AFA may drop "So help me God" from oath

[hornetguy]

Maybe I'm just in a good squad- couldn't quite say. All I know is that it is something I would never tolerate and can't imagine any good officers coming out of such behavior. Hopefully those folks are weeded out. In my opinion, it is on par with honor violations.
Edit: As is any discrimination, for that matter.

Unless something has changed, I never saw it dealt with that severely. I know of two AOCs while I was a cadet who blatantly discriminated in their squadrons based on religion. Went unreported out of fear of retribution. So yes, they are not necessarily weeded out. I always hope for the best and generally trust the process, but it happens.

 

[scoutpilot]

Unless something has changed, I never saw it dealt with that severely. I know of two AOCs while I was a cadet who blatantly discriminated in their squadrons based on religion. Went unreported out of fear of retribution. So yes, they are not necessarily weeded out. I always hope for the best and generally trust the process, but it happens.

A lot of white people say racism is dead in America, too. It's risky to trust the majority's view on how fairly the minority is treated.

The cadets don't own the code. That's something every SA says. But when the Supe has the final say in punishments for honor violations, he or she is really the owner.

 

[scoutpilot]

To be perfectly honest, I've never really liked you, and I know its easy to say from "X" miles away over the internet, but it would be the same face to face. There is a provision for people who do not want to say it. They don't have to if they don't want to. And for what it is worth, I have had more people who would say they are agnostic, atheist, or believe in another supreme being shove their opinions down my throat and tell me that what I hold to be true is wrong or stupid than I have ever heard of any other person proselytizing their belief system to other cadets. Beyond that, this isn't Weinstein's honor oath, or yours Scout. It was written by cadets, and its integrity is upheld by cadets. Granted there are the ones who make the news and make the rest of the institution look bad, but the vast majority of cadets are good, honest people who hold themselves to the standard of the honor oath. If there is to be a change to it, I think it should be made by the cadets.

Like Bullet said, that just breaks my heart. I'm not sure what cadets being good people has to do with it. Plenty of folks in the era of Separate but Equal were good people, too. Your anecdotes about who you have had bad experiences with mean nothing as well. The "anti-Christian" trope is ridiculous. That's like calling civil rights policies "anti-white."

If you wouldn't have it say Allah (capital G god is Christian) then it should be free of religious language. Period.

 

[haleym]

Unless something has changed, I never saw it dealt with that severely. I know of two AOCs while I was a cadet who blatantly discriminated in their squadrons based on religion. Went unreported out of fear of retribution. So yes, they are not necessarily weeded out. I always hope for the best and generally trust the process, but it happens.

That's ridiculous. Perhaps it is because I'm new here and expect that USAFA has higher standards than that. People shouldn't feel afraid to stand up for what is right.

A lot of white people say racism is dead in America, too. It's risky to trust the majority's view on how fairly the minority is treated.

The cadets don't own the code. That's something every SA says. But when the Supe has the final say in punishments for honor violations, he or she is really the owner.

As far as I know, I have disclosed no personal information on this forum regarding my beliefs. It's unfair to make any assumptions about me when you haven't even met me before.
On that note, my religious preference has absolutely nothing to do with how I believe others should be treated. It was definitely a dumb overgeneralization on my part to say that it doesn't happen here- but in all honesty, I have never seen it myself. It has only been a few months, though. But I can guarantee that if this situation were to occur, that I am not, and never have been, the person to stand on the sidelines to see how it plays out.
But these are just words. Actions disclose your true character. Perhaps it's time for a change here.

From merriam-webster:
God :the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
:a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
:a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

 

[scoutpilot]

That's ridiculous. Perhaps it is because I'm new here and expect that USAFA has higher standards than that. People shouldn't feel afraid to stand up for what is right.



As far as I know, I have disclosed no personal information on this forum regarding my beliefs. It's unfair to make any assumptions about me when you haven't even met me before.
On that note, my religious preference has absolutely nothing to do with how I believe others should be treated. It was definitely a dumb overgeneralization on my part to say that it doesn't happen here- but in all honesty, I have never seen it myself. It has only been a few months, though. But I can guarantee that if this situation were to occur, that I am not, and never have been, the person to stand on the sidelines to see how it plays out.
But these are just words. Actions disclose your true character. Perhaps it's time for a change here.

