PDA

View Full Version : Religion causes another problem



John Smith
09-06-2014, 01:38 PM
Atheist can't re-enlist because he won't say the religious words in the oath.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/05/3563944/the-air-force-wont-allow-an-atheist-airman-to-reenlist-unless-he-swears-a-religious-oath/

Made me think of how we fired many greatly needed interpreters a few years back because they were gay.

Sometimes this is a really stupid country.

CWSmith
09-06-2014, 01:43 PM
Why don't you blame the real source - congress? We don't want a military that routinely decides which orders are constitutional and which are not. This isn't religion. It's stupid politics.

Ian McColgin
09-06-2014, 01:54 PM
What's odd is that the oath respects the religious scruples of some Christian sects that object to "swearing" but are ok with "affirming". This oath is a disgrace to our nation and our constitution. I'd thought it was long gone.

BrianY
09-06-2014, 03:11 PM
It's not "religion" that's the problem. It's the people who insist on forcing religious beliefs and views into situations that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

skuthorp
09-06-2014, 03:55 PM
So, if in the future there was the draft again, would this be a way of avoiding service? I bet the rules would change repidly if so.

Nicholas Scheuer
09-06-2014, 05:00 PM
The same Generals who make these stupid "rules" also decide tactics in battle. What the H do they teach in their "War Colleges"?

John Smith
09-06-2014, 05:07 PM
Congress begins each day with a prayer. It doesn't seem to help.

skuthorp
09-07-2014, 08:05 AM
Congress begins each day with a prayer. It doesn't seem to help.
Well, if you take the base premise as true, then for it to 'help' the participants would actually have to be sincere.

Bubba L.
09-07-2014, 08:41 AM
Perhaps you need to believe in a loving god to be the kind of mindless killer armies want.

Gene

Too Little Time
09-07-2014, 10:21 AM
Part of being in a social group is accepting that sometimes you accept group beliefs over your beliefs. Sometimes you compromise.

One does not have to attribute a "religious nature" to the words. They are simply words that mean we will fight together. But given his reluctance to utter the words, I would not want to fight next to him. He might have other more serious objections later.

ccmanuals
09-07-2014, 10:24 AM
The same Generals who make these stupid "rules" also decide tactics in battle. What the H do they teach in their "War Colleges"?

The generals did not make this decision. The oath was changed due to law. Congress.

Paul Girouard
09-07-2014, 10:27 AM
Part of being in a social group is accepting that sometimes you accept group beliefs over your beliefs. Sometimes you compromise.

One does not have to attribute a "religious nature" to the words. They are simply words that mean we will fight together. But given his reluctance to utter the words,


<<< <<<I would not want to fight next to him.>>>>>>

He might have other more serious objections later.

Meh, he was Air Force , how much "fighting" would he or his units really see? LOL

skuthorp
09-07-2014, 10:28 AM
Part of being in a social group is accepting that sometimes you accept group beliefs over your beliefs. Sometimes you compromise.

One does not have to attribute a "religious nature" to the words. They are simply words that mean we will fight together. But given his reluctance to utter the words, I would not want to fight next to him. He might have other more serious objections later.
I personally think that an oath taken under duress has no standing.

Paul Pless
09-07-2014, 10:34 AM
meh, wouldn't swearing an oath to god just be a meaningless platitude for an atheist? dude's just being bush. . .

Bubba L.
09-07-2014, 10:42 AM
Part of being in a social group is accepting that sometimes you accept group beliefs over your beliefs. Sometimes you compromise.

One does not have to attribute a "religious nature" to the words. They are simply words that mean we will fight together. But given his reluctance to utter the words, I would not want to fight next to him. He might have other more serious objections later.

Not true. Everything before "so help me god" is the part that means we will fight together. He agreed to that part. It's being required to accept another's religion that he balks at. The words "so help me god" are religious in nature. To think otherwise shows real ignorance.

Gene

ccmanuals
09-07-2014, 10:56 AM
Meh, he was Air Force , how much "fighting" would he or his units really see? LOL

Seriously, the AF is always in the fight when the grunts are still shining their boots. My nephew who is AF special ops hasn't stopped fighting since we invaded Afghanistan. He's over there now as a matter of fact.

Too Little Time
09-07-2014, 11:05 AM
Not true. Everything before "so help me god" is the part that means we will fight together. He agreed to that part. It's being required to accept another's religion that he balks at. The words "so help me god" are religious in nature. To think otherwise shows real ignorance.

Gene

I don't believe in a God. But I am willing to accept that others do and that "so help me God" is a reference to their God. And that taking an oath with those words is important to them.

It is not about ignorance. It is about others. It is not always about me.

(There is a difference between "God" and "god." While I used to think "god" was proper, I am considering that "God" might be better usage.)

CWSmith
09-07-2014, 11:20 AM
I do believe in God and I take those words very seriously. I am told by people who are there that witnesses lie on the witness stand every day. The oath means nothing to them. To me, it's calling The Almighty to witness that I am speaking the truth. That's a very big deal.

For this reason, if a person does not believe, it's a very big deal to make them take that kind of oath. You make them lie from the outset when they may not be inclined to lie. They lie for the privilege of telling the truth. It isn't smart, fair, or a very good idea.

I don't care if they take an oath on their honor, their lives, or their mother's grave, but it should be meaningful and not forced.

Ian McColgin
09-07-2014, 12:14 PM
As I mentioned above, the oath is partly sensitive to some Christians by allowing "affirm" rather than "swear", but it's not sensitive to the conflicting understandings of the third (or second) commandment among various Jews, Christians and Muslims, many of whom take the commandment to mean that an oath in God's name is the ultimately serious oath but many others take to mean that any oath in God's name is blasphemy. Of course an oath in God's name is meaningless to those whose religion has either a different God from the MEM God or who hold with no God at all.

Really, the word of a Christian, Jew or Muslim ought to be good whether he or she invokes God or not.

In any event, when I was part of a mainstream Christian sect, I saw this sort of oath as blasphemy. When I passed to a more Emersonian universal point of view, I saw this sort of oath as profoundly insulting. The fact that a congress passed this as law is disgraceful and deliberately demeans the honor of our nation and our citizens.

CWSmith
09-07-2014, 12:23 PM
Really, the word of a Christian, Jew or Muslim ought to be good whether he or she invokes God or not.

That's the truth. It should be. Very often, it is not.


The fact that a congress passed this as law is disgraceful and deliberately demeans the honor of our nation and our citizens.

Grandstanding for an ignorant electorate.

Paul Girouard
09-07-2014, 12:40 PM
Seriously, the AF is always in the fight when the grunts are still shining their boots. My nephew who is AF special ops hasn't stopped fighting since we invaded Afghanistan. He's over there now as a matter of fact.

The USN drops the first bombs, we set up the runways, soften up the Op area , then the AF moves in with condo style barracks , hangars , golf courses, etc.

Settle down CC, I knew I bait you into this thread , LOL. It takes all our efforts to get the job done, the "smart" one join the AF , it IS the most "cush" service , with the exception of the few Spec. Op's forces the AF has PJ's , Para-Jumpers , isn't that what that rate is in the AF? I wonder how may PJ's the AF supports in the fleet?

ccmanuals
09-07-2014, 12:52 PM
The USN drops the first bombs, we set up the runways, soften up the Op area , then the AF moves in with condo style barracks , hangars , golf courses, etc.

