AFA may drop "So help me God" from oath

[MN-Dad-2016]

Summarized down, if you feel like someone needs help, even if that person doesn't realize it, you may feel the need to try and help them.

I'm not equating other religions to alcoholics, just pulled an easy example of someone who needs help but not asking for it, getting help whether they wanted it or not.

LITS. I hope you never get that itch to help that agnostic, jew or muslim out who happens to be confused not realizing that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Christians may feel the need after reading Revelation 21:8. It clearly says the non-believers are going to burn. Hey, they are just trying to "help".

That is why some people are offended. It goes without saying Christians don't appreciate a Jew or a Muslim feeling that need to "help" by attempting to save the Christians soul. Nor should someone appreciate an atheist attempting to save a born again Christian from the glaze they see in their eyes from being over programmed.

That's why some people are (over) adamant about removing a word like "God" in an oath. They feel it is another way people are trying to "help" them. If people stop trying to push their religion on others, no one is going to care about a word like God in an oath.

 

[LineInTheSand]

LITS. I hope you never get that itch to help that agnostic, jew or muslim out who happens to be confused not realizing that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Christians may feel the need after reading Revelation 21:8. It clearly says the non-believers are going to burn. Hey, they are just trying to "help".

That is why some people are offended. It goes without saying Christians don't appreciate a Jew or a Muslim feeling that need to "help" by attempting to save the Christians soul. Nor should someone appreciate an atheist attempting to save a born again Christian from the glaze they see in their eyes from being over programmed.

That's why some people are (over) adamant about removing a word like "God" in an oath. They feel it is another way people are trying to "help" them. If people stop trying to push their religion on others, no one is going to care about a word like God in an oath.

I agree. However, sometimes it's good to touch on the things that get people "going." Here people don't like an analogy, so they speechless (until they want to speak again....)

Remember, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong, I was just explaining ONE (of many) reasons.

We've become, in many ways, a nation of victims, where people find an excuse to be offended everywhere they look. In fact, for at least one person responding here, this isn't the first time she was "blown away" by what was being said on SAF (although it wasn't me the first time). If SAF discussions are blowing ANYONE away... I recommend not talking to people in "the real world."

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Obvously that touched a very personal button with that person. I'm not going to judge why it bothered them.

What does "sometimes it's good to touch on the things that get people "going"" mean? I'm confused.

You are right, you didn't say it was right or wrong. But do you feel it is right to approach people and convert them. After all, you "know" you are right. Correct?

 

[Tigger]

I agree. However, sometimes it's good to touch on the things that get people "going." Here people don't like an analogy, so they speechless (until they want to speak again....)

Remember, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong, I was just explaining ONE (of many) reasons.

We've become, in many ways, a nation of victims, where people find an excuse to be offended everywhere they look. In fact, for at least one person responding here, this isn't the first time she was "blown away" by what was being said on SAF (although it wasn't me the first time). If SAF discussions are blowing ANYONE away... I recommend not talking to people in "the real world."

Well...sometimes a person says something so ridiculous that I am speechless! Apparently that offends you and I should have written something equally hateful and offensive to you to satisfy your juvenile need to "get people going". Feel better now?

I am FINE with analogies! Just not analogies that compare deeply held religious beliefs to DISEASES. Seriously?! I doubt I am the only one who is offended by that analogy. Maybe just the only one who is "blown away" enough to say something!

 

[LineInTheSand]

What does "sometimes it's good to touch on the things that get people "going"" mean? I'm confused.

You are right, you didn't say it was right or wrong. But do you feel it is right to approach people and convert them. After all, you "know" you are right. Correct?

Ha, noooo I THINK I'm correct (and that doesn't mean I am).

I think we're too hesitant to talk about difficult things, and because of that, things go unsaid. MANY things just aren't touched. But when they are, it can generate some very interesting thoughts.... people just have to be willing to take that first step.

Do I think it is right to approach someone and convert them? Sure. I think it is right to approach someone and talk to them, and beyond that, it is up to them. I don't reserve that for Christians either. "Convert" is a scary word. If a Muslim approaches me and talks about his or her faith, great. It's up to me to either accept or reject it (this happens every day, in sports teams, in politics, etc.... religion is the touchy kind). If something like that happens in the workplace, it COULD cause a negative work environment and make people uncomfortable. Some people don't let that stop them, others do.

I tend not to get too offended about others beliefs, whether they're religious or political.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Well...sometimes a person says something so ridiculous that I am speechless! Apparently that offends you and I should have written something equally hateful and offensive to you to satisfy your juvenile need to "get people going". Feel better now?

I am FINE with analogies! Just not analogies that compare deeply held religious beliefs to DISEASES. Seriously?! I doubt I am the only one who is offended by that analogy. Maybe just the only one who is "blown away" enough to say something!

I just ask for consistency. If you need to be speechless, please.... just be speechless.

Next time I will dumb down the analogy for you, while added some cupcakes and fluffy pillows to appease your sensitive side while at the same time getting the point across. This one went well over your head.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Just not analogies that compare deeply held religious beliefs to DISEASES.

That said, there is some honest debate if it is legitimate to call drug abuse a disease. For that matter, some think obesity is a disease too.

IMHO, the horse has been beaten. But I've enjoyed the conversation.

 

[Tigger]

I just ask for consistency. If you need to be speechless, please.... just be speechless.

Next time I will dumb down the analogy for you, while added some cupcakes and fluffy pillows to appease your sensitive side while at the same time getting the point across. This one went well over your head.

And this is your way of demonstrating your Christianity? Interesting. There must be a line of people behind you every day wanting to learn from you.

I don't need analogies to be dumbed down. If you are uncomfortable with someone responding to your post and pointing out how they disagree with it perhaps you are the one in need of fluffy pillows and cupcakes.

