Terrorist Groups continue to threaten the US. Also, look at our economy and how things are going in the US compared to 20 years ago. Well, keep taking God out of the US and the US will not exist. It was because of God that this once Great Country was founded through God Given Men and their talents and faith in God. WE all need to remember this when trying to make a big deal about putting God into a statement or oath.

Response by SPC Darin Taylor made Sep 9 at 2014 3:42 PM

SPC Darin Taylor — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:42:10 -0400

The separation of government and religion will always be an unsolved issue to many people. But the fact remains that the Airman refused to fully take the oath of military service and the Air force was in their rights to refuse re-enlistment. The other question is "Did the Airman recite the phrase "So help me God" when he first enlisted and if so why the sudden changes now?

Response by SPC Darin Taylor made Sep 9 at 2014 4:17 PM

SPC Darin Taylor — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:17:32 -0400

The separation of religion and government will always be an unsolved issue to many people. But the fact remains that the Airman refused to fully recite or acknowledge the Oath of Military Service and therefore the Air Force was in there rights to refuse re-enlistment. I'm also curious to whether or not the Airman recited or acknowledged the phrase "So help me God" when he first joined the military and if so why the sudden change.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 12:38 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:38:53 -0400

I think there has to be more to this story, or someone high up in chain where this Airmen is from (Creech AFB?) has lost their mind. I have never sworn in with "So help me God" and I am not about to do it now. If no other military service is requiring this, I do not understand why the AF is.

But, as an atheist, I am glad that this is getting recognition. I do feel that there is way too much emphasis on religion in the military and ceremonial practices are too focused on Christian beliefs. The only way to ensure that all religions are represented equally is to not have any religions represented at all. Its a private matter and should stay private. "So help me God" should be an optional inclusion, not something that Airmen have to fight for to take out.

Response by SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA made Sep 10 at 2014 10:41 AM

SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:41:25 -0400

It has been said for a few hundred years and now in the name of PC we want to change that? I guess he refuses to spend the money he is paid also due to the "in God We Trust" on it?
I am so sick of this PC, it has gotten to the point that people do things like this not becasue of conviction, but becasue they know they can get away with it.
We are a military that serves a country that was founded on God, we have a voluntary Military dont you know! Your choice to come in, so get with the program Airman!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 12:43 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:43:14 -0400

It looks like this will be coming to a resolution pretty soon. http://www.stripes.com/news/us/air-force-seeks-dod-ruling-on-re-enlistment-oath-1.302225

"“I’ll tell you that there is no legal requirement to say ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath/affirmation by a person taking the oath,” the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said in an email. “That is, saying ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath (not the person administering the oath).”

"A host of Supreme Court and lower court cases support the airman’s right to opt out of calling on a deity, as does as the text of the U.S. Constitution itself, said military legal expert Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale University."

Despite opinions to the contrary, from the standpoint of Constitutional law this is pretty close to a slam-dunk. The Constitution requires both that affirmation be an option and that no religious test be employed. The Federal statute *also* says that an affirmation be required. In law, an affirmation is equivalent to an oath but without reference to religion in any form (outside of law it is not so specific), so an affirmation with "so help me god" still required is a contradiction in terms. Even outside of the affirmation point, the courts consider "so help me god" a religious test. There's really no way around this, the Air Force has departed from the requirements of the Constitution, while the other services *are* complying.
MSgt Lowell Skelton | TSgt Joshua Copeland | Maj Matt Hylton

Air Force seeks DOD ruling on re-enlistment oath

The Air Force said Tuesday it was awaiting a legal opinion from the Defense Department’s top lawyer on whether an enlisted airman who’s an atheist can opt out of the phrase “so help me God” in his re-enlistment oath.

Response by PO1 Ken Johnson made Sep 10 at 2014 1:09 PM

PO1 Ken Johnson — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:09:18 -0400

Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts, #1 not all believers are the same and #2 not all non-believers are the same.

We are all different, so we shouldn't say "ALL those evangelicals are..." and we shouldn't say "ALL those athesists are.."