Settle down CC, I knew I bait you into this thread , LOL. It takes all our efforts to get the job done, the "smart" one join the AF , it IS the most "cush" service , with the exception of the few Spec. Op's forces the AF has PJ's , Para-Jumpers , isn't that what that rate is in the AF? I wonder how may PJ's the AF supports in the fleet?

My nephew is a crew member on an AC 130. PJ's are trained right here at Lackland AFB. I know their training is pretty grueling. In fact I believe their washout rate is as high as seal training. One small correction. I believe it's the AF that clears landing zones and runways. It's a major part of the Civil Engineers mission. :)

CWSmith
09-07-2014, 01:21 PM
I think you are confused.


So, if you lie under oath does God charge you with perjury at the pearly gates?

I suspect that if I do it He will not be particularly pleased. I would be calling on Him to be a co-conspirator in my lies. Since that would hurt others, I would probably need to rely on his forgiveness, but then that's the case for many things.


And then counting the angels on pinheads?

This is a standard example of religion reduced to the trivial. In the process, people who do so tend to ignore the more important things like how their actions have consequences for others.

So the two really are not related.

skuthorp
09-07-2014, 03:49 PM
In any event, when I was part of a mainstream Christian sect, I saw this sort of oath as blasphemy. When I passed to a more Emersonian universal point of view, I saw this sort of oath as profoundly insulting. The fact that a congress passed this as law is disgraceful and deliberately demeans the honor of our nation and our citizens.
So Congress, in passing such a law, made a populist political decision that effectively demonstrated their collective disregard for actual belief?

Waddie
09-07-2014, 03:59 PM
meh, wouldn't swearing an oath to god just be a meaningless platitude for an atheist? dude's just being bush. . .

Exactly. +1. An oath sworn to anything you don't believe is meaningless, whether it be God, country or your honor. Many people don't feel bound by any kind of oath; they simply don't believe in oaths. This guy has a bigger agenda.

When I accompany my wife to Mass I say the Apostles Creed right along with her, 'cause later I'll want to see her naked, but I don't believe a word of it.

regards,
Waddie

skuthorp
09-07-2014, 04:04 PM
"When I accompany my wife to Mass I say the Apostles Creed right along with her, 'cause later I'll want to see her naked, but I don't believe a word of it. "
Interesting. For me it'd be better for all if I just stayed home, or sat outside. I have declined to attend religious weddings and become 'godfather' for the same reason. To go through the motions is to me hypocrisy.

PeterSibley
09-07-2014, 06:50 PM
"When I accompany my wife to Mass I say the Apostles Creed right along with her, 'cause later I'll want to see her naked, but I don't believe a word of it. "
Interesting. For me it'd be better for all if I just stayed home, or sat outside. I have declined to attend religious weddings and become 'godfather' for the same reason. To go through the motions is to me hypocrisy.

+1

I have a tendency towards honesty and saying or professing beliefs that I can not agree with is a particular falseness I find objectionable ... others may disagree.

hanleyclifford
09-07-2014, 07:12 PM
Exactly. +1. An oath sworn to anything you don't believe is meaningless, whether it be God, country or your honor. Many people don't feel bound by any kind of oath; they simply don't believe in oaths. This guy has a bigger agenda.

When I accompany my wife to Mass I say the Apostles Creed right along with her, 'cause later I'll want to see her naked, but I don't believe a word of it.

regards,
Waddie The king supposedly said, "Paris is worth a Mass"; we all make compromises;)

John Smith
09-07-2014, 07:28 PM
Part of being in a social group is accepting that sometimes you accept group beliefs over your beliefs. Sometimes you compromise.

One does not have to attribute a "religious nature" to the words. They are simply words that mean we will fight together. But given his reluctance to utter the words, I would not want to fight next to him. He might have other more serious objections later.

That's like some who won't sign a loyalty oath not being loyal and kicked out of the army. Any enemy would be more than happy to sign such an oath, but it wouldn't mean anything to him.

Actually, I think if our lives depended upon it, I'd want my fellow "group members' to stop praying and fight.

John Smith
09-07-2014, 07:30 PM
I don't believe in a God. But I am willing to accept that others do and that "so help me God" is a reference to their God. And that taking an oath with those words is important to them.

It is not about ignorance. It is about others. It is not always about me.

(There is a difference between "God" and "god." While I used to think "god" was proper, I am considering that "God" might be better usage.)

So let THEM say it. Why can't those who believe show respect for those who don't?

Lew Barrett
09-07-2014, 07:33 PM
I do believe in God and I take those words very seriously. I am told by people who are there that witnesses lie on the witness stand every day. The oath means nothing to them. To me, it's calling The Almighty to witness that I am speaking the truth. That's a very big deal............ It isn't smart, fair, or a very good idea.

I don't care if they take an oath on their honor, their lives, or their mother's grave, but it should be meaningful and not forced.

I thoroughly agree.

If those who do believe in their particular god were asked to blaspheme in an oath or suffer consequences here and now, what would their responses be? Would they be outraged to have been forced to say a few words that denied their understandings of the workings of the universe? What's the big deal? They're Just Words. I suspect they would be mightily offended, and I expect we'd hear how a humanist society trampled on their rights here on these pages.

Yet after all, what's the difference? They're just a few harmless words. Surely denying their God by taking an oath as a practical matter to gain station or employment could be overlooked in the light of the greater good of a paycheck or uniform. To deny what you believe is loathsome for an honest person.

Waddie
09-07-2014, 09:16 PM
"When I accompany my wife to Mass I say the Apostles Creed right along with her, 'cause later I'll want to see her naked, but I don't believe a word of it. "
Interesting. For me it'd be better for all if I just stayed home, or sat outside. I have declined to attend religious weddings and become 'godfather' for the same reason. To go through the motions is to me hypocrisy.

To me it's gettin' some...... :)

regards,
Waddie

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-07-2014, 09:16 PM
The day I was drafted we ( about 40 guys) were led thru' the oath and then required to take one step forward to show each of us had done so without reservations. As I recall everyone there took the step. Of course, by that time everyone trying to beat the draft had been identified when we took the pre-induction physical. I suspect that if anyone had tried to wiggle out at that late date the draft board would have had them by the leg and was not about to let them interfere with fullfilling the board's quota.

BrianY
09-07-2014, 09:27 PM
If you believe that oaths like this are to be taken seriously as a pledge/promise to one's fellow soldiers and one's loyalty to one's country, why on earth would you ever think it 's OK for someone who doesn't believe in God to base the veracity and sincerity of this promise on something that they do not believe in?

Toolittle time - IMO. You are 100% wrong. Oaths like this are NOT about other people and what they believe. They are exclusively about what the oath taker is promising to do. If such a promise is made on the basis of a lie - swearing to a God in which the oath taker has no belief - why should any of his comrades believe that the promise is honest and sincere?

Ian McColgin
09-07-2014, 09:36 PM
" . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

CWSmith
09-07-2014, 09:43 PM
" . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Are you suggesting that there are members of Congress who have not read or do not understand the Constitution? Why, doesn't The Grand Old Party that holds the majority in the House spend the first day of every session reading it aloud? How could this be?

Was that too much sarcasm?

Breakaway
09-07-2014, 09:52 PM
Why would an atheist want to be part of an organization that incorporated an oath that invoked God? Seems to me this airman is just looking for a fight at worst ,or is simply petulant at best.

Kevin

Ian McColgin
09-07-2014, 09:54 PM
The current Congress are not the only ones who don't bother reading the Constitution. The Contenental Congress had an oath for officers that ended with "So help me God." But not enlisted troops. This was before the Constitution even existed. The first oath after the Constitution did not have "So help me God". But as our Civil War ran into its second year it was added and had been around in some form ever since.

