The Government: Compelling The Nonbeliever To Acknowledge The Existence Of A Supreme Being
[guest post by Dana]
Having recently discussed what the Christian private business owner can be compelled to do, the question now being raised is: Can the government compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being if it involves the military?
Not according to Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, who is defending an atheist airman who was denied reenlistment in the Air Force because on the oath portion of his contract he crossed out “So help me God”.
The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.
That is unconstitutional and unacceptable, the AHA said.
“The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being,” Miller said. “Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts.”
…
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, update to the AFI.
“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 Thursday. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God.’ ”
The Air Force said it cannot change its AFI to make “so help me God” optional unless Congress changes the statute mandating it.
However, Miller points to Article VI of the Constitution:
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.
According to Miller:
“Forcing [the airman] to swear to a supreme being as a condition of his reenlistment is tantamount to a ‘religious test’ and is therefore violative of this constitutional provision as well
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:07 pmthey have a point…
and the airman in question is a mendoucheous twatwaffle and a fool.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:09 pmI’m curious as to how he enlisted in the first place if he was an atheist – did he lie and sign the oath? Which would be ironic, because further in the article Miller points out that her client would be lying if he *did* sign the oath (without crossing out “So help me God”).
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:15 pmNot to mention the tyranny of the Pledge of Allegiance and horror caused by looking at our currency every day!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:17 pmPledge of Allegiance “under God” – added during McCarthyism to weed out the commies, don’tcha know. Supremes didn’t seem to be bothered by it though.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:26 pmThe power of Christ compels you… the power of Christ compels you…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:29 pmThe Airman in question is not identified by name or specifically by rank. Airman, even Senior Airman is rather modest attainment than what would usually be expected of a candidate for re-enlistment, Sergeant would be more like it. There may be more here than meets the eye. Besides, the services are cutting back, and the Air Force is under no obligation to allow those with disciplinary problems or those with poor performance records to re-up.
ropelight (621dc1) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:36 pmMandates only work in one direction.
JD (f0a118) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:37 pmThis can’t be right. I don’t take oaths, and I enlisted once and reenlisted twice from 1984 to 1994. I think I would have remembered saying “So help me God”. Is this a new requirement to enlist?
Jeff Hall (acf72c) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:39 pmJeff Hall,
According to the article, this policy was “quietly” changed last year: 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.”
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:51 pm@Dana, @Jeff Hall
According to the article, he was re-enlisting. Presumably he dropped “so help me God” from the oath when he enlisted originally. As of October lat year, that is no longer allowed.
Ken Kelly (fbb064) — 9/6/2014 @ 1:52 pmVery strange.
Yes, Ken, and why it was just changed is unknown at this point:
Officials at the Air Force Public Affairs office contacted by Al Jazeera were unclear why the rule had changed, saying they were gathering information regarding the circumstances surrounding it.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/6/2014 @ 2:01 pmwell, everyone *knows* that the Air Force is a hot bed of Christian fundamentalism…
/
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/6/2014 @ 2:23 pmWonder if Nidal Hasan swore when he joined.
Gazzer (26a83c) — 9/6/2014 @ 2:24 pmthis is just ineptitude on the part of the government again
typical american ineptitude
happyfeet (a785d5) — 9/6/2014 @ 2:35 pmInteresting how something that they claim doesn’t exist bothers them so.
Do they also not cross bridges in the woods at night because of the trolls?
MJN1957 (ced8e0) — 9/6/2014 @ 2:58 pm@7:
As an 8 year veteran of the Air Force, the term Airman is both a rank and a more general term for anyone serving in the Air Force. Just as soldiers serve in the Army and sailors serve in the Navy, airmen serve in the Air Force. Yes, it’s confusing sometimes, even within the force. Although typically, Airman (capital A) is used for the rank, while airman (little a) is the general term.
Edoc118 (c37322) — 9/6/2014 @ 3:47 pmNot only do I think the airman should not have to take such an oath, there are actually some Christians who would refuse to take an oath because of an injunction in James. the idea is that one should be truthful at all times and their is no need for oaths.
