Tag Archives: oath

Congressmen Introduce Military Oath Bill, Chide Weinstein

After USAFA appeared to capitulate to Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s complaints that “so help me God” violated the US Constitution, two Congressmen have proposed legislation that would require “Congressional approval” before changes can be made to military oaths.  The bill was proposed by Reps Sam Johnson and Pete Olson (R-Tx).  Though the text is not available, the current lengthy title says the purpose of HR 3416 is

to require congressional approval before any change may be made to the oaths required for enlistment in the Armed Forces, appointment to an office in the civil service or uniformed services, or appointment as a cadet or midshipman at a military service academy…

Astute observers will note that has nothing to do with USAFA’s Cadet Honor Oath.  Similarly, the oaths to which that legislation does apply are already enshrined Read more

MRFF Changes Narrative on “So Help Me God”

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s discombobulated responses to the Air Force Academy decision to make “so help me God”  optional in the Cadet Honor Oath (he both welcomes it and threatened to sue) may have been his flailing efforts to regain the narrative in a losing effort.  His research assistant, Chris Rodda, seems to indicate the MRFF is trying to point the narrative in a different direction.  In a local news report on the Academy decision (original here):

Air Force Academy cadets are no longer required to say “so help me God” at the end of the Honor Oath. The change was made in response to complaints from a group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation…

Chris Rodda, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said…”The people we are battling on this will say that nobody’s forced to say ‘so help me God.’ That actually is not true. The cadets received an email that said that they must say it for their commissioning oath to be legal.”

Rodda’s response is noteworthy because the Cadet Honor Oath has nothing to do with the commissioning oath, and nothing to do with the MSgt’s email.  Whether the MRFF is intentionally trying to alter the debate or if Chris Rodda is incompetently Read more

DoD Articles Highlight Military Oath, Sort of

A half-dozen US Marine Corps press releases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) recently highlighted a group promotion ceremony in which these Marines “reaffirm[ed]” their oaths before they deployed.  All of the articles were identical except for the person, which is common for “hometown news releases,” or articles written primarily for use by local newspapers in a servicemember’s hometown.

What made the framing text interesting was its repetition of the oath of office…or, at least, most of it [ellipsis original]:  Read more

Constitution Day, September 17, 2012

On 17 September 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by the delegates of the convention meeting in Pennsylvania. It would be many months of long debate before the Constitution was ratified.

American military officers are perhaps unique in their sworn allegiance not to their commanders, and not to the President, but to the US Constitution:   Read more

Military Guidance on Politics, Facebook Muddied by Commentary

Update: Based on new information, some conclusions in this article have been updated here.

Every now and then members of the military post official articles that might best be understood as “public service announcements” for their fellow troops.  They often cover high interest issues (like politics, social media, and religion, see below) or regulations that are the topic du jour.  Unfortunately, because these articles carry no weight (unless they are written by a senior Air Force leader issuing official guidance), they can often add confusion to the issue they mean to clarify — especially if they’re wrong. 

For example, a Public Affairs troop recently wrote “Rock the vote, but beware of guidelines,” which was a combination of encouraging voting while cautioning on the restrictions on political activity:  Read more

Atheists Find Drama in Military Reenlistment

US Army Sgt Justin Griffith recently posted a video of his last reenlistment.  In presenting it, he repeatedly emphasized the facts the officer was a chaplain (a “high ranking” one, at that), the “so help me God” was left out (by a chaplain!), and this confluence of events is “unheard of.”  Writing in the third person, Griffith said:

This moment is potentially historic. The military’s long-standing climate of hostility towards atheists is beginning to change. Foxhole atheists like Griffith are slamming the ‘atheist closet’ door shut behind them.

There are plenty of evangelical Christians inside and outside of the chaplaincy that are vocally opposed to equal treatment for atheists. But this video demonstrates the silent majority of Chaplains who really do ‘get it’.

While Griffith is to be congratulated on his reenlistment, and continuing service is a significant event in its own right, his ceremony wasn’t quite as dramatic as he seems to Read more

Constitution Day, 2010

On 17 September 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by the delegates of the convention meeting in Pennsylvania.  It would be many months of long debate before the Constitution was ratified.

American military officers are perhaps unique in their sworn allegiance not to their commanders, and not to the President, but to the US Constitution:

I…do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…

Though amended through time, the US Constitution represents both the founding and continuation of a free nation without peer in the world.

Judge Suggests Judicial Review of Prayer

The US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit recently dismissed the case of Newdow v Roberts.  The suit had sought to make “so help me God” in the inaugural oath illegal, as well as restrict inaugural prayer.  Newdow may be a familiar name, as he has filed many lawsuits claiming references to God in government are unConstitutional.

The ruling is largely procedural; the three-judge panel of the 11 member court said the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.  However, the concurring opinion by judge Brett Kavanaugh actually addressed the merits of the case, and it is an interesting insight into religion in government.  It also contains some troubling commentary, which directly relates to the military.  Read more

1 2