Brian, you old reprobate, what are you up to these days? Ah, of course, asserting your claim that “No atheist should be permitted to serve in the U.S. military.” What fun.
The United States Air Force has refused to allow a sergeant to re-enlist because he will not say “so help me God.”
True. US law, in fact, specifies it that the oath / affirmation . 10 U.S. Code § 502:
“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.”
Interestingly, the other branches aren’t forcing the issue. The Air Force didn’t, either, allowing that capper to be optional until late last year.
The Air Force is doing exactly the right thing here. There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights.
Well, gosh, Bryan, I’ll just have to say you’re wrong. I’d say you’re wrong that regarding atheists. I’d say you’re wrong about that regarding those people of a religious faith that doesn’t involve a creator deity. I’d say you’re wrong about that regarding non-Christians. And I’d say you’re wrong about that regarding Christians who don’t believe the same as you.
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America’s values engraved on their hearts.
Funny, I don’t see anything in that oath that talks about “values engraved on my heart,” much less mandating a belief in a Creator. I see an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” and to obey orders.
Naturally, the American Humanist Association, which has never seen a constitutional liberty it respects, intends to challenge this decision.
Which is pretty darned odd, given that they are challenging it based on constitutional liberties. Those zany humanists.
This case should be thrown out of court. The Constitution nowhere gives the federal judiciary any authority to set military policy. That’s reserved for Congress and Congress alone.
I’d love to see some citation on that, Bryan. Granted, the judiciary usually gives wide latitude to the military in setting policy, to allow “proper order.” Congress does as well. But that doesn’t mean they are powerless. The power of judicial review has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison (1803) — you may have heard of it.
Article III of the Constitution says:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The court could take up a violation of the First Amendment, or possibly Article VI, of the Constitution. It could specifically consider the airman to have standing not specifically about the USAF policy but about that US Code section as being unconstitutional. I don’t see a particular barrier to that.
And it’s worth noting that, were the Air Force to suddenly require all soldiers to bow down toward Mecca five times a day, I suspect, Bryan, you’d be leading the charge to take them to court.
(The “religious test” referred to in Article VI of the Constitution is a reference to a detailed or specific Christian statement of faith, …
I know you’re obsessed with the idea that the only religion recognized by the Founders was Christianity, but it’s really not historically supported. A common religious test of the era was to profess a belief in the Trinity, which was used to keep out Jews, but also to keep out Unitarians.
… and refers to elective or appointive office and not to military service.
That’s an interesting interpretation of Article VI. The key clause is contained here (bolding mine):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Does this apply to military personnel? They aren’t called out specifically, unless you consider a military position to be an “office or public trust” (offhand I would, but I’m not a lawyer).
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear about forcing religious tests, based on the First Amendment if nothing else. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), dealing with a state requirement for a belief in God to be a notary public, Hugo Black’s majority opinion read:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
That sounds pretty straightforward a denial against requiring a profession of faith, through “so help me God,” upon people enlisting in the military, any more than upon people applying for an government job. That “serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right” doesn’t pertain. Black also wrote:
The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.
The court in that case didn’t actually address Article VI, only the 1st Amendment.
States, under the Constitution written by the Founders, can require any kind of religious test they want, and Article VI was designed to protect that power and reserve it for the States.)
Yes, that was so — and many did … until the 14th Amendment rolled along. At which point the rights under the US Constitution applied regarding state laws as well. I realize that’s not “under the Constitution written by the Founders,” but it has been the Law of the Land since 1868, so you may have heard of it, Bryan.
Why is all this important? Because our military exists to uphold and defend our Constitution, and the Constitution in turn identifies the “unalienable rights” the Declaration refers to that our government is obligated to protect.
Funny thing, Bryan — I keep looking in the Constitution for anything about Unalienable Rights or an incorporation of the Declaration of Independence, and I just can’t find it. I do find the Preamble, which basically does give the basis for the document:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You might remember it better like this:
Nope, nothing there.
These rights do not come from government, they do not come from the commander-in-chief, and they most certainly do not come from some activist judge. They come from God himself.
Oddly enough, there’s no mention of a Creator God in the US Constitution, either, let alone any particular obligation to believe in same.
We are not evolved, as this wannabe-enlistee believes, but we are “created,” and “endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
I grant you there is also no mention of evolution in the US Constitution, Charles Darwin only being born in 1809.
On the other hand, referring to the airman in question as a “wannabe-enlistee” is scurrilous, Bryan. This was for a re-enlistment. This person has already been serving his country — and wanted to serve it again. His re-enlistment was, in fact, accepted, indicating satisfactory service, up to the point where he was asked to take an oath that would compel him to profess a belief he did not hold, at which point he did the honorable thing and refused.
Tell me again about your own military service, Bryan …
This is an absolutely foundational, non-negotiable, bed-rock American principle: there is a Creator – with a capital “C” (you could look it up) – and he and he alone is the source of the very rights the military exists to protect and defend.
Let me look again, Bryan … no, nope, no mention of a Creator (capitalized or not) in the US Constitution.
An individual who does not understand and believe this has no right to serve in the U.S. military.
I thought you already said that nobody has a “right” to serve in the US military, Bryan, whatever they believe.
Military service should rightly be reserved for those who believe in and are willing to die for what America stands for – and what America stands for is a belief in God as the source of our rights.
The gent in question — along with many other atheists — has already been serving in the military, and have been “willing to die” (and in many cases have) for American and for the Constitution they swore to protect. They shouldn’t need your further permission.
A man who doesn’t believe in the Creator the Founders trusted certainly can live in America without being troubled for being a fool. But he most certainly should not wear the uniform.
Tell us all about the time you wore the uniform, Bryan, given your fervor and profound belief in the Creator and the unalienable rights provided therefrom. Tell us about your qualifications to decide who is or is not worthy to do so.
The other branches of the military do not require the same oath – yet. But they should. Military service should be reserved for genuine Americans and genuine Americans, like the Founders, believe in God.
And there we have it, Bryan. If you don’t believe in God — and, let’s be honest, we’re talking about your particular Christian God as you think the Founders believe in (and, with further honesty, Bryan, Thomas Jefferson would throw wine in your face, John Adams would snort derisively, and Ben Franklin would simply smirk) — if you don’t believe in the properly specified supernatural being, then you aren’t a Genuine American, and you certainly don’t deserve the privilege of serving and dying for your country. Y’know, guys like Pat Tillman, that sort should never be let in, because clearly they aren’t Genuine Americans.
The fact is, Bryan, your assertions are constitutionally dubious and your conclusions are insulting and doltish. I suggest either a constitutional law program or a stint in the military. Maybe both. Write when you get back.
[Google+ link]
One thought on “Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (No Atheists Allowed in My Foxholes Edition)”