Our Civil War had elements of holy cause on both sides and Samuel Elliot Morrison remarked rather colorfully that both side's armies were "the prayingest" in history.

CWSmith
09-07-2014, 09:57 PM
Our Civil War had elements of holy cause on both sides and Samuel Elliot Morrison remarked rather colorfully that both side's armies were "the prayingest" in history.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes and I suspect that was true then as now. (No offense, anyone!)

Nicholas Carey
09-07-2014, 10:37 PM
Atheist can't re-enlist because he won't say the religious words in the oath.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/05/3563944/the-air-force-wont-allow-an-atheist-airman-to-reenlist-unless-he-swears-a-religious-oath/



Made me think of how we fired many greatly needed interpreters a few years back because they were gay.



Sometimes this is a really stupid country.



Why don't you blame the real source - congress? We don't want a military that routinely decides which orders are constitutional and which are not. This isn't religion. It's stupid politics.


Or more appropriately, blame the evangelical "Christians"/American Taliban that have apparently hijacked the USAF general staff (which see the various scandals in the USAF over the past 15 years or so).

According to the USAF's own pertinent regulations, AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2606 9 MAY 2011
(Incorporating Change 1, 29 August 2012) Personnel: REENLISTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf#page37), the "so help me God" bit is optional. As it is for presidential swearings-in and every other Federal oath of Office.


5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment. (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf#page37)

All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the following oath:


"I, (State your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Note: Airmen may omit the words "So help me God", if desired for personal reasons).



It helps if one reads the documentation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Paul Pless
09-07-2014, 11:10 PM
So much ado about nothing.

BrianW
09-08-2014, 01:07 AM
Thank you Nicholas, for pointing out some truth.

There's no possible way this bit of craziness hasn't happened before.

Ian McColgin
09-08-2014, 06:04 AM
Thank you Nicholas. Now we'll see if the christiantaliban jerk who would not allow the re-enlistment is properly disciplined.

And what is it with so many fundies in the Air Force?

Kevin T
09-08-2014, 07:04 AM
Thank you Nicholas. Now we'll see if the christiantaliban jerk who would not allow the re-enlistment is properly disciplined. And what is it with so many fundies in the Air Force?

They work up there in the sky, which gets them closer to their sky buddy, thus the natural affinity. :-)

Chris Coose
09-08-2014, 07:56 AM
They work up there in the sky, which gets them closer to their sky buddy, thus the natural affinity. :-)

Of course, that's it!

I am grateful we live in a country where affiliation to this sort of endless BS can be walked away from. You'd think though these knuckleheads would have this particular BS worked out by now.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 08:34 AM
Why would an atheist want to be part of an organization that incorporated an oath that invoked God? Seems to me this airman is just looking for a fight at worst ,or is simply petulant at best.

Kevin
At this point in time, given the way we fail our vets, I don't know why anyone would want to join any branch of the military.

My question would be a bit different. The words in question, if my mind doesn't fail me, are "so help me God." Has God ever helped anyone do any of those other things in the oath?

ccmanuals
09-08-2014, 11:06 AM
Or more appropriately, blame the evangelical "Christians"/American Taliban that have apparently hijacked the USAF general staff (which see the various scandals in the USAF over the past 15 years or so).

According to the USAF's own pertinent regulations, AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2606 9 MAY 2011
(Incorporating Change 1, 29 August 2012) Personnel: REENLISTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf#page37), the "so help me God" bit is optional. As it is for presidential swearings-in and every other Federal oath of Office.


5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment. (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf#page37)

All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the following oath:


"I, (State your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Note: Airmen may omit the words "So help me God", if desired for personal reasons).



It helps if one reads the documentation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There was an administrative change to AFI36-2606 that removed the note regarding having to say "so help me God." Here is the change:



Administrative Changes to AFI36-2606, Reenlistment In The United States Air Force, 9 MAY 2011
OPR: AFPC/DPSOAE

Paragraph 5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment -- CANCELLED
Reference to Paragraph 5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment MUST READ:
“All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the following oath: I, (State
your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
30 October 2013

Ian McColgin
09-08-2014, 11:10 AM
So the twerk who denied reenlistment to an airman has the defense of "just following orders" to an order to violate the US Constitution which he or she has sworn to defend with or perhaps without God's help.

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 11:26 AM
Why would an atheist want to be part of an organization that incorporated an oath that invoked God? Seems to me this airman is just looking for a fight at worst ,or is simply petulant at best.

Kevin

Why does the organization want to oppress the atheist? Why does the organization invoke God, without a speck of authority to do so, in flat contradiction of its law?

Looking for a fight, you're God damn right. It's his country, and mine. Needs defending.

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 11:27 AM
So much ado about nothing.

Long live the rights of man.

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 11:30 AM
Thank you Nicholas, for pointing out some truth.

There's no possible way this bit of craziness hasn't happened before.

It happens perpetually, that's why the first amendment is the amendment that is first.

It isn't craziness, it's ignorant bigotry. It's precisely what the first amendment is aimed at.

CWSmith
09-08-2014, 11:35 AM
It happens perpetually, that's why the first amendment is the amendment that is first.

It isn't craziness, it's ignorant bigotry. It's precisely what the first amendment is aimed at.

Actually, it's tribalism in its basic form. "We only trust people like ourselves."

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 11:37 AM
Put another way, we only trust people who will say they believe in the god of Abraham, and really, not all of them either.

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 11:40 AM
Actually, it's tribalism in its basic form. "We only trust people like ourselves."

Yep. People who accuse "the government" of being "anti-Christian" are simultaneously wrong as to the simple facts and have grossly underestimated the challenge to their primitive mentality.

Too Little Time
09-08-2014, 11:41 AM
Toolittle time - IMO. You are 100% wrong. Oaths like this are NOT about other people and what they believe. They are exclusively about what the oath taker is promising to do. If such a promise is made on the basis of a lie - swearing to a God in which the oath taker has no belief - why should any of his comrades believe that the promise is honest and sincere?

From the Wiki on "so help me God:"


The essence of the phrase is a request to divine agency to render assistance (help) by being a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question, and by implication invoking divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in his or her duty in this regard.

You believe in a God. Perhaps you expect your God to attend to all of us in one way or another. You are saying that your God is not going to uphold my request in asking "so help me God." That must be a terrible God you have.


My comrades believe my oath is truthful, because I am willing to accept that they believe in a God. And that I accept their belief in God as a valid belief.

As you point out in the bolded text, oaths are about what others believe.

Kevin T
09-08-2014, 11:53 AM
Why would an atheist want to be part of an organization that incorporated an oath that invoked God? Seems to me this airman is just looking for a fight at worst ,or is simply petulant at best.

Kevin

Maybe he wants to "defend" his country, or get specialized training, or learn how to fly so he can get a big airline job at some point in the future.

Maybe he just wants to get access to the PX. If he is of the right age and meets the requirements, then it is his right to do so. If there is a "God oath" I think that runs counter to the Constitution .

Last I checked we weren't a theocracy.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 12:02 PM
Maybe he wants to "defend" his country, or get specialized training, or learn how to fly so he can get a big airline job at some point in the future.

Maybe he just wants to get access to the PX. If he is of the right age and meets the requirements, then it is his right to do so. If there is a "God oath" I think that runs counter to the Constitution .

Last I checked we weren't a theocracy.

All good reasons to want to be in the Air Force. Shoot, there are people who cannot find work and have been looking for some time. Many would gladly jump at the opportunities provided by the Air Force if only saying three words stood between them and gainful employment. This is exactly what I meant. Life is full of compromises and choices.

