BUCK writes:

The U.S. Air Force is denying re-enlistment to an atheist airman who refuses to swear “so help me God” as required in the standard military oath of enlistment. The USAF used to allow airmen to omit “swear…so help me God” on request. They could substitute “affirm” for “swear” and drop the reference to God. This was standard policy across the services,  despite the fact that the U.S. Code Title 10, paragraph 502, still requires all enlisted service members to “swear…so help me God.” The USAF, suddenly in October 2013, discovered Title 10. They await a ruling from the Pentagon. Oddly, the U. S. Air Force Academy just recently dropped the requirement to “swear…so help me God.”

Is the USAF provoking a religious test because they want God removed? What other reason could there be?

— Comments —

A reader writes:

Contrary to Buck’s assertion, United States Code Title 10 section 502 specifically allows a person to affirm rather than swear. Although section 502 does include the words “So help me God”, the statute cannot be interpreted as absolutely requiring the use of those words, because (1) requiring those words would effectively destroy the clearly stated option of affirming rather than swearing, and (2) Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits the use of religious tests for any office or public trust under the United States.

§502. Enlistment oath: who may administer

(a) Enlistment Oath.-Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:

“I, ____________________, 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.”

Buck writes:

Your reader writes: “Contrary to Buck’s assertion,..”. Title 10, section 502, with amendments, can be read here. A reader highlights what is at issue. The USAF is asserting their reading of Title 10. I’m open to clarification on the language of the amendments. I see how the USAF reads it.

A reader has explained what has long been a common practice and understanding of the oath, across all U.S. Military services. There has long existed an unspoken and un-assailed doubt about what the law requires and what should and shall be enforced. Otherwise, there would be no issue. Why would we be discussing something so long settled? The Pentagon will make its position known, and the law suit will probably be averted. That is most likely. New legislation might clarify Title 10 in light of the “religious test”. That is also likely.

Henry McCulloch writes:

Buck asks “Is the USAF provoking a religious test because they want God removed? What other reason could there be?”

As a former Air Force officer, I believe Buck gets a shack (fighter pilot slang for a direct hit) with those questions.  The U.S. Air Force has had many admirable men and many capable pilots in its ranks over the years, but the USAF is also a huge bureaucracy exquisitely attuned to the preferences of its political masters of the moment.  Along with the Navy, the Air Force has to defend the most expensive, big-ticket, programs and contracts of any of the services.  As an institution it has always been careful to keep the pols who sign off on its defense contracts buttered up.

Barack Hussein Obama has signaled that he is quite happy to see any vestige of religion (strike that, and substitute Christianity) stripped from the U.S. armed forces.  In former infantryman Chuck Hagel, he evidently has an ally.  But there are “optics” to worry about, as most people still see the military as a God & Country, Wrapped in the Flag sort of outfit, even though it is now America’s leading rat lab for social change.

I believe this is all theater to provide cover for the government’s eliminating “So help me God” from the enlistment oath — and ultimately from any oath any fed may have to swear.  But the government cannot be seen as initiating the change.  The Air Force’s kabuki-refusal to re-enlist the atheist is intended to draw fire from the usual foes of religion in the military (and allies of the Obamites) to give them the opportunity to press the government for this change.  So that the government can then “change with the times” in response to the criticism, and do what the federal bureacrats of post-America have wanted to do all along.

This charade is designed to draw the fire of perpetually enraged Air Force Academy graduate Mikey Weinstein, who runs an anti-religious pressure group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  And, playing his part, Weinstein has come through with a letter to Hagel in support of the complaining atheist airmen.  For Mr. Weinstein, the letter is quite moderate in tone.

In this instance, however, Mikey doesn’t have to play as rough as he usually does.  In what I strongly suspect is a carefully arranged set-up, Hagel’s going to take a dive rather than fight Weinstein —  and the deed will be done, the “offending” words gone.  But, as with most anything the U.S. government does these days, it’s the American people who will be the patsy.

Please follow and like us: