Critics Falsify Congressman’s “So Help Me God” Bill
Several critics — primarily on the liberal-leaning, anti-religious freedom side — have laid into US Congressman Sam Johnson (R-Tx) for his “Preserve and Protect God in Military Oaths Act of 2015” — and it is abundantly clear that none of them actually read the proposed bill.
Most of the critics portrayed the act as some version of requiring enlisting military members to “pledge to God” during their military oaths — something that recalls issues with the US Air Force and Air Force Academy in 2013. One employee of the Air Force Academy summed up much of the criticism when he tweeted to the Congressman (thick with irony):
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” did you miss, sir?
You are in Congress. You are sponsoring a bill to establish Christianity as a state religion. Have you READ the Constitution?
— Phoenix Blue (@Phoenix_Blue) March 23, 2015
Similarly, an astonishingly ignorant Michael “Mikey” Weinstein claimed the Congressman should be tried for treason. Including his standard infantile personal attacks [emphasis added]:
Congressman Sam Johnson should be tried for treason and sedition. The astounding ignorance and bigotry displayed by his brazen presentation of this proposed wretched sectarian legislation is literally mind-ripping…The United States Congress should at the very least censure this constitutionally derelict villain and universally despicable human being.
Both “Phoenix Blue” and Weinstein clearly didn’t read the very bill they’re criticizing. (In truth, both criticized the man, not the bill, something known as ad hominem. But granting them the benefit of the doubt…) The bill does nothing more than require Congress to approve changes to all military oaths:
A BILL To amend titles 10 and 32, United States Code, to require congressional approval before any change may be made to the oaths required for [service] in the Armed Forces…
The bill adds text to both titles to say
The text of the oath required for [military service] may not be changed except by Act of Congress.
That’s it. The proposed bill does nothing more than say that the oaths — most of which are already in US law — cannot be changed except by changing the law. This is also essentially identical to what the congressman proposed in 2013.
It has nothing to do with establishing a religion, Phoenix Blue.
It is a far cry from treason (“aiding the enemy”), Weinstein — a former JAG who surely knows the definition of those words.
But don’t let facts get in the way of an attack on a person with whom you disagree.
ADVERTISEMENT
The oath as written in Title 10 contains the words “So help me God.” This assumes/enforces/presupposes the existence of “God”. Requiring this statement effectively makes belief in “God” a prerequisite for military service, which is clearly a constitutional violation (and is about as strong a symbol of state-mandated religion as you can get without crossing into full-blown theocracy).
The current wording impinges on the beliefs of every service member who’d prefer to swear to Allah, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or Satan, or only on their personal sense of honor and integrity (the last one, btw, is really the only option anyone has any control over, and is therefore the only one valid for a legally binding oath). The current wording forces all these non-Christian new enlistees & officers – who are supposed to be people of integrity remember – either to lie immediately by swearing a false oath to something they don’t believe in at all (so what’s the point?), to violate their religious beliefs if they have them (religious freedom is a good thing, right?), or it is a religious test for service – which again is illegal.
So the bill isn’t as bad as critics say? Do you think Rep. Johnson & the GOP-majority Congress would ever support such a change? Or would he be the first to shoot down any proposal to remove “so help me God”? This “Congress has to do it” bill is just an end-run to enshrine the specifically Christian wording and protect the influence of 1 dominant religion over the entire institution, despite violating the rights of thousands of military personnel in the process.
“Oh, it’s just a name – if you don’t believe it why does it matter what you say?”
Every Republican in the country would go bonkers if the military forced enlistees & officers to swear to “Allah.” This is exactly the same logic. Even if it’s “just a name” and “you don’t believe it” it’s still the gov’t/your employer forcing you to make a public charade of a statement regardless of your actual beliefs. That’s no different from forcing participation in North Korean propaganda displays or ISIS-forced conversions, etc. That’s why the oath is to the Constitution in the first place & not some powerful figure.
Forced religious belief, or deliberately excluding/isolating those who don’t share your brand of it, has no place in a U.S. military sworn to protect & defend a Constitution covering ALL citizens of ALL religious beliefs – even the lack of one.
All that said – I appreciate your perspective & posting the links/actual text of the bill. I also agree Mr. Weinstein goes way overboard on his personal attacks. He does more harm than good in my view… But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about the bill.