This person is not being forced to join the Air Force. He/She is FREE to seek out an employer whose philosophy matches his/ her own philosophy. And more power to those people who put their principles before a paycheck.

Kevin

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 12:06 PM
All good reasons to want to be in the Air Force. Shoot, there are people who cannot find work and have been looking for some time. Many would gladly jump at the opportunities provided by the Air Force if only saying three words stood between them and gainful employment. This is exactly what I meant. Life is full of compromises and choices.

This person is not being forced to join the Air Force. He/She is FREE to seek out an employer whose philosophy matches his/ her own philosophy. And more power to those people who put their principles before a paycheck.

Kevin

The Air Force isn't an employer, it's the government. He has a right to demand that the Air Force adhere to his philosophy, in this respect.

Kevin T
09-08-2014, 12:16 PM
All good reasons to want to be in the Air Force. Shoot, there are people who cannot find work and have been looking for some time. Many would gladly jump at the opportunities provided by the Air Force if only saying three words stood between them and gainful employment. This is exactly what I meant. Life is full of compromises and choices.

This person is not being forced to join the Air Force. He/She is FREE to seek out an employer whose philosophy matches his/ her own philosophy. And more power to those people who put their principles before a paycheck.

Kevin

Agree 100% on the life is full of compromises and choices.

I just don't see how a government agency/department can require a "god oath."

As I've always understood it, US military flight training is some of the best on the planet, giving future applicants for commercial aviation positions a leg up on those who might have received their flight training from some lesser institution like "Jebadiha's School of Pilot'in, Auto Fix'in and Gator Rassel'in.:rolleyes:"

You wouldn't want to deny a fellow citizen the best opportunities would you?

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 12:33 PM
I just don't see how a government agency/department can require a "god oath.

They dont require it, as has been pointed out by others earlier in the thread.

Now, knowing that the law allows him/her to delete and omit those words also means knowledge that the institution you are applying to still gives those words weight. They are only making an exception because the law says they have to. ( I am not arguing that point).

My take is, knowing that the organization you are about to join considers the words you refused to say of high import, why would you want to join that organization. A truly principled person would just walk away.

Kevin

BrianY
09-08-2014, 12:38 PM
Why would an atheist want to be part of an organization that incorporated an oath that invoked God? Seems to me this airman is just looking for a fight at worst ,or is simply petulant at best.

Kevin

I sorry but that's a really stupid question, IMO. Essentially you're saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to join the military and that there's no reason that any atheist should ever want to.

I'd agree perhpas if we weret aling about a private institution such as a church (i.e. an atheist wants to become a Catholic priest) , but we'r enot. We're talkig about the US military - a public entity, an arm of our government.

Why should any public instituion require its memebers to believe in God? What purpose does that serve?

Flying Orca
09-08-2014, 12:46 PM
I have a tendency towards honesty and saying or professing beliefs that I can not agree with is a particular falseness I find objectionable ... others may disagree.

I quite agree. I won't even perform a song if the lyrical content is not something I can stand behind, let alone swear an oath with religious language. Such oaths are discriminatory and insulting and well beyond their best-before date.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 01:12 PM
sorry but that's a really stupid question, IMO. Essentially you're saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to join the military and that there's no reason that any atheist should ever want to.

Your point of view would probably be the ideal way that things should be. I am coming from a the standpoint of the way things are. And the way things are is, a belief in God ( for better or worse, I will not take sides) is an institutionalized part of our government. Its on our currency, its in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress begins each day with a prayer, its in our court system.... I am not breaking news here.

Point is that is the way things are.

Kevin

Kevin T
09-08-2014, 01:23 PM
They dont require it, as has been pointed out by others earlier in the thread.

Now, knowing that the law allows him/her to delete and omit those words also means knowledge that the institution you are applying to still gives those words weight. They are only making an exception because the law says they have to. ( I am not arguing that point).

My take is, knowing that the organization you are about to join considers the words you refused to say of high import, why would you want to join that organization. A truly principled person would just walk away.

Kevin

Yeah, but where are you going to get to fly so many different cool planes, if that's what you want to do.

You join because you want to serve your country, not pledge fealty to a sky buddy. What a bunch of command stooges place import on is none of my affair, especially since they have no legal leg to stand on in trying to apply any measure of importance to such words.

We'd all laugh if they insisted on finishing an oath with "So help me Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus." The last optional line, where I see that CC indicated the "optional" instructions were removed from the regs is no different.

Flying Orca
09-08-2014, 01:27 PM
I am coming from a the standpoint of the way things are. And the way things are is, a belief in God (...) is an institutionalized part of our government. Its on our currency, its in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress begins each day with a prayer, its in our court system.

That's only part of the story. Most of those things have been added in relatively recent years by people who have an explicit religious agenda to push, namely, evangelical Christianity. There is a counter-strain running through the fabric of the country from its earliest years, whether it be the rejection of a religious test for public office, the famous disavowal of the USA as a "Christian nation", etc. To say "it's the way things are" and leave it at that is to abandon those without religious belief to second-class citizenship - something the founders most certainly didn't intend; to fight against the pernicious bigotry that is (as you correctly note) institutionalized in your government is incumbent upon anyone who supports freedom of belief and conscience.

BrianY
09-08-2014, 01:29 PM
Point is that is the way things are.

Well, that may be true, but that doesn't mean it's right. Fighting against 'the way things are" is the only way that societies progress. Otheriwise we'd still be a slave-owning, patriarchal colony of England. To criticize someone for standing up against a wrong is...wrong

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 01:51 PM
Well, that may be true, but that doesn't mean it's right. Fighting against 'the way things are" is the only way that societies progress. Otheriwise we'd still be a slave-owning, patriarchal colony of England. To criticize someone for standing up against a wrong is...wrong

I am not criticizing him for standing up for change. I am criticizing him for being disingenuous: he is saying he's an atheist on one hand and that he wants to be part of an organization with institutionalized religion as a component on the other.

When was the last time you had your cake and ate it?

Kevin

John Smith
09-08-2014, 02:23 PM
Why does the organization want to oppress the atheist? Why does the organization invoke God, without a speck of authority to do so, in flat contradiction of its law?

Looking for a fight, you're God damn right. It's his country, and mine. Needs defending.

Seems to me this is precisely one of those rights we have that so many have died to protect.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 02:27 PM
Your point of view would probably be the ideal way that things should be. I am coming from a the standpoint of the way things are. And the way things are is, a belief in God ( for better or worse, I will not take sides) is an institutionalized part of our government. Its on our currency, its in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress begins each day with a prayer, its in our court system.... I am not breaking news here.

Point is that is the way things are.

Kevin
I don't say the pledge since those words were inserted. The fact that congress begins every day with a prayer should, by itself, be a reason we should not pray.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 02:29 PM
I am not criticizing him for standing up for change. I am criticizing him for being disingenuous: he is saying he's an atheist on one hand and that he wants to be part of an organization with institutionalized religion as a component on the other.

When was the last time you had your cake and ate it?

Kevin

NO offense, but that's a whaky statement. He doesn't see the airforce in any way as a religious organization. It's not supposed to be.

The Air Force is a part of our government; you know, the one that's not supposed to establish a religion.

BrianY
09-08-2014, 02:42 PM
I am not criticizing him for standing up for change. I am criticizing him for being disingenuous: he is saying he's an atheist on one hand and that he wants to be part of an organization with institutionalized religion as a component on the other.

