{"id":26757,"date":"2013-11-13T09:52:09","date_gmt":"2013-11-13T12:52:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=26757"},"modified":"2016-11-26T00:24:14","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T03:24:14","slug":"weinsteins-imbalanced-view-of-so-help-me-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/11\/13\/weinsteins-imbalanced-view-of-so-help-me-god\/","title":{"rendered":"Weinstein’s Imbalanced View of So Help Me God"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein penned half of a pro\/con debate for the local\u00a0Colorado Springs Gazette<\/em> regarding the presence of “so help me God” in the USAFA Cadet Honor Oath.\u00a0 Weinstein boils his argument down<\/a> to this:<\/p>\n

Removing those words from the published oath does nothing to change [cadets’ First Amendment] right [sic<\/em>].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In balance, however, if the removal<\/em> of those words affects not the First Amendment rights of believers, why would\u00a0the presence<\/em> of those words affect the rights of others<\/em>?\u00a0 Weinstein fails to justify\u00a0his call\u00a0for a change.<\/p>\n

In one respect, Weinstein’s premise\u00a0seems to be correct:\u00a0 No religious faith requires one to take governmental oaths by saying “so help me God.”\u00a0 In that regard, removing it would not in itself<\/em> infringe on religious liberty.<\/p>\n

The same was true for the poster at the Prep School<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The same was true for the Chaplain’s article in Alaska<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The same was true for “Deo” on the RCO’s patch<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The same was true for a class on Just War<\/a>, the word “chapel” in an SOS course<\/a>, Air Force Inn Bibles<\/a>, and the Air Force treatment of Operation Christmas Child<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No religious belief mandates a particular position on any<\/em> of those issues — and no government<\/em> policy does, either.\u00a0 The military has chosen its responses at its discretion.<\/p>\n

Each time the government has taken a position — even if\u00a0it didn’t need<\/em> to take one at all.\u00a0\u00a0It has frequently\u00a0been accused of taking a position\u00a0contrary to religious liberty on these issues, not merely because of the individual issue, but because of the apparent culture a pattern of such decisions creates. Repeated actions by the military seeming to target religious faith can generate the perception that the military is hostile to faith — a perception declared by members of Congress<\/a>. The single counter-example was the Air Force’s decision to restore the pulled Chaplain’s article<\/a> — something that occurred only after<\/em> substantial push back from religious liberty groups.<\/p>\n

Weinstein’s position that removing “so help me God” “takes nothing away” from religious troops is, in isolation<\/em>, correct.<\/p>\n

In the greater context, though,\u00a0of the environment of religious freedom in the US military, he’s not only wrong, but constitutionally<\/em> wrong.\u00a0 Weinstein isn’t interested in religious freedom in the military, however.\u00a0 His goal is more visceral, and it involves doing anything he can to have the government target Christians he doesn’t feel are the “right kind” of Christians.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, “so help me God” isn’t a Christian phrase.\u00a0 But guess who are the most vocal ones trying to protect military religious liberty from Weinstein’s goals of purging it…?<\/p>\n

The opposing article can be read here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n