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.
The Air Force reversed it's policy and now doesn't require it. I think that folks who never served might not know how right-wing-religious the military, as a whole, has been and is.
I was pissed when, in 1966, I was made to go to a church service in basic training. I'm surprised I never got into serious trouble for the anti-religious things I did and said after that. But, during those seven years I was in, it was so difficult for the Air Force to find volunteers for Combat Control that they let us get away with a lot. I would yell, "God sucks" every time I jumped out of a plane.
In 1969 I finally managed to get 'agnostic' on my official records and dog tags. But that was only due to a records clerk who didn't know that there is no Agnostical Brethren Church.
Here and on the P&C forum, many have stated that, since the oath would mean nothing, just go ahead and say it, many of the adherents of this are supposedly religious.
That demonstrates such a total lack of ethics it shocks even an already very cynical me.
Better to eliminate any oath at all if swearing to one has no meaning to those taking it and if it demonstrates that you can't take someone's word for anything, even if they 'swear to it'.
Guess we know how it's gotten to the point of "If it ain't in writing, it ain't no good"
How is requiring someone to swear to something that they have stated they don't believe a lack of ethics?
It has nothing to do with trusting ones word so much as it forcing a stated belief that is false.
How is requiring someone to swear to something that they have stated they don't believe a lack of ethics?
It has nothing to do with trusting ones word so much as it forcing a stated belief that is false.
Swearing an oath that you do not believe is valid - in whole or in part - can be easily construed as unethical. Granted, I'm sure atheists don't consider the entire oath invalid because of the God clause, but for those of us who try to maintain a very high level of honesty and integrity, swearing to God when you don't believe in God can leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
How is requiring someone to swear to something that they have stated they don't believe a lack of ethics?
why would they be trusted not to do so in any other instance
It has nothing to do with trusting ones word so much as it forcing a stated belief that is false.
To suggest going ahead and taking the oath anyway is encouraging/condoning lying. If someone would lie out of convenience in this instance how can they be trusted not to do so in another? Honesty and trustworthiness is important to me.
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.
I totally agree with ya. This shouldn't even be a topic. The air force should change its policy. Heck, they would even look good if they did. but until then. I also agree with you when you say rational people would let him through. I am not in the guys position but I think I would quietly just let it go if I could.
I totally agree with ya. This shouldn't even be a topic. The air force should change its policy. Heck, they would even look good if they did. but until then.
Read up a few messages. They DID reverse their position a few days ago. Not because they had an epiphany, IMO, but because they have no legal basis to do otherwise.
To suggest going ahead and taking the oath anyway is encouraging/condoning lying. If someone would lie out of convenience in this instance how can they be trusted not to do so in another? Honesty and trustworthiness is important to me.
And yet you support an illegal invasion of privacy by the government. No other branch of the military requires this as part of their oath. No verification of belief is ever performed.
It is not "encouraging/condoning lying" it is forcing it of those who wish to serve in the Air Force.
Pleased to see that they dropped this requirement and welcome to the 21st century to the USAF. Hope you decide to come along.
Swearing an oath that you do not believe is valid - in whole or in part - can be easily construed as unethical. Granted, I'm sure atheists don't consider the entire oath invalid because of the God clause, but for those of us who try to maintain a very high level of honesty and integrity, swearing to God when you don't believe in God can leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
Swearing to something that they don't believe in is useless. What does it prove? only that an individual wished to serve in spite of religious persecution. Include the phrase or exclude it, should be up to the individual.
But if this soldier had been required to say "By the will of Allah" or "I affirm that no God exists," you would be screaming your larynx right out of your throat about religious persecution.
Your blatant hypocrisy makes me want to puke. Why don't YOU go join a class on intellectual integrity before coming to the atheism and agnosticism forum.
Hey, I was just going to say that!! lol
I just posted this in the last thread I was on but it's even more appropriate here:
A photograph of U.S. tanks in Iraq used a further passage from Isaiah: 'Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung, their horses' hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels are like a whirlwind.'
Anti-war campaigners said the images and words were used by Mr Rumsfeld to curry favour with his boss by playing on Mr Bush's devout religious beliefs.
The Reverend Barry Lynn, of the U.S. campaign group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said U.S. soldiers 'are not Christian crusaders, and they ought not be depicted as such'.
How long will we let the fake continue, there is no separation from church and state in America. Only the desire of some for it, let's just get this out in the open.
Hobby Lobby just won their right to refuse women preventive healthcare because of some supernatural entity. And now, you can't join the peace corps unless you pledge to this entity, even if you don't believe it. We already can't listen to the president without getting a supernatural blessing from a God at the end of every speech, we have nobody to trust who's human, we are only directed to trust in this entity people call God, etc, etc, etc,,,,,
Let's not act like this isn't weird because it is to over half the world......and the rest we continue to have wars with.
Read up a few messages. They DID reverse their position a few days ago. Not because they had an epiphany, IMO, but because they have no legal basis to do otherwise.
THERE'S A BIT OF HOPE LEFT AFTER ALL.
I was a day late and a dollar short on the news.
It's just silly, and a waste of good resources. Glad they decided making it a choice would be in their best interest.
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.
I also agree with you when you say rational people would let him through. I am not in the guys position but I think I would quietly just let it go if I could.
Glad they decided making it a choice would be in their best interest.
