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.
As the airmen are swearing to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the atheist could take the oath as ordered, and then place the person giving the order under arrest. Win-win.
Thats a bit of a stretch, no?
Free speech means you are free from prosecution, not free to keep your job. You are talking about throwing people in jail for saying something that someone doesn't like vs not saying something to get a job that you want. There are many things I can say that will cost me my job or my license. I am still a free man. They aren't locking me up for my speech.
Some would challenge the severity of the punishment has little to do with the nature of the freedom lost through acquiescence.
Some would challenge the severity of the punishment has little to do with the nature of the freedom lost through acquiescence.
If you were comparing apples to apples, sure. And if the military was a private entity instead of a government one, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. A private entity has the right to project an image, and expect it's employees to uphold that image or be fired. But the military IS a government agency, which is why I am entertaining this. On the one hand (in the other thread) you have a guy who is in jail for speaking his opinion. In this one, you have a person being denied a job for not saying an oath. Nobody is saying e will be fired if he says there is no god after he says the oath. Just that he has to say the oath to get the job. I don't think that these are equivalent circumstances. Do I think he should be able to substitute something for the word god? Absolutely. Would I let the oath stop me from joining the air force? No. But that is just me. It would mean the same to me as if they asked me to say an oath to Donald Duck. I would, if it meant spending my life doing something as important as this.
A lot of people think making false oaths is just fine to keep things smooth. Binding your oath with a falsehood invalidates it.
No wonder you can't trust anyone in society today.
And you think that this is a litmus test for trust? I guarantee you that when your life is on the line, there will be people on each side that you can trust and people on each side that you can't.
And you think that this is a litmus test for trust? I guarantee you that when your life is on the line, there will be people on each side that you can trust and people on each side that you can't.
Litmus test? No.
But how seriously a person takes their oaths and promises tells us something about a person and that person's character. This man isn't just protesting the oath. He's also protesting the government's decision in this case to violate the Constitution by requiring a religious reference in such an oath. The Constitution bars the government from such actions. And the military exists to defend the Constitution. So there are bigger principles at play here beyond an individual and his personal sense of integrity.
A lot of people think making false oaths is just fine to keep things smooth. Binding your oath with a falsehood invalidates it.
No wonder you can't trust anyone in society today.
Agreed. I'm one of those people who think making false oaths is fine. However, it does seem to dilute them into meaninglessness.
I like how the pledge of allegiance in classrooms is not mandatory (although I doubt more than perhaps .00001% of students know that).
It seems like we have two paths. 1. We can mandate oaths...in which case we might as well not have them at all. 2. We can encourage people to take the oaths seriously by making parts of them optional that might be seen as alienating some who, except for the requirement of taking the oath, are suitable candidates for the position.
But how seriously a person takes their oaths and promises tells us something about a person and that person's character. This man isn't just protesting the oath. He's also protesting the government's decision in this case to violate the Constitution by requiring a religious reference in such an oath. The Constitution bars the government from such actions. And the military exists to defend the Constitution. So there are bigger principles at play here beyond an individual and his personal sense of integrity.
I disagree. An oath to Donald Duck or the invisible magic man in the sky isn't an oath to be taken seriously. Making an oath to one's children, making an oath to one's fellow man, those are oaths to be taken seriously. And whether Donald Duck or the invisible magic man in the sky is part of the oath has absolutely nothing to do with how serious a man of character takes the oath. You keep your oath because of your children. You keep your oath because of your fellow man. And you keep your oath because of yourself and who YOU are. THAT tells me something about "a person's character".
Let's definitely infuse political correct gibberish into the military. In fact how about quotas for every group and gender as well? Toss all traditions and team building methods for the flavor of the month agendas.
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.