From merriam-webster:
God :the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
:a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
:a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

I'm not sure why you assume I was talking about your opinion only, or specifically. I was not.

 

[hornetguy]

That's ridiculous. Perhaps it is because I'm new here and expect that USAFA has higher standards than that. People shouldn't feel afraid to stand up for what is right.

As a 4 degree, you're far less likely to see it. As an upperclassman, once you have more interaction with AMTs and AOCs, personal information becomes more well known between parties.

While this sounds rude, I do mean it sincerely: welcome to the world. Even if it's a quirky sub-culture. I hope you keep up your attitude to do what's right, but don't judge too quick if you see someone who doesn't. Everything ain't black and white.

 

[haleym]

As a 4 degree, you're far less likely to see it. As an upperclassman, once you have more interaction with AMTs and AOCs, personal information becomes more well known between parties.

While this sounds rude, I do mean it sincerely: welcome to the world. Even if it's a quirky sub-culture. I hope you keep up your attitude to do what's right, but don't judge too quick if you see someone who doesn't. Everything ain't black and white.

Of course not, it's completely true. I don't know everything and I certainly have a lot to learn. That is why I came here.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I feel like we're going to have to start giving out reparations for all the poor atheists out there.....

It's a rough rough life...

 

[hornetguy]

Of course not, it's completely true. I don't know everything and I certainly have a lot to learn. That is why I came here.

Give yourself more credit, you don't don't know anything (I don't have the heart to tell a 4 degree directly they know something ). Part of getting into USAFA was proving you have some capacity for critical thought and what's right. And you'll only get better as you continue to learn and experience more. Keep it up....2017 is right around the corner!

 

[haleym]

Give yourself more credit, you don't don't know anything (I don't have the heart to tell a 4 degree directly they know something ). Part of getting into USAFA was proving you have some capacity for critical thought and what's right. And you'll only get better as you continue to learn and experience more. Keep it up....2017 is right around the corner!

Ha! Got a kick out of this. Thanks for the encouragement!

 

[NavyHoops]

HaleyM no offense taken what so ever. I think one of the great parts of this forum is seeing the diversity of opinions and sea stories. These are the things that will help you develop your leadership style over the years. One the great parts of being at an Academy is you have Cadets from all walks of life and every part of the country (and a few from other countries). As mentioned above, right now you are fairly sheltered to a lot of this. This will change as you progress through the Academy. Right now alot of Cadets are developing their own beliefs, learning to think and be challenged by others, and becoming their own person. Once you graduate you will see even more diversity among your Airmen. Learning to deal with those viewpoints, religions, beliefs, cultures, etc is critical as an officer.

Even though I am an atheist, I always ensured my Marines had the opportunity to have religious services whenever possible, because it was important to some. Heck I had a Marine who was a Wicken. One day he actually explained the whole belief. Its not my thing, but it was interesting and created some great debate and discussion among some young Marines. I was in Iraq during early 2004 when it was crazy. We actually had Chaplains assigned to convoy staging areas to provide prayers for anyone who wanted them before we left the wire. I always ensured my Marines and any contract drivers we had in our convoy had that chance to pray with a Chaplain before leaving. I always took those few minutes to essentially meditate, get my head straight and prepare for the long day ahead.

 

[USMCGrunt]

Once you graduate you will see even more diversity among your Airmen. Learning to deal with those viewpoints, religions, beliefs, cultures, etc is critical as an officer.

+1

I guarantee you will experience nearly every range of viewpoints, religions, beliefs, cultures, etc during your career. You will also experience the counter-position to every one of those somewhere along the way. Your leadership style and abilities will be strengthened by those encounters.

 

[LineInTheSand]

+1

I guarantee you will experience nearly every range of viewpoints, religions, beliefs, cultures, etc during your career. You will also experience the counter-position to every one of those somewhere along the way. Your leadership style and abilities will be strengthened by those encounters.

I often find atheists the least willing to accept those beliefs. "If I have to hear about your religion, I swear I will whine about it on a website!"

 

[flieger83]

How many days until 2017 graduates?

Would that be....

INFINITY?

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
(reunion this week!)

 

[CadCandMateus]

Infinity plus 17 if i remember correctly.

 

[scoutpilot]

I often find atheists the least willing to accept those beliefs. "If I have to hear about your religion, I swear I will whine about it on a website!"