When was the last time you had your cake and ate it?

Kevin

That brings up whole issue of the propriety of "instituionalized religion" in a government department. It may be a cultural thing that Christianity is part of the military, but it is NOT legal or appropriate for a govenrment insitution to act in a way that establish a preference for a particular religion or for it to discriminate on the basis of religious faith. Despite what the military culture may be, the Constitution says otherwise and the military and the government is supposed to be subservient to the Constituion.

Flying Orca
09-08-2014, 02:45 PM
I am criticizing him for being disingenuous: he is saying he's an atheist on one hand and that he wants to be part of an organization with institutionalized religion as a component on the other.

No - he wants to be part of an organization that is not supposed to have institutionalized religion but does have it. That is the problem.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 03:15 PM
Whether it is supposed to or not I am not arguing: I am saying it does have institutionalized religion, so why would a professed atheist want to be part of it? Its like being Vegan and wanting steak not to be meat. Laws can't change it; laws can only change the way it appears.

Want to correct a deeply-ingrained, socialized characteristic of an organization? Have a go. You may be successful at some point in the future.

Kevin

Flying Orca
09-08-2014, 03:18 PM
Whether it is supposed to or not I am not arguing: I am saying it does have institutionalized religion, so why would a professed atheist want to be part of it? Its like being Vegan and wanting steak not to be meat. Laws can't change it; laws can only change the way it appears.

Want to correct a deeply-ingrained, socialized characteristic of an organization? Have a go. You may be successful at some point in the future.

Indeed, that's the only way such characteristics ARE corrected.

Your fatalism is tantamount to not getting involved in government because there is corruption. It's a cop-out.

BrianY
09-08-2014, 03:28 PM
Whether it is supposed to or not I am not arguing: I am saying it does have institutionalized religion, so why would a professed atheist want to be part of it? Its like being Vegan and wanting steak not to be meat. Laws can't change it; laws can only change the way it appears.

Want to correct a deeply-ingrained, socialized characteristic of an organization? Have a go. You may be successful at some point in the future.

Kevin

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that MLK, Ghandi, the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther and a million other people went against prevailing attitudes,social instituions, traditions, etc. didn't have your attitude. If they did - if everybody did - nothing would ever change, no wrongs would be corrected and we'd be stuck in a crappy primative feudal society.

You wanna sit on the sidelines,stay out of the fray and not try to do anything to imporve society? Fine. That's your right. But please don't criticize others for trying to affect change.

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 03:32 PM
Whether it is supposed to or not I am not arguing: I am saying it does have institutionalized religion . . .

If so, it has revolted and needs to be suppressed quickly and harshly.


. . . so why would a professed atheist want to be part of it?

To have a chance of reform short of bloodshed. To serve with honor in combat against enemies foreign and domestic.


Its like being Vegan and wanting steak not to be meat. Laws can't change it; laws can only change the way it appears.

That's what they said about hereditary aristocracy.


Want to correct a deeply-ingrained, socialized characteristic of an organization? Have a go. You may be successful at some point in the future.

It's not a desire, it's a duty. What happens or doesn't happen at any particular point doesn't matter. The struggle is perpetual.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 03:57 PM
You misunderstand me. I believe in striving for change. But I can't get past the reasons why a person without religion would want to be part of an organization that incorporates religion in the first place? One doesn't walk into a barber and not expect a hair cut, does one?

Kevin

Flying Orca
09-08-2014, 03:59 PM
You misunderstand me. I believe in striving for change. But I can't get past the reasons why a person without religion would want to be part of an organization that incorporates religion in the first place? One doesn't walk into a barber and not expect a hair cut, does one?

More like wanting to join the fire department and discovering that the rest of the department is out lighting fires. These people are flouting the very constitution they swore an oath to uphold, and if action isn't taken, they will continue to do so.

skuthorp
09-08-2014, 04:05 PM
Question: Considering the Airforce is a Government organisation, if the oath required to be sworn violates the Constitution is it also invalid and hence unenforceable? And if so, how many other similar oaths sworn would also be debatable in a court of law? In law the form of words is indeed important as someone else remarked earlier.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 04:13 PM
More like wanting to join the fire department and discovering that the rest of the department is out lighting fires. These people are flouting the very constitution they swore an oath to uphold, and if action isn't taken, they will continue to do so.

I get it. And we can make change. Make a new law. The forms will change. The oath will change. The language required to speak to one another can be regulated to make the use of certain words illegal in certain contexts,

But none of this can change the hearts and minds of the bulk of the people that make up the organization. It will still have ingrained religious elements because the bulk of the people who comprise the group will be religious.

Back to my point: Why would you want to do it in the first place if it really and truly goes against your very core beliefs or principles? I can't get that. If it was me, I'd just say the hell with them, and do something else; Spend my time making changes in my life, rather than trying to make other people change.

Kevin

Osborne Russell
09-08-2014, 04:14 PM
You misunderstand me. I believe in striving for change. But I can't get past the reasons why a person without religion would want to be part of an organization that incorporates religion in the first place? One doesn't walk into a barber and not expect a hair cut, does one?


The organization does not incorporate religion. It has been seized by evil men who are trying to make it incorporate religion. One does not expect that they will renounce their evil without a fight.

The organization in question commands the air power of the United States.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 04:17 PM
The organization does not incorporate religion. It has been seized by evil men who are trying to make it incorporate religion. One does not expect that they will renounce their evil without a fight.

When did this seizure take place? I am not positive, but I am pretty sure that the oath in contention here predates the current military directorate.

Kevin

skuthorp
09-08-2014, 04:23 PM
Breakaway. There have been threads, and indeed news articles on the infiltration of evangelicals in the US armed forces.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50696/birth_of_the_christian_soldier%3A_how_evangelicals _infiltrated_the_american_military

"James Parco provides compelling evidence there has been a disturbing expansion and entrenchment of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. military, a cultural force which remains at times both tacitly and overtly endorsed by senior military leaders."
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/for_god_and_country_religious_fundamentalism_in_th e_u.s._military/


And I'd still like to know if the oath as presently worded and administered has any legal standing.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 04:32 PM
Breakaway. There have been threads, and indeed news articles on the infiltration of evangelicals in the US armed forces.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50696/...rican_military (http://www.alternet.org/story/50696/birth_of_the_christian_soldier%3A_how_evangelicals _infiltrated_the_american_military)




All right, then. If that is the case ( right or wrong, I am saying neither here), why does an atheist want in?

Kevin

Ian McColgin
09-08-2014, 04:40 PM
We're one nation. We all have an obligation to serve in some way or another. At times most have been called by draft. In any event, we agreed in our constitution to make no religious test for those who would serve. Our ChristoTaliban do not get their way.

skuthorp
09-08-2014, 04:43 PM
Because as I understand it he was attempting to re-enlist, or extend his service? Or maybe he's a patriotic citizen that thinks such service is the best thing he can do for his country?
This attitude smacks of the view that it's only a belief, or fear of a god and eternal damnation that makes people behave in a 'proper' manner.

And Ian, as I asked before, if this oath is applied to draftees is it actually constitutionally legal?

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 05:40 PM
Gott Mit Uns.
(http://gottmituns.net/about/)

Same old, same old.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 05:54 PM
Whether it is supposed to or not I am not arguing: I am saying it does have institutionalized religion, so why would a professed atheist want to be part of it? Its like being Vegan and wanting steak not to be meat. Laws can't change it; laws can only change the way it appears.

Want to correct a deeply-ingrained, socialized characteristic of an organization? Have a go. You may be successful at some point in the future.