My views on this topic would probably make some of my fellow Christans very mad. I do NOT think the TSGT should have to say "so help me God!' Why would I want him to swear by something that is meaningless to him? That would be like me saying "so help me Colin Cowherd!" { not a fan in case you missed that...}

I think it should be optional. Keep in mind the Bible {for those of us who believe in it} also says "But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all"... so for all you Christians getting all upset about him not saying "so help me God!" what say you about this verse?

Bottom line for me: WOULD YOU ALLOW HIM TO REENLIST BASED ON HIS WORK RECORD, HIS PERFORMANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MISSION?

Now, turn to and commence ship's work.... that is all...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 2:08 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:08:42 -0400

Yes, this policy flies in the face of Article VI of the Constitution and will have to be changed. But, .... a huge but.... The Air Force is not authorized or capable of making that determination and must follow US Code as passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 2:39 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:39:24 -0400

I think there's something everyone so far that I've read has missed:

According to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which we swear to defend and uphold:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Therefore, honestly, there should be ZERO mention of God, Allah, prayer, the Bible, anything religious at all anywhere near the Government, to include the military.

It's not an Atheist issue, it's a Constitutional issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 2:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:44:27 -0400

I heavily disagree with the AF's stance on this. The Airman must have the option to not recite the last four words if he so chooses. Not everyone believes the same one nor do I want everyone to believe the same way. It is his choice.

On a side note though, I also disagree with the Airman altering an official document. THAT was not his choice to make and if C2 pursues action then I can't blame them on ONLY that point.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 10 at 2014 9:46 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:46:48 -0400

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Secretary-Hagel-letter-9-10-14.pdf

hGþ$ #)§ÎÃÔò&ÅæÖã'~ÞCÄO«(é5ÞTâCeÂÊo#ßHÛ^Hé§ÐmY+ü§gA+S*ùýæKÎ~gkHp+N0`;cn`BCvÜùÜbYïéáãèá ZX|ÂÖúv»hWsLÖjÃüG?}L3K _Z,ºEIM3eÄEÆÞ:ÍaE;KÛ~FuÜOL?9Úc ÙåsßÈ#»Óm;U(05ÊlkyBAGè{ åózH)§_5¶

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 9:01 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:01:55 -0400

I am a Christian, and my understanding of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" tells me that I cannot swear to God in a civil matter. Military oaths are a civil matter. It is a sin.

My understanding of the 1st Amendment means that you cannot force someone to say 'So Help Me God' in an oath if they don't wish to do so. That is imposing your religious beliefs on others. We are not a theocracy, no matter how many misguided individuals (including many in this thread) would like us to be. If you want that, go to Iran.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 12:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:18:03 -0400

Reading all these opinions really crack me up. Everyone is so focused on four words of the oath.....but what about the rest of the oath? So many service members just recite the words said to them blindly, not really caring about what they are saying. Taken from Chief Master Sgt. Joseph Romeo - "This oath is similar to that taken by our President and Congressmen. Obviously those we elect to office have a difficult time remembering what the words mean after they voice them. This, if all things were equal, would require them to be held accountable for their digressions."

And maybe I'm confused on just exactly what those four words mean, but I don't think it has anything to do with God helping us. Was my father affirming God's existence or his devotion to him when he would tell me, "Son, if you don't act right, so help me God, I'll put a belt to your behind!" Sure didn't feel like it to me.

Bottom line to me is this. If I am told that I have to say/do/etc. something I don't want to say/do/etc. to be a part of something bigger, then I just walk away. I don't cry like some pantywaist oxygen thief.

Chief Master Sgt. Romeo's full story can be found here: http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2014-07-27 [login to see] 12-The-Oath-of-Enlistment-What-does-it-mean.html

The Oath of Enlistment. What does it mean?

Two years ago Chief Master Sgt. Joseph Romeo penned the following article on the Langley Air Force Base website. It is still as relevant today as it was the

Response by SMSgt Alan Saunders made Sep 11 at 2014 12:23 PM

SMSgt Alan Saunders — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:23:39 -0400

I wonder how this individual (and others who profess they are atheists) would say the Pledge of Allegiance? "One Nation, Under God" is right there in the middle of it and has been for years, decades, etc. The Pledge doesn't tell you what God the nation was founded under - nor does it tell you you have to believe in God.

