{"id":26370,"date":"2013-10-29T01:28:59","date_gmt":"2013-10-29T04:28:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=26370"},"modified":"2016-11-26T00:31:02","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T03:31:02","slug":"mrff-changes-narrative-on-so-help-me-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/10\/29\/mrff-changes-narrative-on-so-help-me-god\/","title":{"rendered":"MRFF Changes Narrative on “So Help Me God”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s discombobulated responses<\/a> to the Air Force Academy decision to make “so help me God”\u00a0 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\u00a0losing effort.\u00a0 His research assistant, Chris Rodda, seems to indicate\u00a0the MRFF is trying to point the narrative in a different direction.\u00a0 In a local news report<\/a> on the Academy decision (original here<\/a>):<\/p>\n

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…<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rodda’s response is noteworthy because the Cadet Honor<\/span> Oath has nothing to do<\/em> with the commissioning<\/span> oath, and nothing<\/em> to do<\/em> with the MSgt’s email.\u00a0 Whether the MRFF is intentionally trying to alter the debate or if Chris Rodda is incompetently connecting unrelated events is yet to be determined.<\/p>\n

Rodda’s response is an evasion because, in the case of the Honor Oath, it is absolutely true<\/em> that “nobody’s forced to say ‘so help me God'” — as has already been discussed here multiple times. Since she didn’t want<\/em> to answer truthfully, as the truth would hurt her case, she chose to give an irrelevant answer.<\/p>\n

To the specifics of Rodda’s story:<\/p>\n

The email to which Rodda referred was from the\u00a0Master Sergeant\u00a0enlisted leader of the Cadet Squadron 21 “Blackjacks.”\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Based on those conversations, the MSgt passed on:<\/p>\n

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…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Weinstein is living proof that JAGs (or former JAGs) can be wrong.\u00a0 The JAG to whom the MSgt spoke was either wrong, or the MSgt misunderstood.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 As the NCO correctly pointed out, those words are not at the discretion of the Air Force — they are written in law<\/a> passed by Congress.\u00a0 The only way to change the form is to change the law.<\/p>\n

The oath that is spoken<\/em>, however, has also long been understood to have the option of not “swearing” (ie, “I affirm”) and not saying “so help me God.”\u00a0 In fact, the Air Force position on this isn’t speculative.\u00a0\u00a0AFI 36-2606, which gives guidance on the oath for reenlistment of enlisted personnel<\/a>, provides an example of the actual<\/em> Air Force position\u00a0[emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

“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)<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These two caveats — the form and the spoken oath — have become increasingly discussed because some people have<\/em> been allowing officer candidates or enlistees to alter the form (in all the services), and it appears no one has been objecting.\u00a0\u00a0However,\u00a0an incident at Maxwell AFB occurred when someone did<\/em> object to a trainee trying to change the legal document.\u00a0 The Air Force recently said it was instituting a legal review of the subject — a review that is not yet complete.<\/p>\n

The next day, the Blackjack AOC — the officer in charge of the cadets — “clarified” the NCO’s email by noting exactly these things:<\/p>\n

[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).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Regrettably, that sounds a little bit like “you can do it if you want, but we can’t say you can do it.”\u00a0 In his defense, the AOC, too, is only repeating what the JAG told him.\u00a0 This is, in essence, the same thing the Air Force HQ JAG said when Weinstein complained.\u00a0 MajGen Steven Lepper, the Deputy JAG of the Air Force, told Weinstein he was raising an old issue:<\/p>\n

A few weeks ago<\/strong>, 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).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.\u00a0 Multiple JAGs\u00a0have given conflicting opinions, and leaders have communicated some of those opinions or their understandings of them.<\/p>\n

Contrary to the MRFF’s accusations and implications, the MSgt was not some criminal forcing his view of religion on cadets.\u00a0 He did everything right<\/em> by talking to the people who are supposed to be experts on this subject.\u00a0 Those “right” people, though, don’t yet have an answer even\u00a0for themselves<\/em>.\u00a0 Even so, the issue isn’t necessarily how the oath should<\/em> occur, but how it can<\/em> occur while still complying with the law.\u00a0 The motivation is simply legalism, not religion.<\/p>\n

Ultimately,\u00a0the MSgt’s email had nothing to do with the question Rodda was asked about the Cadet Honor Oath.\u00a0 Rodda was simply\u00a0deflecting to another issue because the MRFF has lost ground in the question at hand.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 (Then again, chronology has never stopped Weinstein from taking credit for things in the past<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 It is, ultimately, a non-issue worked up for little more than the fundraising efforts of an activist “charity.”<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n