Of course, I think many who have that practice are Mennonites and unlikely, in general, to be enlisting in the armed forces.
It will be interesting to see more of this story, and any agendas that may become clear.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2014 @ 3:58 pmMalevolent troll meets mindless bureaucrat. Why would the Obama administration change the oath in this way, anyone? Bueller?
crazy (492101) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:02 pmSomeone screwed up. In MEPS facilities all over the country, future airmen, marines, sailors and solders are able to replace “so help me God” with “I so affirm” or similar language in their initial enlistment oath.
I can’t imagine reenlistment paperwork does not allow the same.
Wait a minute, yes I can. I’ve seen personnel clerks in action.
Tonypete (7ad0e6) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:02 pmDana – Here is a link to the letter sent on behalf of the Airman:
http://americanhumanist.org/system/storage/2/5d/3/5241/SKMBT_C28014090209010.pdf
The Air Force is only asking him to affirm a few words, not bake a cake or sew a dress or anything.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:08 pmIs this a Duffleblog story, washed through the media of its source?
He (or she) would have changed the wording when they enlisted, or didn’t object then. That’s not hard to explain at all. The “explanation” offered is hogwash. It may be legal hogwash, but it’s hogwash, pure and simple.
When will the word “God” be quietly changed to “Allah”?
htom (412a17) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:10 pmWhen a fellow Major and I pinned on LtCol in 2009, the script for the ceremony specifically excluded “So help me God” from his oath, cuing the Colonel giving us our oaths (individually) to leave that part out of his. It didn’t seem to cause any problems.
john1v6 (78138c) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:24 pmHeh! The AFI may have been changed in 2013 but the statute was changed in 1989 (to strike out “or affirmation”). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm The military: always fighting the last war.
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2014 @ 4:49 pmPretty much the airman and his lawyers are right and the Air Force, and whoever in Congress connived at making that phrase a requirement, are wrong.
I noted when the change was announced to the regulation and wondered if something was up. Now it seems it has become an issue.
As it goes, I had something similar come up when I had to testify to a grand jury about 15 years ago. And it wasn’t the ADA who had an issue with it, but some random person on the grand jury who questioned what I was doing.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/6/2014 @ 5:13 pmThere’s an AFI on AFIs. 136 pages of it. My eyes started glazing at the index. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aa/publication/afi33-360/afi33-360.pdf
My bureau lies over the ocean
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2014 @ 5:41 pmMy bureau lies over the sea
Oh, won’t you cross over that ocean
And hang my bureaucracy!
The idea that the government shall be free of religion get to be a problem when the government wants to be in charge of everything. The government’s solution? Get rid of God entirely and there’s no issue.
Atheism is the state religion, masquerading as the absence of same. All shall conform or go hungry.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/6/2014 @ 10:03 pmVirtually no one declines to say SHMG as a witness, in my lengthy experience. I know of only one person who has requested that, and I own his shoes.
I think the accounts here of people who were easily accommodated are how it should play out. I can’t figure out why the Air Force would engage in this pretty clearly unconstitutional action. (The military can engage in behavior that would be unconstitutional otherwise, but I can’t imagine a legal excuse for this.)
For those that blame the airman, I don’t understand. If the oath were, “So help me, Allah,” complaining would be stupid, because if you don’t believe in Allah, why worry? Seriously?
JRM (cd0a37) — 9/6/2014 @ 10:13 pmAllah is God.
B1 (7f6103) — 9/6/2014 @ 11:52 pmAllah is the invention of a mass-murdering, pedophile, rapist, thieving slave trader who had sex with his daughter-in-law. And Since the the above statements are documented by the Koran and Hadith, a Moslem can’t deny those statements without blaspheming.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 9/7/2014 @ 12:55 amAll it takes to explain the change is to notice that ““Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”” contains the word “God” … therefore, it must be eliminated … and it was …
It’s not like the Administration are rocket sturgeons, after all …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 9/7/2014 @ 12:58 amMust have been Bush’s fault. I know it couldn’t be Obama’s fault, even though he was the commander in chief over the armed forces when the change was made 2013, I’m sure he was playing golf at the time, therefore, somehow it must be Bush’s fault.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 9/7/2014 @ 1:05 amI thot we had volunteer services.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/7/2014 @ 6:44 amI don’t understand how anybody could have thought that you could mandatory the “so help me God” clause.