Further, our money says "In God We Trust". How does an atheist spend that cash - does that violate their freedom of (from) religion? Let's not stray too far down this politically correct path lest we offend the 90% of Americans who do believe in God!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 11 at 2014 3:32 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:32:38 -0400

Yes I think the Air Force is on very shaky ground on this. Violates Separation of Church and State. Forcing Religion on anyone is Socially and Morally wrong.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Sep 11 at 2014 4:10 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:10:58 -0400

I would say that there are 2 things in play, the oath has 2 options, to swear or affirm, I believe to swear to an oath includes the phrase So Help Me God to show the seriousness of the oath and your commitment to it. I believe that affirm does not require the phrase So Help Me God, both are acceptable, in my humble opinion. I do believe that in this Day and Age, they will sooner or later be required to give the option to swear or affirm

Response by PFC Francis Ney made Sep 11 at 2014 8:43 PM

PFC Francis Ney — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:43:54 -0400

It's clear to me that certain officers and NCOs involved in this need a Ninja Punch. It's too bad that with the recent changes in the UCMJ they can't be demoted.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 12:17 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:17:51 -0400

I love this words; however, we have more important things to worry about.

Yes. I think in the end the Air Force is going to have to back down.

Response by SP6 Jessica Regan made Sep 12 at 2014 4:52 PM

SP6 Jessica Regan — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:52:05 -0400

Now just exactly does "So help me God" mean anyway?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 8:25 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:25:22 -0400

It should just be removed from the oath entirely. Our enlistment oath (in its current form) was created in 1962. The oaths that were used prior to that (all the way to the one devised by the Continental Congress in 1775) had no mention of any deity. So if no mention of God was fine for 187 years then why force someone to say it now?

If you want to pray or personally affirm your oath with your deity separate from the requirements from enlistment, then that is your choice but there are many people (non-religious and religious) who are uncomfortable swearing to a deity as part of an oath.

Response by CPO Bernie Penkin made Sep 13 at 2014 12:18 AM

CPO Bernie Penkin — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:18:18 -0400

Just read the article and the first thing that jumped out to me was that the Airman purposely crossed out the words on his contract. To me this was a deliberate attempt to get attention. Had the individual just remained silent at the end of the oath taking I highly doubt anything would have been done. The old Chief in me makes me wonder if the Airman was a regular problem child and this instance was just the last straw for a command that was tired of dealing with a troublemaker.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 1:29 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:29:45 -0400

Even the deeply Christian American Family Association came out in support of this airman:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/miscellaneous/2014/09/12/air-force-cant-use-oath-to-disqualify-atheist-sergeant

Air Force can't use oath to disqualify atheist sergeant

The U.S. Constitution makes it clear: American atheists are not and should not be barred from serving their country through military service.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 4:33 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:33:44 -0400

MAJ Ballinger, I'll take each of your three points in turn:

1. Nothing I've said is a temper tantrum. Please stop gaslighting me. Disagreement, and even offense taking is not a temper tantrum, nor is it disrespect.

2. You're half right and half wrong. The half you were right about is that I did abandon the argument in the "Should a 2LT salute a 1LT thread". It became clear to me that you would continue to refuse to argue honestly and admit that the "no rank among Lieutenants" custom is a CUSTOM, supported by O-grades but unsupported by regulation, so much so that you'll insist that 2LTs and 1LTs are peers, but insist that you are not saying they're the same rank. You keep using the word 'peer'. I do not think it means what you think it means. (50 cool points and an automatic up-vote to anyone who gets that movie reference). In any case, yes I did abandon that field. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. When I saw I was banging my head against a wall, I stopped.

3. You're half right and half wrong. Reference THIS thread, I'm currently on active duty at my WOAC at Fort Gordon. My wife flew in this week to spend time with me because we celebrated our 23rd anniversary this weekend. My life not only does not revolve around RallyPoint, it doesn't revolve around ANY of the social media sites I frequent. I get to them when I get to them. I am no one's trained monkey, and I answer on MY timetable. I also don't whine, don't gripe, and don't resort to smug condescension when I don't get an answer from someone when *I* want the answer.