Really? About twice a month someone comes to our door trying to tell us about their views on God (capital G Christian type, 1 each). Those folks never seem to want to hear my views on the matter. They are also never atheists.

At the end of all these arguments one thing remains inviolable: an oath to live to by a prescribed code of honesty need not have any mention of anyone's religion, or any religion at all. The views of those who choose to believe in the Christian faith, Jewish faith, or any other set of myths and fables are no more valuable than any other citizen's view, and they don't have an inherent right to have their views included in a government oath. And keeping God out of government isn't a concession to atheists. It's a concession to equality. The oath doesn't and shouldn't say "In God we don't trust 'cause that's fake." It should say nothing. This idea that religion is a private affair which should not be included in laws and systems designed for all citizens has been brilliantly co-opted into a "war on Christians" by the Fox News non-cognoscenti. It's not, but when you've been the one-ton giant of pushing your religious constructs into everything for 200 years, it's going to feel like you're being singled out for awhile.

And yeah, there are annoying and overbearing atheists. That applies to just about everything.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Really? About twice a month someone comes to our door trying to tell us about their views on God (capital G Christian type, 1 each). Those folks never seem to want to hear my views on the matter. They are also never atheists.

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic. In short, I find it highly improbably that some sort of master creator wasn't involved. The design of the universe and especially life itself is mind blowing. But the missing link is who and or how. The question then beggs to be asked, would that creator want to be worshiped and why. Hence, I am on the fence. But I find it improbable that we had the son of God walking on the earth a couple thousand years ago. If I was the son of God, I would have made it extremely clear. I would have removed the need for "faith". A son of God should have known that. Still wondering why it wasn't the daughter of God. Nuff on that.

That said, I am constantly surrounded by people who bow their heads and pray at various dinner events and ask me to joint in. I bow my head, close my eyes, and I am not offended. It certainly isn't a stretch that their is /was a God. That's why people call it a "belief". No one really knows and I am not offended. Deep down, I've never met an atheist who didn't have their doubts that there was a master creator (god). The most rabid atheist posters on forums for instance are actually reaching out to have someone disprove their beliefs. They just don't realize it.

So when someone crosses the line and knocks on my door to share their beliefs, I give them a stern warning: I let them know that when I get through with them, they are going to question everything they believe in if they are paying attention. I'll question them on 30 different fronts. Items that they don't have an answer for and passages in their bible that they never bothered to read. Of course it will shake their faith. Most turn and walk. Some have taken up the challenge and so long as they didn't have that glaze it their eyes, they come away less confident. Because at the end of the day, VERY few atheists and christians are 100% sure. With some prodding and logic, most people will honestly admit they really don't know for sure. What they were taught to believe has more to do with anything else.

We raised our two kids as Christians (sent them to confirmation, church, bible camps, etc). Best thing we could have ever done for a lot of reasons! I told them my beliefs and why. Fast forward. My son is at the AFA, he is a great ethical person and he believes what he believes.

So I still say, leave in the tradition of "so help me God". Those who are offended have thin skin.

 

[scoutpilot]

So I still say, leave in the tradition of "so help me God". Those who are offended have thin skin.

That's the real rub, though, and it's two-fold. We as a society too often use the "oh, you need thicker skin" excuse. Tell a vulgar sexist joke around a female coworker? "Oh, she just needs thicker skin. We were just KIDDING." The fact that some people aren't offended (a word I hate for its overuse and connotation) doesn't equate to carte blanche to go ahead with a behavior. Maybe my female coworker doesn't mind being called sugar. Or honey. Or sweetie. Or even Tits McGee. She may have, as you say, "thick skin." That fact is does not absolve us of the inappropriateness of an action. Your Jewish friend may be ok with your use of God in public events. He may have thick skin. He doesn't speak for all people, and they only way we can speak for all people in an institutional sense is to leave the God/Allah/god/Yahweh/Vishnu/Whoever completely out of our public oaths. Otherwise, we're just willfully saying "my myths and fables are more important than yours because some animals are more equal than others, even if they're friendly about it." That's all I'll say on that, but it's faulty logic and it's used too often. Sure, there's a "different" version that those dirty atheists can say if they don't want to say God. It's on the wall over there next to the Coloreds Only water fountain. A stretch? Sure. But why should we have two?