Sometimes thoughtful people are speechless and then after some time and consideration feel that they can respond and express themselves more clearly. Obviously, you are not that sort of person.

 

[Packer]

LITS. I hope you never get that itch to help that agnostic, jew or muslim out who happens to be confused not realizing that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Christians may feel the need after reading Revelation 21:8. It clearly says the non-believers are going to burn. Hey, they are just trying to "help".

That is why some people are offended. It goes without saying Christians don't appreciate a Jew or a Muslim feeling that need to "help" by attempting to save the Christians soul. Nor should someone appreciate an atheist attempting to save a born again Christian from the glaze they see in their eyes from being over programmed.

That's why some people are (over) adamant about removing a word like "God" in an oath. They feel it is another way people are trying to "help" them. If people stop trying to push their religion on others, no one is going to care about a word like God in an oath.

+1

 

[falconfamily]

I'm going to regret taking part in this thread...but to me, the responses are very telling and perhaps give ample reason for the leadership at USAFA making the decisions that they are making. Clearly this can be a divisive issue, and a needlessly divisive one at that. Now I am going to get away from the impact zone as quickly as I can....

 

[Packer]

Ha, noooo I THINK I'm correct (and that doesn't mean I am).

I think we're too hesitant to talk about difficult things, and because of that, things go unsaid. MANY things just aren't touched. But when they are, it can generate some very interesting thoughts.... people just have to be willing to take that first step.

Do I think it is right to approach someone and convert them? Sure. I think it is right to approach someone and talk to them, and beyond that, it is up to them. I don't reserve that for Christians either. "Convert" is a scary word. If a Muslim approaches me and talks about his or her faith, great. It's up to me to either accept or reject it (this happens every day, in sports teams, in politics, etc.... religion is the touchy kind). If something like that happens in the workplace, it COULD cause a negative work environment and make people uncomfortable. Some people don't let that stop them, others do.

I tend not to get too offended about others beliefs, whether they're religious or political.

I follow everything you have said and agree with quite a bit of it. You are simply explaining a point of view. That said, I am one of those people that doesn't appreciate "help" on the subject at hand. Even if I agree with you started with the "converting" to help me I would tell you to get out of my face. I don't push my views on others and I really don't appreciate having others religious views pushed on me, even if they are the same. I think their are quite a few people that feel as I do. By the way I don't think your doing any pushing here.

So far as being offended, a person chooses to be offended and since it is their choice it is their problem.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

I'm chiming in as a current history teacher and former practicing lawyer, just to make a few additional points.

First, in federal court and federal proceedings, and (to my knowledge) in any state court in which the content of the oath has been challenged, witnesses or those put under oath are always given the option of a non-religious affirmation as well as one that explicitly or implicitly brings in religious meaning. So, an oath to a witness is something along the lines of "do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?" By making the use of "so help me God" in the Honor Oath optional, the USAFA is in line with current practice.

Second, there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that looks at invocations of religion in public places. Generally, if there is a trend that if there is something about the environment that could be particularly influential in terms of listeners, the Supreme Court scrutinizes the invocation of God or religion more closely. So, for example, the Supreme Court has barred prayers at high school graduations or before high school football games, reasoning that students in a school, given their age and subordinate status, are particularly susceptible to an implied message that the state is endorsing religion. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that it cannot be made mandatory for public students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In the context of the military, the potential for command authority or peer pressure to conform within a military setting would likely result in significant scrutiny of the practice of making the Honor Oath's reference to God mandatory. Hard to say, but if I had to guess, I'd say those challenging the oath would have a pretty good chance of winning in court.

In our system, the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. So if the U.S. Supreme Court would see an Establishment Clause problem with a mandatory honor oath at a military academy (and we don't know it would, but the case law suggests so), that means it is unconstitutional. A later Supreme Court opinion could reverse the interpretation, or Congress and the States could pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment allowing the challenged conduct, but that's the way to change it.

Rather than spend the time and expense of defending the practice, it seems like the USAFA took a moderate approach in not banning the "so help me God" version of the oath but making it optional.

 

[Packer]

Rather than spend the time and expense of defending the practice, it seems like the USAFA took a moderate approach in not banning the "so help me God" version of the oath but making it optional.

An intelligent choice in my opinion.

 

[Idzak]

Academy Friend: Thank you.

 

[Freda'sMom]

The now "optional" phrase at the end may also be something that is noticed by peers, chain of command, etc, as to who says it and who doesn't. I think it could still create problems for those who don't say it, perhaps a fear that if they don't conform it may be held against them, either openly or most likely in other ways.

 

[LineInTheSand]

The now "optional" phrase at the end may also be something that is noticed by peers, chain of command, etc, as to who says it and who doesn't. I think it could still create problems for those who don't say it, perhaps a fear that if they don't conform it may be held against them, either openly or most likely in other ways.

Yeah, well, having taken oaths in large groups, I generally can't hear the people around me, nor am I listening for them. Just trying to remember what I need to say.....

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I have no idea who was a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, atheist or otherwise on my ship. I think we're creating a bigger issue that actually exists.

 

[hornetguy]

The now "optional" phrase at the end may also be something that is noticed by peers, chain of command, etc, as to who says it and who doesn't. I think it could still create problems for those who don't say it, perhaps a fear that if they don't conform it may be held against them, either openly or most likely in other ways.

It is certainly possible but I don't think I'd worry much. Any time I have taken oaths that include the optional phrase and haven't, I never noticed anyone batting an eye. IF it were to lead to issues, I'm sure the oath was hardly the beginning or trigger and it would probably have occurred anyway.

 

[lemlac]

In this country one can worship freely.

Why not let those who put their lives on the line acknowledge their faith as well?