Kevin
Please re-read this thread. This item was changed. It had allowed the individual to omit that phrase. It was changed so he must say that phrase.

So yes, things of this nature can be changed.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 05:57 PM
You misunderstand me. I believe in striving for change. But I can't get past the reasons why a person without religion would want to be part of an organization that incorporates religion in the first place? One doesn't walk into a barber and not expect a hair cut, does one?

Kevin
Nor do I ask what religious beliefs the barber has.

Maybe a guy just wants to help his country, or begin a career in flying. He has every right to not invoke God in so doing.

This is almost as silly as when we fired much needed interpreters because they were gay. Another stupid thing this country did.

John Smith
09-08-2014, 05:59 PM
I get it. And we can make change. Make a new law. The forms will change. The oath will change. The language required to speak to one another can be regulated to make the use of certain words illegal in certain contexts,

But none of this can change the hearts and minds of the bulk of the people that make up the organization. It will still have ingrained religious elements because the bulk of the people who comprise the group will be religious.

Back to my point: Why would you want to do it in the first place if it really and truly goes against your very core beliefs or principles? I can't get that. If it was me, I'd just say the hell with them, and do something else; Spend my time making changes in my life, rather than trying to make other people change.

Kevin
Civil rights laws didn't change the hearts and minds of the racist. Rights for gay people don't change the hearts and minds of bigots.

What they do is make it illegal to act on the bigoted beliefs.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 06:00 PM
You guys keep saying how it a nation and change is possible and someone's good and with struggling for etc. I am in board with all that.

I just cannot understand why an atheist would want to be in the Air Force, or any other group, if he knew, or believed, that the group was heavily populated with religious extremists.? Why? To be the test case? The trouble and effort that young person will out themselves through would equal that required to start and sustain a business .... or an advocacy group.



MLK didn't ride a bus... He fought for those who did. Gandhi did live as much as possible like those fir whom he championed causes ( but if Gandhi got sick , no one would have let him die in the street, so he wasn't quite like those he served).

The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

John Smith
09-08-2014, 06:01 PM
We're one nation. We all have an obligation to serve in some way or another. At times most have been called by draft. In any event, we agreed in our constitution to make no religious test for those who would serve. Our ChristoTaliban do not get their way.

Can you imagine avoiding going to Vietnam by simply refusing to say "...so help me God"?

Horace
09-08-2014, 06:07 PM
The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf.
Except when they weren't...or didn't....

Bah.

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 06:18 PM
Except when they weren't...or didn't....

Bah.

Non Slave Holders:
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Oliver Ellsworth
Alexander Hamilton
Robert Treat Paine
Thomas Paine
Roger Sherman

Slave Holders:
Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
Benjamin Franklin
Button Gwinnett
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
John Jay
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Henry Lee
James Madison
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Benjamin Rush
Edward Rutledge
George Washington

We can identify them name by name and make a tabulation but on balance, the evidence suggests that the wealthy and politically active elite of this nation at the time it was founded were more inclined to keep slaves than not.

Horace
09-08-2014, 06:28 PM
Non Slave Holders:
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Oliver Ellsworth
Alexander Hamilton
Robert Treat Paine
Thomas Paine
Roger Sherman

Slave Holders:
Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
Benjamin Franklin
Button Gwinnett
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
John Jay
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Henry Lee
James Madison
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Benjamin Rush
Edward Rutledge
George Washington

We can identify them name by name and make a tabulation but on balance, the evidence suggests that the wealthy and politically active elite of this nation at the time it was founded were more inclined to keep slaves than not.That's an incomplete list, to say the least--and possibly cherry-picked. Just for the sake of curiosity, what's the source of your information?

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 06:47 PM
Some real partisan cherry pickers, of course.

Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery)

The first link I came to with the google search terms:
"Founding fathers who held slaves."


LOL!

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 06:53 PM
Here's another article on the subject from that radical socialist outfit, the Smithsonian Institute!

Link (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/)


Did they all? Of course not. Just many, many of them, and among them, many of the great names we built monuments to and name high schools after.

skuthorp
09-08-2014, 07:08 PM
Well owning slaves was a very good business decision at the time, as was deciding to pay compensation rather than re-designing the Pinto in another time and importing goods from countries with no labour rules rather than building them at home is now. Business is business.

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 07:18 PM
Well owning slaves was a very good business decision at the time, as was deciding to pay compensation rather than re-designing the Pinto in another time and importing goods from countries with no labour rules rather than building them at home is now. Business is business.

Business is business.

The list of US presidents from the time of Washington to Lincoln (actually to Grant) indicts almost all of them as men....one hesitates to say "victims"....of their times. Of the first bunch, JQ Adams is notably the man who seems to have hated the practice for his entire life. Otherwise, it's a pretty sad showing.

The mythology touted is that Washington was said to have freed his slaves upon his death, but actually his will gave them to his wife (most of them were originally her family's slaves anyway). They were then to be freed upon her death. She freed them a few years later. It's sometimes said she did that because she feared that the will stipulating them to be freed upon her death would have encouraged them to see to just that. Makes some sense if you think about it.

Horace
09-08-2014, 08:06 PM
Some real partisan cherry pickers, of course.

Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery)

The first link I came to with the google search terms:
"Founding fathers who held slaves."

LOL!

Non Slave Holders:
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Oliver Ellsworth
Alexander Hamilton
Robert Treat Paine
Thomas Paine
Roger Sherman

Slave Holders:
Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
Benjamin Franklin
Button Gwinnett
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
John Jay
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Henry Lee
James Madison
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Benjamin Rush
Edward Rutledge
George Washington

We can identify them name by name and make a tabulation but on balance, the evidence suggests that the wealthy and politically active elite of this nation at the time it was founded were more inclined to keep slaves than not.Your list left off a qualifier found on the E. B. site: "Held slaves at some point in time."

Now, then, did you really think that any reasonably informed person in this country was unaware of the fact that some of those on the various lists of "Founding Fathers" were slaveholders?

"LOL!"

Now kindly review the following pair of quotes:



The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf. Except when they weren't...or didn't....

Bah.Are you really that desperate to create controversy, that you can't discern plain meaning?

Bah.

BrianY
09-08-2014, 08:08 PM
b

I just cannot understand why an atheist would want to be in the Air Force, or any other group, if he knew, or believed, that the group was heavily populated with religious extremists.? Why? To be the test case? The trouble and effort that young person will out themselves through would equal that required to start and sustain a business .... or an advocacy group.



He probably wants to join for the same reasons as anyone else. Since religious affiliation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the responsibilities and duties of a soldier ( except of course for chaplains) there is no reason that someone who is an atheist can't be an effective soldier. It's not like he's objecting to wearing a uniform, shooting a gun, following orders, etc - all things that any soldier MUST do to be a soldier. yes, it might be a hard road for him being different from others I this one thing, but as long as it doesn't affect his performance as a soldier, doesn't prevent him for. carrying out his duties, why should it be any of your concern if it's hard for him? Isn't it his choice?

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 09:02 PM
Are you really that desperate to create controversy, that you can't discern plain meaning?

Bah.

Your statement more than just infers that the founders holding of slaves wasn't widespread, when it fact it was very much so, and to be sure, you're the guy who picked the issue to argue over.

Another obfuscation from your lips to nobody's ears.

Too Little Time
09-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Your statement more than just infers that the founders holding of slaves wasn't widespread, when it fact it was very much so, and to be sure, you're the guy who picked the issue to argue over.

