Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada has allegedly been denied the ability to re-enlist after he refused to use the words "so help me God" in his oath. On September 2, the Appignani Humanist Legal Center sent a letter on his behalf. Up until last fall, Air Force Instruction 36-2606, which spells out the active duty oath, had a provision where an airman could omit the words, but that was dropped last October.
An airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada has allegedly been denied the ability to re-enlist after he refused to use the words "so help me God" in his oath. On September 2, the Appignani Humanist Legal Center sent a letter on his behalf. Up until last fall, Air Force Instruction 36-2606, which spells out the active duty oath, had a provision where an airman could omit the words, but that was dropped last October.
It is blatantly unconstitutional to establish such a religious test.
Aside from that, it's mind-bogglingly idiotic (they do specialize in that, don't they?) as a practical policy. Just consider - a potential reenlistment is a troop that is already trained. All the resources that into shaping a soldier - the money and the time and the training - are saved when someone reenlists. And someone or someones has decided that all that is worth it because the soldier won't say 'so help me, God'?
This should be a surprise, but it isn't really - especially with regards to the Air Force, which is notorious as a relative hotbed of religious fundamentalism compared to the other branches of the armed forces.
Such a requirement blatantly violates the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution. Not only is it unlawful, it is unethical.
Article VI, paragraph 3: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
It is that simple.
On a side note, Army regulations specifically state that the pointless addendum in question is optional; that much was made clear to me when I took the oath of enlistment in 1988. In the real world, 99% of oath administrators in the other branches of the armed forces are either sufficiently knowledgeable, respectful and/or practical enough not to demand it.
we spit rhetoric back and forth like vipers. But my guess it will come down to some axe to grind. It most certainly is not "unethical". It is real simple. It is in the pledge and must be said until it is taken out. Let him go join the peace core.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
we spit rhetoric back and forth like vipers. But my guess it will come down to some axe to grind. It most certainly is not "unethical". It is real simple. It is in the pledge and must be said until it is taken out. Let him go join the peace core.
It's unconstitutional. The USAF should know that, and it'll cost the taxpayer a lot of dollars for stupidity.
BTW, it's the Peace CORP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