Now having said that, my wife just left for the Atlanta airport to fly home, so here's my answer in THIS thread: Yes, it is offensive. Rights are being clearly violated here, and to say "Oh, that's for the courts to decide if they're doing anything wrong". basically says that none of us are intelligent enough to read and understand the Constitution. And if by some miracle you're NOT saying that, you're basically saying "Doesn't matter if your rights are being violated, just go along to get along, you want the reenlistment, say the oath".

Not. Going. To. Happen.

An oath is a solemn promise. For someone who is either an atheist who doesn't believe in God, or someone like me whose religious beliefs prohibit them from swearing to God, to go along with it is to make a mockery of the oath. Saying "So Help Me God" in an oath is thought to remind the one taking the oath of the seriousness of it. Another aspect of insisting that one say "So Help Me God" in the oath is an assumption (mostly on the part of my fellow Christians) that you can't be a good, moral person without some kind of religion. That is patently false.

And as far as "The law says X"....there are plenty of laws that have been found to be unconstitutional. My own marriage would have been illegal where I now live when my mother was a child (Look up Loving v. Virginia - my wife and I flipped that script). Would you then tell me "Oh, you can't say it's unconstitutional, that's for the courts to say"??

Basically anyone arguing FOR the Air Force in this is basically okay with violating someone's freedom for the process, and the paperwork, and that is NOT okay.

I'm sure if they were violating someone's 2nd Amendment rights though, plenty here would be allllll over it.

I will leave you all with this:

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all."

That applies to ANY freedom, and the freedom of religion is the freedom to believe what you want, which directly implies the freedom not to have a religion.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:29 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:29:07 -0400

For those who were waiting (with bated breath?) for MRFF's Mikey Weinstein to enter the fray officially, here's his letter to SECDEF on behalf of 17 AD USAF NCOs:

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Secretary-Hagel-letter-9-10-14.pdf

Response by Capt K Fishnish made Sep 15 at 2014 1:00 PM

Capt K Fishnish — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:00:37 -0400

I think it is interesting that we are being asked to break the oath we take "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States" by requiring the use of "so help me god" at the end of that very same oath. Article VI of the Constitution prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.

Consider too that the request not to be required to say that sentence is a sign of respect for the christian god. I am agnostic and always asked that "so help me god" be left off during my promotions. The officers administering my oath acceded to my request out of respect for my beliefs. I chose not to say that sentence because to say it would be a disrespectful sham for myself or for those that believe. I had no problem with that sentence being in the oath so long as I was given a choice. This airman's choice was removed and so now there is a problem.

Final thought. I am an old goat. When I was commissioned, the officer's oath had an additional statement that charged officers to follow the lawful orders of those appointed over them. This powerful sentence gave officers the authority, and the heavy responsibility, to question orders that could do harm to the men or mission. I just pulled up the reg and that sentence seems to have disappeared from the officer’s oath. Seems to me that blind compliance has driven us to this point because I would hope, most officers would recognize that this was an unlawful and morale destroying requirement and thus push back on it in every way possible as it does nothing but distract from the mission and cause distrust among a great many of your personnel. How could I possibly respect an officer that puts something like this, a personal choice that does not help or hurt my ability as a military member, above my choice to serve? The fact that this is happening makes me quite sad at what is happening to the military’s respect for itself and its people.

Response by SMSgt John Love made Sep 15 at 2014 1:07 PM

SMSgt John Love — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:07:50 -0400

The USAF is totally "OFF BASE" on denying this Airman reenlistment for not swearing allegiance to "god". I and many many other atheist military members have or currently do serve Honorarily in United States military services. During my more than 25 years active duty service in the USAF, during the period of 1966 to 1993, serving 14 years as a First Sergeant, I was never forced to swear allegiance to a god, The very intelligent officers, including an ordained Southern Baptist minister, who reenlisted me, dropped any reference to god from my many reenlistments. Requiring an oath to a god for enlistment of reenlistment in the United States military service brings DISHONOR upon the service all military members who are atheist, or who have questions about the exsist of a god.