Secondly, who said it was about anyone being offended? Is the establishment clause about someone being "offended" or is it about creating a secular government which holds the beliefs of ALL its citizens to be equal? Adding "so help me God" and the long-standing court tradition (now thankfully largely changing) of swearing on a Bible are two great examples of a Christian majority assuming (however benignly) that their beliefs are part of the law of the land. They are not, and should not be.

As far as the Cadet ownership of the oath goes...sorry, kids. This is your first lesson in military authority.

I appreciate your well-written rejoinder. It was refreshing.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

That's the real rub, though, and it's two-fold. We as a society too often use the "oh, you need thicker skin" excuse. Tell a vulgar sexist joke around a female coworker? "Oh, she just needs thicker skin. We were just KIDDING."

Apple / orange. That analogy doesn't work. Someone knocking on my door to "share" their faith offends me. They crossed the line. For that matter, I am equally offended with people knocking on my door to sell me products. So it isn't the religion aspect as much as leave me alone; it's my space.

A boss promoting a worker because they are a believer crosses the line. That behavior should be illegal.

So yes. Having thin skin applies. It's in one ear and out the other. Certainly there are posters on this very thread offended by not hearing the word "God" in the oath. They too should have thicker skin.

 

[sprog]

That's the real rub, though, and it's two-fold. We as a society too often use the "oh, you need thicker skin" excuse. Tell a vulgar sexist joke around a female coworker? "Oh, she just needs thicker skin. We were just KIDDING." The fact that some people aren't offended (a word I hate for its overuse and connotation) doesn't equate to carte blanche to go ahead with a behavior. Maybe my female coworker doesn't mind being called sugar. Or honey. Or sweetie. Or even Tits McGee. She may have, as you say, "thick skin." That fact is does not absolve us of the inappropriateness of an action. Your Jewish friend may be ok with your use of God in public events. He may have thick skin. He doesn't speak for all people, and they only way we can speak for all people in an institutional sense is to leave the God/Allah/god/Yahweh/Vishnu/Whoever completely out of our public oaths. Otherwise, we're just willfully saying "my myths and fables are more important than yours because some animals are more equal than others, even if they're friendly about it." That's all I'll say on that, but it's faulty logic and it's used too often. Sure, there's a "different" version that those dirty atheists can say if they don't want to say God. It's on the wall over there next to the Coloreds Only water fountain. A stretch? Sure. But why should we have two?

Secondly, who said it was about anyone being offended? Is the establishment clause about someone being "offended" or is it about creating a secular government which holds the beliefs of ALL its citizens to be equal? Adding "so help me God" and the long-standing court tradition (now thankfully largely changing) of swearing on a Bible are two great examples of a Christian majority assuming (however benignly) that their beliefs are part of the law of the land. They are not, and should not be.

As far as the Cadet ownership of the oath goes...sorry, kids. This is your first lesson in military authority.

I appreciate your well-written rejoinder. It was refreshing.

It's not really settled law as to if something like "so help me, God" is an Establishment Clause violation. Of course, on the flip side, it's not settled law that it isn't, either. Justice O'Connor, in a 2004 concurring opinion (i.e. not the holding of the Court), noted some examples of use of "God" in ceremonies that don't, necessarily, mandate a belief in a deity. The Marshal of the Supreme Court, for instance, says "God save the United States and this honorable Court," and "In God We Trust" is printed on our money. Witnesses sworn to testify in Court are asked to tell the truth "so help [them,] God."

I don't like to use so-called "originalist" arguments for interpretation too much (as, in many cases, it results in absurdity); however, phrases like "so help me, God" were around at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and have been in use many years since then. Justice O'Connor's point-and she was a moderate pragmatist in her judicial philosophy-was that it lacks significant meaning, in itself, as a religious affirmation, and is around now in what amounts to a vestigial sense. It would seem that it would thus not be too big a deal to get rid of it, but its current existence, at least according to her interpretation, doesn't rise to the level of a First Amendment violation.

If I'm honest, I can see your point to the contrary, and I'm not sure that I side with the retired Justice. Certainly, I don't agree that the removal of the phrase from a government oath constitutes some war on Christianity (or any other religious sect).

For what it's worth, I identify as atheist as well.