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.<\/p>\n
Most of the critics portrayed the act as some version of requiring enlisting military members to “pledge to God<\/a>”\u00a0during their military oaths — something that recalls issues with the US Air Force<\/a> and Air Force Academy<\/a> in 2013. One employee of the Air Force Academy summed up much of the criticism when he tweeted<\/a>\u00a0to the Congressman<\/a> (thick with irony):<\/p>\n What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” did you miss, sir?<\/p>\n You are in Congress. You are sponsoring a bill to establish Christianity as a state religion. Have you READ the Constitution?<\/p>\n \u2014 Phoenix Blue (@Phoenix_Blue) March 23, 2015<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Similarly, an astonishingly ignorant Michael “Mikey” Weinstein claimed the Congressman should be tried for treason. Including his standard infantile personal attacks<\/a>\u00a0[emphasis added]:<\/p>\n Congressman Sam Johnson should be tried for treason and sedition<\/strong>. The astounding ignorance and bigotry<\/strong> displayed by his brazen presentation of this proposed wretched sectarian legislation<\/strong> is literally mind-ripping…The United States Congress should at the very least censure this constitutionally derelict villain<\/strong> and universally despicable human being<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Both “Phoenix Blue<\/a>” and Weinstein clearly didn’t read the very bill they’re criticizing. (In truth, both criticized the man<\/em>, not the bill, something known as ad hominem<\/em>. But granting them the benefit of the doubt…) The bill<\/a> does nothing more than require Congress to approve changes to all military oaths:<\/p>\n 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…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The bill adds text to both titles to say<\/p>\n The text of the oath required for [military service] may not be changed except by Act of Congress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s it. The proposed bill does nothing more than say that the oaths — most of which are already in US law<\/em> — cannot be changed except by changing the law<\/em>.\u00a0 This is also essentially identical to what the congressman proposed in 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n It has nothing to do with establishing a religion, Phoenix Blue.<\/p>\n It is a far cry from treason (“aiding the enemy”), Weinstein — a former JAG who surely knows the definition of those words.<\/p>\n But don’t let facts get in the way of an attack on a person with whom you disagree.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n