Response by SFC Mario Rodriquez made Sep 16 at 2014 2:46 PM

SFC Mario Rodriquez — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:46:27 -0400

E Pluribus Unum- So one airman refused to swear an oath to GOD and everyone is in an uproar. How convenient for the airman and an advocacy group would be ready to pounce on this issue. Don't we have more important things to worry about as a military? The statute is what it is, like it or leave it. I guarantee you that if we don't stop ISIS in their tracks you will be swearing an oath to some deity somewhere. Stop the trivial foolishness! Everyone knew the statute was in effect when he made his stand and the advocacy group just wanted a platform for their views to be brought forward. E Pluribus Unum- if the airman was a penny on the ground we wouldn't think twice about walking by because there is only one. If there were hundreds or thousands of airman taking this stand I would consider changing the rules, but there is only one airman. Wise up, or your career in the Air Force will be short-lived.

Response by SSG Bill Sier made Sep 16 at 2014 4:29 PM

SSG Bill Sier — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:29:12 -0400

As I recall, and I realize I am somewhat late to this discussion, "under God" was optional, in the Army, anyway. Usually the Air Force is ahead of the Army on this one. I recaall offering individuals the choice of "swear or affirm" while adminstering the oath accompanying a sworn statement.

Response by PO2 Jonathan Walker made Sep 17 at 2014 1:42 AM

PO2 Jonathan Walker — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:42:03 -0400

At MEPS and all of the reenlistments I've been a part of those 4 words were specifically mentioned as "not required". most say them but the few that don't are not treated any differently.
The officer in charge of this reenlistment should be held accountable and the airman allowed back in to service, in my opinion.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 17 at 2014 2:20 AM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 02:20:15 -0400

The USAF has been in the news quite recently for actions on the other side of the aisle. I think there has to be more to this story. I am wondering if this was done intentionally to allow the perpetually offended Freedom from Religion folks to sue to get all 'so help me gods' struck out.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 12:03 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:03:42 -0400

Our United States military is an all voluntary force. The contract which is entered to serve require conformity to regulation to DOD and the specific branch of service. Volunteer agree to conform to, abide by and follow all rugulation and instructions. The USAF will NOT ber burned and the Airman may exercise his option to seperate from service.

Response by Sgt David Farrell made Sep 17 at 2014 12:29 PM

Sgt David Farrell — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:29:17 -0400

Eeo complaint because you can't be denied stuff based on age sex color or religion that is what it is forcing someone to go against their religion or be punished for it

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 12:29 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:29:34 -0400

The military oath written by the very first Congress in 1789 left off the "So help me God" line? That's right, the very first Congress, which included a good number of the founders who actually framed the Constitution, did not make "So help me God" part of the military oath! These words were not part of any military oath until 1862, when the oath for officers needed to be changed because of the Civil War. And it wasn't until a full century after that that the words were added to the enlisted oath.

Yes, it is true that one of the oaths used during the Revolutionary War, the oath taken by officers, did include the words. At that time, military officers were required to take the same oath taken by all officers of the government, military or civilian. This oath, renouncing all allegiance to King George and acknowledging the independence of the United States, did end with "So help me God." The first oath written specifically for the military, however, the oath first written in 1775 and revised in 1776 and taken by all enlisted soldiers, did not include the words.

In September 1789, the first military oath under the new Constitution was approved. This oath, which was the same for both officers and enlisted, was part of "An Act to recognize and adapt to the Constitution of the United States the establishment of the Troops raised under the Resolves of the United States in Congress Assembled," and did not include the words "So help me God."

Here is the original oath written by the Congress of 1789. This oath was actually two oaths, both of which were required for both officers and enlisted:

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

It wasn't until long after the days of the founders -- over seven decades after these original oaths were written -- that "So help me God" was added to any military oath. The change came in 1862, when the oath for military officers was rewritten to include a statement that the officer had never borne arms against the United States or aided the Confederacy. This new Civil War era oath was the first military oath to end with the words "So help me God." The oath for enlisted members of the military, however, was not changed at this time. That oath remained "godless" for another century.