At one time a large portion of the country's wealth was the value of slaves.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/18/america_s_slave_wealth.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-half-has-never-been-told-by-edward-e-baptist-1409952510 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/18/america_s_slave_wealth.html)

ccmanuals
09-08-2014, 09:16 PM
The oath of enlistment is required by federal statute in 10 U.S.C. 502. Note: officers take a different oath.


502. Enlistment oath: who may administer


(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Breakaway
09-08-2014, 10:22 PM
Isn't it his choice?

Yes, for the umteenth time, it is his choice. I am niether questioning that, nor saying he should give up his right to choice. I am asking WHY he would want choose to do it, when he knows that a large portion of the people he'll work with--especially officers, his superiors--are at odds with him philosophically. Yeah its his right, Yeah he gets in. Great. I'm sure every day at work will be a joy for him, even moreso now that he has called all this attention to himself. So again, I ask ,why put yourself through it? Aren't there other choices this person could make for their life that have a better chance of a more positive outcome?

Kevin

Ian McColgin
09-08-2014, 10:32 PM
The officers have no right to impose their religious preferences on their subordinates in any way. If they are doing that, they are betraying values at the very core of our democracy, violating their own oath of office, and proving unworthy of their uniforms.

Horace
09-08-2014, 10:40 PM
Your list left off a qualifier found on the E. B. site: "Held slaves at some point in time."

Now, then, did you really think that any reasonably informed person in this country was unaware of the fact that some of those on the various lists of "Founding Fathers" were slaveholders?

"LOL!"

Now kindly review the following pair of quotes:



The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf. Except when they weren't...or didn't....

Bah.

Are you really that desperate to create controversy, that you can't discern plain meaning?

Bah.

"The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf." --Breakaway

"Except when they weren't...or didn't...." --Horace

Breakaway's statement quoted above implies something: read it carefully, and tell us what it says. Next, please tell us whether that something is correct.


Your statement more than just infers that the founders holding of slaves wasn't widespread, when it fact it was very much so, and to be sure, you're the guy who picked the issue to argue over.
My comment to which you responded (in quotes and underlined, above) implies nothing of the sort. Read it carefully, without inferring hidden meaning based on your own prejudices. As far as picking an issue to argue, perhaps you should review your statements and mine to see who's looking to do that. I simply corrected an obvious error.


Another obfuscation from your lips to nobody's ears.;)

Lew Barrett
09-08-2014, 10:56 PM
[I]

My comment to which you responded (in quotes and underlined, above) implies nothing of the sort. Read it carefully, without inferring hidden meaning based on your own prejudices. As far as picking an issue to argue, perhaps you should review your statements and mine to see who's looking to do that. I simply corrected an obvious error.

;)

Are you trying to suggest that as many as two of the first eight presidents of the nation didn't hold slaves so to that extent Kevin's general observation about the founders and slavery could be proven false by an exception? Is that your point? Or is your point that there was something partisan about a list drawnup by Enc. Britannica? As for poor men fighting rich men's wars, I didn't care to address that, but you may feel free to do so.

Whatever your points may be, I'll bow out of this for now as it's a distraction from the OP.

Horace
09-08-2014, 11:28 PM
Business is business.

The list of US presidents from the time of Washington to Lincoln (actually to Grant) indicts almost all of them as men....one hesitates to say "victims"....of their times. Of the first bunch, JQ Adams is notably the man who seems to have hated the practice for his entire life. Otherwise, it's a pretty sad showing.In respect to your quoted post above, in which you surrender the potential generality of the first sentence by the reference to slavery ("the practice") in the second, how do you reconcile that with the post below?


Are you trying to suggest that as many as two of the first eight presidents of the nation didn't hold slaves so to that extent the general observation about the founders and slavery could be proven false by an exception?Not at all. Perhaps there were more; considering the time frame, are you surprised?


Is that your point? Or is your point that there was something partisan about a list drawnup by Enc. Britannica? Neither. I've explained my point. You seem still to be laboring to infer meanings from my statements that allow you to exercise your own prejudices.

But if doing so gives you a comfortable feeling of superiority, either over me or the Founding Fathers, have at it.

ccmanuals
09-09-2014, 10:52 AM
The officers have no right to impose their religious preferences on their subordinates in any way. If they are doing that, they are betraying values at the very core of our democracy, violating their own oath of office, and proving unworthy of their uniforms.

Ian, Officers are required to follow the AF Instruction which is based on Federal law.

BrianY
09-09-2014, 10:58 AM
Yes, for the umteenth time, it is his choice. I am niether questioning that, nor saying he should give up his right to choice. I am asking WHY he would want choose to do it, when he knows that a large portion of the people he'll work with--especially officers, his superiors--are at odds with him philosophically. Yeah its his right, Yeah he gets in. Great. I'm sure every day at work will be a joy for him, even moreso now that he has called all this attention to himself. So again, I ask ,why put yourself through it? Aren't there other choices this person could make for their life that have a better chance of a more positive outcome?

Kevin

Why does it matter why he wants to join? Why does anyone want to join the military? The only point that matters is that he does and his atheism should not prevent him from doing so.

John Smith
09-09-2014, 11:04 AM
Yes, for the umteenth time, it is his choice. I am niether questioning that, nor saying he should give up his right to choice. I am asking WHY he would want choose to do it, when he knows that a large portion of the people he'll work with--especially officers, his superiors--are at odds with him philosophically. Yeah its his right, Yeah he gets in. Great. I'm sure every day at work will be a joy for him, even moreso now that he has called all this attention to himself. So again, I ask ,why put yourself through it? Aren't there other choices this person could make for their life that have a better chance of a more positive outcome?

Kevin

Suppose you wanted to join a sailing club because you like sailing and you like the location of the club. The club itself has absolutely no religious tendencies and people of any religion, or of no religion, are welcome to sail. However, in order to join one must take an oath that ends in "..so help me God." What would be the point of putting those words into the oath if they have nothing to do with being a club member?

John of Phoenix
09-09-2014, 11:23 AM
So help me God.War in the name of God. Not exactly a new concept.

CWSmith
09-09-2014, 11:30 AM
Yes, for the umteenth time, it is his choice. I am niether questioning that, nor saying he should give up his right to choice. I am asking WHY he would want choose to do it, when he knows that a large portion of the people he'll work with--especially officers, his superiors--are at odds with him philosophically. ...


Suppose you wanted to join a sailing club ...

No! This is not the point. They aren't "joining a club". They are enlisting to serve in the military to protect the nation and it's people. You can judge the use of the military by the politicians to be abusive and foolish. I do. You can judge that we spend too much on the military. I do. But these people hear the call to serve, to protect their neighbors and other citizens, and they are blocked by an unconstitutional command. It's wrong. No officer (and no politician) has the right to claim the military for themselves and people who think like them.

Breakaway
09-09-2014, 11:40 AM
Suppose you wanted to join a sailing club because you like sailing and you like the location of the club. The club itself has absolutely no religious tendencies and people of any religion, or of no religion, are welcome to sail. However, in order to join one must take an oath that ends in "..so help me God." What would be the point of putting those words into the oath if they have nothing to do with being a club member?

Me personally? If there was no other venue to keep a boat, and this club had the goods, I'd just say the words, sign the form, and go sailing. But then, my religious convictions are almost nil. Sailing would be more important to me than the words. I would excercises my right to make a choice and that is the choice I would make.
What another person would do, I cannot and will not say, except to remind that choose we must, for we can rarely " have it all" in any endeavor.

