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 connecting unrelated events is yet to be determined.
Rodda’s response is an evasion because, in the case of the Honor Oath, it is absolutely true that “nobody’s forced to say ‘so help me God'” — as has already been discussed here multiple times. Since she didn’t want to answer truthfully, as the truth would hurt her case, she chose to give an irrelevant answer.
To the specifics of Rodda’s story:
The email to which Rodda referred was from the Master Sergeant enlisted leader of the Cadet Squadron 21 “Blackjacks.” As a result of earlier events which caused some confusion, the MSgt said he talked to the personnel office, the chaplain’s office, and the JAG on whether or not “so help me God” was required in the commissioning oath. Based on those conversations, the MSgt passed on:
The Oath of Office is governed by Congressional Oversight. The words in the Oath of Office MUST be said in order for your Commissioning to be legal. Legislation is addressing the possibility of change…
Weinstein is living proof that JAGs (or former JAGs) can be wrong. The JAG to whom the MSgt spoke was either wrong, or the MSgt misunderstood.
It has long been known in the military community that the military form an officer candidate signs is a legal document; one cannot simply scratch out words (ie, “so help me God”) and maintain the integrity of the form. As the NCO correctly pointed out, those words are not at the discretion of the Air Force — they are written in law passed by Congress. The only way to change the form is to change the law.
The oath that is spoken, however, has also long been understood to have the option of not “swearing” (ie, “I affirm”) and not saying “so help me God.” In fact, the Air Force position on this isn’t speculative. AFI 36-2606, which gives guidance on the oath for reenlistment of enlisted personnel, provides an example of the actual Air Force position [emphasis added]:
“I, (State your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Note: Airmen may omit the words “So help me God”, if desired for personal reasons).
These two caveats — the form and the spoken oath — have become increasingly discussed because some people have been allowing officer candidates or enlistees to alter the form (in all the services), and it appears no one has been objecting. However, an incident at Maxwell AFB occurred when someone did object to a trainee trying to change the legal document. The Air Force recently said it was instituting a legal review of the subject — a review that is not yet complete.
The next day, the Blackjack AOC — the officer in charge of the cadets — “clarified” the NCO’s email by noting exactly these things:
[The JAG] pointed out that whether or not you repeat your commissioning oath verbatim at your ceremony has no legal consequence. However, your signature on the AF Form 133 is legally binding and JA cannot advise you to alter the oath (even though others have done so in the past without consequence).
Regrettably, that sounds a little bit like “you can do it if you want, but we can’t say you can do it.” In his defense, the AOC, too, is only repeating what the JAG told him. This is, in essence, the same thing the Air Force HQ JAG said when Weinstein complained. MajGen Steven Lepper, the Deputy JAG of the Air Force, told Weinstein he was raising an old issue:
A few weeks ago, USAFA/JA asked for a legal opinion from AF/JAA (our Administrative Law Directorate) regarding the oath requirement. Our folks in AF/JAA are currently researching the statutory requirements set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3331. Once they’ve concluded their research, they will draft a legal opinion that will be provided to all organizations responsible for Air Force officer accession programs (USAFA, ROTC, OTS).
In short, there is an ongoing debate within the Air Force JAG corps about how it should handle “so help me God” in the commissioning oath. Multiple JAGs have given conflicting opinions, and leaders have communicated some of those opinions or their understandings of them.
Contrary to the MRFF’s accusations and implications, the MSgt was not some criminal forcing his view of religion on cadets. He did everything right by talking to the people who are supposed to be experts on this subject. Those “right” people, though, don’t yet have an answer even for themselves. Even so, the issue isn’t necessarily how the oath should occur, but how it can occur while still complying with the law. The motivation is simply legalism, not religion.
Ultimately, the MSgt’s email had nothing to do with the question Rodda was asked about the Cadet Honor Oath. Rodda was simply deflecting to another issue because the MRFF has lost ground in the question at hand. It is unlikely the MRFF will make up much ground on the officer oath, either, as the Air Force has already been figuring out its way ahead — long before Weinstein complained. (Then again, chronology has never stopped Weinstein from taking credit for things in the past.)
In both cases, though — the Cadet Honor Oath and the Oath of Office — it would be a tempest in a teapot, if it was a tempest at all. It is, ultimately, a non-issue worked up for little more than the fundraising efforts of an activist “charity.”
ADVERTISEMENT