The enlisted oath was not changed until 1950. The reason for the change at that time was the establishment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The purpose of the UCMJ, passed by Congress in May 1950, was to make the justice system in the military "uniform" across all of the branches of the military. Upon passage of the UCMJ, the line in the enlisted oath saying that a service member would obey orders "according to the articles of war" had to be changed to obeying orders "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." But "So help me God" was still not added to the oath when this change was made. That wouldn't happen until 1962, when Congress passed an act to make the enlisted oath more consistent with the officer oath, which, of course, did include the "so help me God" line.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 17 at 2014 7:50 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:50:19 -0400

**ACTION ITEM** Oath of Office (Officer) and Oath of Enlistment (Enlisted) Policy Update

1. Effective immediately, all Airmen have the choice to make the words "So help me God" optional in commissioning and enlistment oaths (both orally and written) in order to comply with Constitutional requirements. Effective immediately, Airmen who make a choice to "affirm" the oath of office/oath of enlistment and/or omit the words "So help me God" may also line through the words "swear" and/or the words "So help me God." Airmen must then initial next to the lined text on the AF Form 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel) or DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States as applicable.

2. This interim guidance is effective immediately and will remain in effect until publication of the applicable Air Force Instructions.

3. POC for MPS personnel is for the Enlisted Oath: AFPC Reenlistments @ [login to see] .mil ; DSN xxx-xxxx. For the Officer Oath: AFPC Officer Accessions @ [login to see] .mil ; DSN xxx-xxxx.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 10:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:47:41 -0400

Get over it. If you cannot recite the oath because of your own vanity, then you don't deserve to serve. This was a nation built on God.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 11:14 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:14:35 -0400

As soon as I saw this topic of discussion, I knew it would be controversial. There is simply no way that it couldn't be, due to the nature of the content. Religious views are intimately personal. The way we view the world, life, and death, are all issues that we struggle with. Some of us view these issues, and attempt to resolve and incorporate them, by the means in which we perceive them.

Many of us find comfort in religion. Some of us can't. It isn't a willful refusal. It's simply an inability to believe something without proof. Skepticism. It's a culmination of experience without evidence.

Asking someone to NOT believe something is just as illogical as asking a person to START believing in something. I can't ask a Christian to cease their belief that Jesus was the son of God, nor can that Christian ask me to accept that Jesus was the son of God. But, we do. And we do it viciously, sometimes.

I cannot provide "proof" that there is no god. A religious person cannot provide "proof" that there is one. We can use our perceptions and experiences to battle to the death (and that's what we are doing), to refute each other. But there is no resolution to this. In the history of mankind, there has never been a resolution, nor will there ever be one. The supernatural realm, if there is one, is simply non-debatable, but we always think it is, because we are cognizant beings and slaves to our own existence.

However, the caveat in discussions like this, is the standard to which we must adhere. That standard, in America, is to acknowledge the diversity of religious views while limiting those views to the person who hold them. When any religion is imposed on the individual (and individuals compose groups!), we have become a theocracy. And if a Christian theocracy is ideal to someone, let's place our choice of god aside and objectively assess the "status quo", and the ultimate results of a society based solely on theocratic rule.

If you don't think that America can possibly subscribe to such a totalitarian doctrine, you are ignoring a large part of our cultural history.

If you believe that organizations like MAAF and FFRF are the enemy, you must understand that these groups, and groups like these, are not representative of the oppression of religion. You should research, and objectively evaluate, the purpose of what they do. They do not advocate anti-religion. They advocate religious neutrality (in our public lives) in regards to the unsolicited adoption of the "majority rule" in impingement on the fundamental right of an individual to view the world, life, and death, as one already does.

We have beaten this horse into the Afterlife. However, I will quit my opinion with the words of my ten-year old daughter, raised as as Humanist:

"I respect all religions. (Not really happy with a few Christians though) A religion is a life. Religion can be bad or good. If you can't decide, become you're own religion. Believe in yourself. Atheist is me. But nothing is wrong if your Buddist, Islamic, Christian, etc. You can study other religions too."