It is quite clear in the U.S. Constitution, and it was there even before the First Amendment:
Article VI, Clause 3:
Why is this even being litigated?
Sammy Finkelman (728434) — 9/7/2014 @ 7:24 amGranted, no one should be compelled to swear to something to which they do not in their heart believe. As a practicing (and one who needs lots of practice…) Christian, I’d love it if everyone were comfortable making that affirmation, but do not wish it forced on anybody. On the other hand, of all of the armed forces, the AF has been without exception THE most pain-in-the-ass service when it comes to believers even hinting that they are so, yet here is the AF sticking by a rule so obviously out of sync with our history and laws. Go figure…
NeoCon_1 (659b90) — 9/7/2014 @ 9:41 am29. Allah is Satan.
FIFY.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/7/2014 @ 10:49 amIn the one mass enlistment when I entered the Navy in 1973, the enlisteing officer said repeat after me, “I do solemenly swear or affirm…” After that, you told the reenlisting officer which you wanted to do so it didn’t sound stilted. If you affirmed, SHMG was left out.
Sounds like a clerical error that needs to be corrected. But, and BTW, the “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. ” is overriden by Art 1 Sect 8 “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”. That’s why UCMJ Article 134 has always been ruled Constitutional. It basically says, if we forgot to make it unlawful, and you do something we don’t like, we’ll charge you with this. In civil law, that would be a no-go at the first court it hit. And it’s why Navy regs state that “a commanding office at sea shall cause religious services to be held every Sunday.”. Doesn’t matter whether the CO is atheist, Jewish, or whatever. I’ve known Chaplains and religious lay leaders who have had to remind CO’s of that when they want to hold drills all day to prepare for inspections.
gospace (3c33bb) — 9/7/2014 @ 3:04 pmNonsense.
If that were the case, then Art 1 Sect 5″
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Would allow Congress to impose religious tests by declaring them part of the “qualifications” or lack of conformance to constitute “disorderly Behaviour”.
For that matter, Art 1 Sec 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
Could be used by the States to disqualify voters based on religion.
Mind you, they couldn’t have a State religion or impede your practice of religion, but they could certainly make giving an oath a requirement to vote, which would then have an effect on who people vote for.
For the same reason that treaties cannot be made that violate the Constitution, a delegated power to make rules cannot be taken to permit violating the prohibition of religious tests.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/7/2014 @ 5:43 pmEnlisted men aren’t an office or public trust as commonly understood.
gospace (3c33bb) — 9/7/2014 @ 8:40 pmJust because something is commonly misunderstood incorrectly does not make it so.
Further, if they must make an oath or affirmation as specified in the Constitution then clearly someone perceives that they qualify as such to begin with.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/8/2014 @ 8:46 amTitle 1, Section 1 of the United States Code says that “oath” also means “affirmation”. That’s also in the legislative history 10 USC 502, the specific provision that applies here. This is just an illustration of deep dipstickery in the military bureaucracy which drafted the Instruction. Three degrees of reduction in rank, stockade hard labor for 30 days including full pack marching in place*, for the desk jockeys to get them in touch with what’s real.
*Do they still do that? 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2014 @ 9:02 amThe tradition to say “so help me God” began with George Washington ad libbed those words when he took the oath of office for President during his first inaugural. It is not part of the official oath and no person taking the oath of office for President is required to recite it. It is nothing more than tradition. A tradition that has flowed into most, if not all, official oaths in the United States. As the story cited in this post points out it is also a tradition that was optional for members of the armed forces until very recently. It would make sense to return to the old policy that was in place only eleven months ago.
As an aside, I was somewhat surprised that when Obama took the oath he didn’t say “so help me me”.
Joe (33fd9a) — 9/8/2014 @ 2:07 pm