Kevin

Osborne Russell
09-09-2014, 02:33 PM
You guys keep saying how it a nation and change is possible and someone's good and with struggling for etc. I am in board with all that.

I just cannot understand why an atheist would want to be in the Air Force, or any other group, if he knew, or believed, that the group was heavily populated with religious extremists.? Why? To be the test case? The trouble and effort that young person will out themselves through would equal that required to start and sustain a business .... or an advocacy group.

Because he's an American and he has a pair -- good enough for me. Someone has to step up, sometime. In fact, every time, or one time will be the last time.


MLK didn't ride a bus... He fought for those who did. Gandhi did live as much as possible like those fir whom he championed causes ( but if Gandhi got sick , no one would have let him die in the street, so he wasn't quite like those he served).

The Founding Fathers? They were slave owning busiinessmen who sent poor people to war on their behalf.


They made great sacrifices which places us greatly in their debt, which we can only repay by sacrificing in defense of the principles they sacrificed for.

As a matter of historical fact:

1. The FF include those who did the fighting.
2. The proportions of rich and poor among the soldiers and sailors were close to what they were before the revolution, and the rich put up the money.
3. Nobody sent anyone to war, it was all volunteer.
4. They weren't all slave owners and some were abolitionists.
5. MLK & Gandhi knew they would probably take a bullet and they did.

Why the need to disparage those who defend our rights? They have "other priorities", like starting a business? That's what Cheney said. He's your hero?

skuthorp
09-09-2014, 04:21 PM
Interesting, re the mythical sailing club. I have absolutely no religious convictions, but I do have principles and scruples. One of which was not going through to my Queen's Scout (Eagle scout) because of the religious requirement. Going through the motions would have been enough I was told but then the achievement is devalued and not worth anything.
I admire the man for sticking to his principles, and find the attitude of the recruiting officer unacceptable.

Breakaway
09-09-2014, 06:40 PM
Interesting, re the mythical sailing club. I have absolutely no religious convictions, but I do have principles and scruples. One of which was not going through to my Queen's Scout (Eagle scout) because of the religious requirement. Going through the motions would have been enough I was told but then the achievement is devalued and not worth anything. I admire the man for sticking to his principles, and find the attitude of the recruiting officer unacceptable.

Excellent you chose your beliefs over joining the group. You did not insist that the group change to suit you. This is what I am saying. I happen to think the group is wrong.., but that is a selarTe issue from the choice you made. It's also subjective.

If the reason to join is to be an agent for change, someone needs to tell this young man or woman that crash test dummies didn't make safer cars. The people who installed and manipulated the dummies made change happen.

Kevin.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Breakaway
09-09-2014, 06:41 PM
Excellent you chose your beliefs over joining the group. You did not insist that the group change to suit you. This is what I am saying. I happen to think the group is wrong.., but that is a separate issue from the choice you made. It's also subjective. If the reason to join is to be an agent for change, someone needs to tell this young man or woman that crash test dummies didn't make safer cars. The people who installed and manipulated the dummies made change happen. Kevin. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

BrianY
09-09-2014, 10:47 PM
This is not a case of the guy insisting that the group - the US Air Force - change to suit him. Rather, it's a case of someone (the guy) pointing out an injustice, a wrong that should not exist. The US military has absolutely no right to require it's members to be Christians. In fact, it is ILLEGAL under the Constitution for any government agency to have such a requirement. The military needs to change, not to suit this guy or any other atheist, but to comply with the requirements of the constitution.

John Smith
09-10-2014, 09:05 AM
No! This is not the point. They aren't "joining a club". They are enlisting to serve in the military to protect the nation and it's people. You can judge the use of the military by the politicians to be abusive and foolish. I do. You can judge that we spend too much on the military. I do. But these people hear the call to serve, to protect their neighbors and other citizens, and they are blocked by an unconstitutional command. It's wrong. No officer (and no politician) has the right to claim the military for themselves and people who think like them.

Personally, as an Air Force, I'd be more interested in his talent as a pilot.

John Smith
09-10-2014, 09:07 AM
Me personally? If there was no other venue to keep a boat, and this club had the goods, I'd just say the words, sign the form, and go sailing. But then, my religious convictions are almost nil. Sailing would be more important to me than the words. I would excercises my right to make a choice and that is the choice I would make.
What another person would do, I cannot and will not say, except to remind that choose we must, for we can rarely " have it all" in any endeavor.

Kevin

I guess the question isn't one of whether the words are important, but if your rights are important. Rights are something most of us view as precious. They are easily lost. Someone, somewhere, needs to stand up and defend them.

Bubba L.
09-10-2014, 09:20 AM
Yes, for the umteenth time, it is his choice. I am niether questioning that, nor saying he should give up his right to choice. I am asking WHY he would want choose to do it, when he knows that a large portion of the people he'll work with--especially officers, his superiors--are at odds with him philosophically. Yeah its his right, Yeah he gets in. Great. I'm sure every day at work will be a joy for him, even moreso now that he has called all this attention to himself. So again, I ask ,why put yourself through it? Aren't there other choices this person could make for their life that have a better chance of a more positive outcome?

Kevin

Other than a few athiest groups there is no place in this country where an athiest can go and not be discriminated against. There is no branch of the military that is not made up of a majority of religious, there is no civillian job that is not made up of a majority of religious. All through life we have to keep our mouths shut or we are discriminated against. To make matters worse, all the gains we have made in religious freedom over the last fifty years or so are being lost to the bigots. His only choices are to take the discrimination quietly, become a hermit or stand up to the wrongs.

Gene

CWSmith
09-10-2014, 10:04 AM
Personally, as an Air Force, I'd be more interested in his talent as a pilot.

Talent as a pilot, loyalty to his country, comprehension of the chain of command, there are lots of things you want. Non-atheist would not seem to be on the list.

Osborne Russell
09-10-2014, 11:26 AM
Can you imagine avoiding going to Vietnam by simply refusing to say "...so help me God"?

Coulda skipped a lot of demonstrations and stuff. The war would have been over in a few months.

Maybe no atheists in foxholes, but the induction centers are crawling with them! :d

John Smith
09-10-2014, 02:43 PM
This has had a number of interesting posts, but I think we all stray. The point here, as I see it, is religion has simply created a problem where it had no reason to do so.

Blaming the guy who wouldn't say those words is a lot like blaming the victim in a crime. The girl dressed like she wanted to be raped, or he was asking to get robbed by wearing such an expensive watch.

The whole problem many of us have with religion is its desire to force itself upon the rest of us. This oath thing is just that.

ccmanuals
09-10-2014, 02:54 PM
This is not a case of the guy insisting that the group - the US Air Force - change to suit him. Rather, it's a case of someone (the guy) pointing out an injustice, a wrong that should not exist. The US military has absolutely no right to require it's members to be Christians. In fact, it is ILLEGAL under the Constitution for any government agency to have such a requirement. The military needs to change, not to suit this guy or any other atheist, but to comply with the requirements of the constitution.

Why is this so difficult to understand that the military is following the law? I refer you to this post:
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?181974-Religion-causes-another-problem&p=4284364#post4284364

CWSmith
09-10-2014, 02:56 PM
Why is this so difficult to understand that the military is following the law?

The problem would seem to be that the law is not following the constitution.

BrianY
09-10-2014, 03:20 PM
The problem would seem to be that the law is not following the constitution.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give that man a cigar.

THAT is the point - the ONLY point that matters.

ccmanuals
09-10-2014, 03:22 PM
The problem would seem to be that the law is not following the constitution.

Ok, now you're talking.

It took awhile to get there but we made it. :)