Response by SGT Jacob Yuhas made Sep 17 at 2014 11:24 PM

SGT Jacob Yuhas — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:24:47 -0400

I understand soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors adapt to their service regardless of what they think is right or wrong.

There's no reason to take away someones religious freedom. I believe the line "so help me god" should be able to be modified to whatever religion the new recruit is, or prefer not to say it at all.

I had no issue saying it but some people do, we have to respect others and their religion practices.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 18 at 2014 9:23 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:23:59 -0400

LOGIC PREVAILED!!!!

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-drops-so-help-me-god-requirement-will-allow-airman-to-re-enlist-1.303637

Air Force drops ‘so help me God’ requirement, will allow airman to re-enlist

The Air Force announced Wednesday it would drop a requirement for airmen to say “so help me God” in oaths, backtracking after an airman had been denied re-enlistment when he crossed it out on a form last month.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Sep 18 at 2014 11:38 AM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:38:07 -0400

I should start out with, yes this is wrong, and should be changed.

However, I concur with the Air force stance. The Air Force does not make law. The Air Force does not interpret the constitution. That is what Congress and the Supreme Courts are for. This needs to be changed at that level, and the Air Force will follow suit. You should not expect the Air Force to do this on their own, in fact we should all be highly upset should the Air Force decide to take it upon themselves to unilaterally interpret the Constitution and change law. (Even if, such as in this case, changing it is the right thing to do)

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 11:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:47:36 -0400

Latest update sir.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/17/atheist-airforceoath.htm

Atheist airman can re-enlist without religious oath after policy change

Air Force decided an individual may omit ‘so help me God’ from oath

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Sep 18 at 2014 11:57 AM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:57:35 -0400

I have never heard the argument "How do you use money with 'In God We Trust'" written on it before this thread, and now I have read it several times.

It really makes me sad, to see so many people fail to have even a basic understanding of logic and rhetoric. By all means, people we have the ability to express our opinions, so I fully support doing so, but please take some time to educate your self on things such as logical fallacies. You might think you are arguing your case, but in reality you just come across as having no understanding of the argument at all.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 7:29 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:29:04 -0400

I guess he needs to give his money back, it says "In God We Trust" on it.

Just my two cents!

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 19 at 2014 9:07 AM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:07:48 -0400

I am going to refer to another discussion post by an Army staff sergeant on this. In his post, SSG Matthew Adkins asked a question pertaining to prayer for uniformity purposes. He stated "An invocation and benediction at official military functions are traditional and have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court." And then brought into question Soldiers being FORCED to bow their heads in prayer, which is wrong.

Now, using that example to formulate my answer. Will the Air Force get burned - who knows. They removed something that was tradition to appease one group, but what about the group that likes tradition? What about the Christians who have no objection to 'so help me God'?

Everyone cannot be happy all the time, its a fact. When one thing gets taken, there will always be a group that feels robbed of something.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Sep 19 at 2014 4:05 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:05:23 -0400

What wrong with a person if he/she doesn't say " so help me God. That the American Oath we are under. Money legal tender in which we may carry in our pocket, every bill and change states " In God We Trust." Do we now throw it away because it is useless. Are who has a higher calling then the Almighty God. We I went into the Military in 1972, in Boot Camp, there were only two denominations Protestant and Catholic, anything else were considered servants of the devil, and you were Physical Trained until, Church Services were over on Sunday. At Parris Island, back then we had no rights that anyone enforced the UCMJ were a joke, If you ever tried to report what were good on you would be physically beaten, carried away by the Military Police place in a hole with bars over the top and feed skim milk and lettuce for days.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 4:44 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:44:37 -0400

The change is a good thing for all concerned. Religion is personal, and must absolutely never be required.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2014 3:56 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:56:09 -0400

I have always been a Christian and I have to side with the Soldier on this one. This Air Force Soldier should never have been denied reenlistment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2014 11:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:10:21 -0400

