Michael “Mikey” Weinstein didn’t like what USAFA did.  So he bought a billboard.  Again.

Via the AFTimes.

As noted at the Air Force Times, Weinstein is upset that “so help me God” remains in the Cadet Honor Oath, despite his prior claim of “victory” over USAFA on this issue: 

Weinstein said that by not completely excising the clause, the oath still violates the Constitution’s guarantee that no one shall be subjected to a religious test to hold a public office.

“It was pretty obvious the Air Force Academy was going to continue in its noxiously unconstitutional way of including ‘so help me God,’” Weinstein said. “It’s something that is completely illegal and unlawful. It marginalizes, it dehumanizes, it offends and it tramples on the essence of the Constitution.”

With those words, Weinstein — an erstwhile lawyer — comes across as a rank amateur.  After all, the contested wording of the Cadet Honor Oath emulates the Officer’s Oath of Commissioning — which is US law, not a USAFA policy.

If Weinstein thinks “so help me God” violates the Constitution (a laughable claim itself), he needs to take it up with Congress, not LtGen Johnson.

For its part, USAFA seems to have remembered its past interactions with Weinstein and, for a second time, issued a biting press release — citing Weinstein’s own website to undermine the MRFF’s accusations.  The USAFA statement read:

It seems the MRFF is confusing the facts and also does not understand the difference between 1) the commissioning Oath of Office, 2) the Cadet Honor Code, and 3) the Cadet Honor Oath, which remains unchanged.

Finally, and most importantly, I refer you to the MRFF’s mission statement and the apparent disagreement of its fundamentals with the final clause in the Cadet Honor Oath as optional, thereby allowing all to be true to their beliefs, whatever those beliefs are.

As if to hammer the mis-reported point home, Academy PA Maj Brus Vidal repeated one point three times in the short message:

The Cadet Honor Oath remains unchanged…

The entire PA statement is below.

As an aside, every person who cites the “founding fathers” in support of their cause runs the risk of being accused of deifying them, and the MRFF was no exception.  Quoth one commenter:

Washington owned slaves.  Why not the Air Force Academy?

USAFA Press Statement:

First, the Cadet Honor Oath remains unchanged. However, in the spirit enabling all to be true to their beliefs, the Air Force’s Academy made the final clause optional – cadets can choose to say that final clause or not.

Second, it seems the MRFF is confusing the facts and also does not understand the difference between 1) the commissioning Oath of Office, 2) the Cadet Honor Code, and 3) the Cadet Honor Oath, which remains unchanged.

Finally, and most importantly, I refer you to the MRFF’s mission statement and the apparent disagreement of its fundamentals with the final clause in the Cadet Honor Oath as optional, thereby allowing all to be true to their beliefs, whatever those beliefs are.

To help define the differences in the Cadet Honor Code and Cadet Honor Oath, I refer you to our story about the Cadet Honor Code and Honor Oath – you might want to pass it along to them since they seem to be unclear on the facts and, specifically, that the Cadet Honor Oath was not changed — we simply made the final clause optional, which is directly in line with the MRFF’s mission statement to ensure “that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.”

Here is the link and the story: http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123368388

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---