If he's denied reenlistment so shall be it, it's a couple of words, why should it be a big deal to say them ?? This guy is a character, just looking for publicity.. And not to mention now you gonna have a whole bunch of sympathy people coming in here talking this or that about the Airforce and blah blah , the Airforce is not the problem, the problem is that guy with his dumb ass publicity stunt. So to hell with him and who ever supports him, the AIRFORCE will be better off without him !!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 8:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:36:13 -0400

Meh, I understand how people would get spun up about this however as it stood if that's what he has to say then that is what he has to say. However, I don't agree with it and I'm glad the AF changed it.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Oct 15 at 2014 8:15 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:15:11 -0400

They probably are. And to be honest, I don't feel bad for them. I am a Christian, and I have my own beliefs. But if someone doesn't share those beliefs, that's their prerogative. That person should be able to swear an oath of enlistment (or in this case reenlistment) without a phrase that goes against his or her beliefs.

Response by SFC(P) John McLaughlin made Oct 16 at 2014 9:53 AM

SFC(P) John McLaughlin — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:53:15 -0400

As a one time recruiter for the Pennsylvania National Guard one of the main things that I have talked about was the oath of enlistment. I did recruit an Agnostic once. I informed him that at the end of the oath was "So Help Me God". I never told my recruits that you have to say that last phrase. I never said they cannot enlist because you did not say it. I told them as long as you pledge to to the United States and the State that was all that matter.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Oct 17 at 2014 11:39 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:39:47 -0400

His job must not have meant much to him. Someone who really need's the job wouldn't be that happy to risk their job for their principles. Its one thing to ask to believing person to deny God, as most faiths condemn those who deny what they believe in the face of adversity... But as an atheist, "so help me God" is just 4 words to you.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Oct 25 at 2014 11:31 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 23:31:58 -0400

I believe many of you are focused on the wrong target.

When you see/read SO HELP ME GOD you see only GOD and your pre-programmed reaction is to get into some debate about Religion.

Instead, lets look at SO HELP ME. Maybe I didn't ask for anyone's help with my own process to become a contributor to my country. Perhaps I signed a contract, agreed to follow appropriate orders, and maybe MY WORD ALONE was good enough.

So I first think about: Since when was there a need to interject some useless tools to make others feel marginally better about MY WORD that the placing of a hand over a Bible in a Courtroom seems to soothe some of you, yet fails to prevent some folks from getting convicted of perjery? What relevance of this book is there to folks of other or no particular religion? Does it stop anyone, included so-called Christians, from doing whatever else may be in their hearts or minds? Mmmmm-Nope.

If there were ever any truth in the coined phrase "There are never any Atheists in Foxholes" then it pleases me to have been the first.

Someday I might take on a religion for myself. But the first step would be finding one whose very own leadership can keep its booger-pickin fingers off small children.

Some of us have the IQ and observational skills to figure out how we should conduct ourselves, without having to have it read to us from a book.

And if my character had to be challenged at all upon enlistment, then I shouldn't have been accepted, and maybe the military needs to raise its entrance standards, and stop squandering payroll to those who are only there for the paycheck/job-security/college money...and try to find a higher percentage of people who donned the uniform because they actually believed in a cause...as I did.

Semper Fi.

NOTE: TSgt James del RIO Sr Did u see me make a single reference to my rights here? I suggest to you that as you say We are making a promise....that the words I PROMISE be sufficient.

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made Apr 21 at 2019 6:22 AM

CW4 Craig Urban — Sun, 21 Apr 2019 06:22:07 -0400

What a bunch of crap..my transportation officer who worked for me when I was the DOL in Schinnen the Netherlands asked everyone on a hiring action if they believed in God. I sent him back to the States. Carlisle. War college. Jim Tapscott to be exact.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2019 11:02 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Apr 2019 11:02:52 -0400

I always ask the reenlistee if they want to swear or affirm, and if they want to include "so help me God."

BTW, though I'm a christian, I also leave that part out when I take the oath - no less an authority than Jesus said not to swear oaths before God.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 16 at 2020 5:52 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:52:31 -0500

Silly me, I thought you could swear or affirm. If you chose affirm you could omit so help me God at the end.