0 votes
in Living by

We hear Christians saying and writing, “If you don’t want to
say ‘so help me ***’ then don’t say it”.

This is the slippery slope.

Has this case caused you to reconsider?

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

35 Answers

0 votes
by
no religious test clause
0 votes
by
I agree. They're always in there, pushing the thin *** of a wedge ahead of them. Never satisfied until their dogma is universal law.

But, being what it is, religious pimps are a protected species. And the more our population grows, the more power these groups command.
0 votes
by
People in the military don't enjoy the same rights and Constitutional guarantees that civilians do.
0 votes
by
And it's excuses like that, that prove that Christians are trying to have it both ways... Do you they would roll over and accept the "gov't property" argument if they were told they cannot proclaim their faith?
0 votes
by
...as in, not being able to wear religious symbols on their uniforms or fall out of formation to prostrate themselves on the ground in prayer? Such rules already exist.

I notice you single out Christians, however. Progressives seem to be pretty selective in their outrage. :O)
0 votes
by
First of all, I'm only "singling out" Christians, because it applies to THIS story. I have no more love for Islam or Judaism. They're extremely vile faiths that do nothing but harm their followers. Anyone who has seen my posts, knows that I don't hold back when the topic is about them. And it would be just as inappropriate to start slamming Christians during a topic about Islam. I just find it important to be relevant to the topic at hand.

..."..as in, not being able to wear religious symbols on their uniforms or fall out of formation to prostrate themselves on the ground in prayer? Such rules already exist. "...

No... The Christians have been crying victim over whether or not they should have the right to proselytize. Yet, they want to do precisely that by forcing non-believers to acknowledge a *** that they don't believe exists. It's hypocritical.
0 votes
by
Proselytizing is one of the key bugs in all religions. Otherwise, there would be no congregations-- only isolated neurotics at large, singing songs. :O)

In any case, they're pretty much forced to define and toe a line between evangelizing and proselytizing. Same crap they're doing in the schools... so much easier to leave it in the homes and churches and allow these institutions to carry on like secular clockwork.
0 votes
by
I don't care if it's one of the key bugs... Soldiers have no business pressuring it upon other soldiers. Same with schools... These organizations must be secular in order to be efficient. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want to see is two soldiers getting ***** up because they were distracted by the argument over which "***" had the bigger d--k.

You can proselytize at the mall, or other public gatherings (aside from gov't property) all you want. As long as you're respectful enough to back off when I tell you I'm not interested to hear it... But our military is far to important to be polluted with this garbage.
0 votes
by
Which is why it needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes completely out of control. And forcing an Atheist Sergeant to acknowledge "***", isn't just crossing a line, it's stomping on it one the way across.
0 votes
by
That's how the military is. You're gov't property, listed on TO&E; sheets like inventory. They control whether you live or die, in the long run... and everything in between.
0 votes
by
Well... the military is different than civilian life. You do all sorts of things you don't find appealing, and it's okay.
0 votes
by
Even the military has lost their minds...............
0 votes
by
no religious test clause
0 votes
by
It is unconstitutional to require anyone to acknowledge a ***..or pass a religious test to hold any office, If the religious ******* want a theocracy they can move to Iraq..
0 votes
by
I was listening to a conservative talk radio host I often agree with. A caller said “those ****** atheists who don’t like *** in the pledge can move to Syria or Iraq”. The conservative host chuckled and agreed with him and his response was essentially, “something these atheists don’t understand is that over there you either believe or die, at least we have freedom here”.

I’ve seen the kind and gentle followers of Jesus write similar words here at ********.

The irony of the exchange wasn’t lost on the host I don’t think. I’m sure I could hear by his slight hesitation and in his voice that he realized they both sounded identical to the Islamic fundamentalists they apparently would like to see us, “****** atheists” deal with.
0 votes
by
That slight hesitation is as far as it'll ever go. People hold their logical disconnects too dearly to examine them very closely.
0 votes
by
It is still unconstitutional
0 votes
by
This is a blatant violation of the Constitutional rights granted each citizen or our nation, the imposed submission to an oath which imposes religious belief of ANY KIND.

The US Air Force is WRONG.
0 votes
by
That's just wrong what if someone forced Christians to say so help me Allah?
0 votes
by
if your in the military you have to follow orders i thought.
0 votes
by
Why did the USAF, and only the USAF, attempt to force this issue? Individual branches/services do not have the authority to alter either the oath of office for commissioning or enlistment, & it is uniform as directed by the Secretary of Defense...

http://militaryatheists.org/a...
0 votes
by
It shouldn't be forced one way or th other.
0 votes
by
It isn't.
A week after that article (more than six months ago) linked to by Ty, this article:

http://www.theblaze.com/stori...
0 votes
by
Thanks for sharing the link... I think that is fair.
0 votes
by
Once again, the Christians prove themselves to be hypocrites. When told they cannot proselytize, they stomp their feet and scream about the First Amendment. Yet, at the same time, they want to force non-believers into adhering to their whack-a-doodle cult rituals.

Can't have it both ways folks.
0 votes
by
Christians and Social conservatives need to be put into their place. They are nothing more than hate mongerers and bigots.
I want everyone to join me in treating christians and social conservatives as they treat others. To begin all you have to do is disrespect everything they believe in, as they disrespect everyone elses beliefs. Next, treat them with contempt as they have contempt for everyone else. Call for laws that limit their rights as citizens.
I am sure that you can be just as creative in returning their behaivor to them.
0 votes
by
Lawful orders. And orders that contradict the same Constitution we swear an oath to defend are not lawful.
0 votes
by
I don't have to reconsider anything. I am a Christian and have always considered it both unconstitutional and against the commandments of *** to use ***'s name for secular/earthly/political purposes.
0 votes
by
I'm English so i don't know about constitutional rights/oaths etc. Its irrelevant to the army what this guy 's beliefs are, if they told him to say something he should say it ......If hes gonna make such a fuss over saying something he doesn't agree with.....what would he do if he were ordered into situation where he was likely to killed.....Those who serve in the military MUST sacrifice personal values for the greater good of the army or the whole thing fall's apart.
0 votes
by
In the US, the acknowledgment of "***" is purely optional under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is a direct violation of the Constitution to force any service member, or any other gov't official to say it.
0 votes
by
I demand that the oath be in the name of Amaterasu-Ō-Mi-Kami and Siddhārtha Gautama.
0 votes
by
I suspect the Christian Conservatives would take issue...
0 votes
by
As a Christian Conservative, I have no issue with this perspective.

The idea of the pledge is to express that you are committed, even as witnessed by the most superior entity in your life. If you sincerely believe that the final authority and arbiter of all things spiritual is Eore, then please yourself to swear your oath to him, ...and hope he doesn't respond something like: "...Oh bother..."

p.s. Remember the gargantuan issue that stereotyping became in the 60's and 70's, concerning any of the classifications of people that liberal progressives like to sort people out with? ...Well, stereotyping Christians or Conservatives is just as mindless and lame.
0 votes
by
"stereotyping Christians or Conservatives is just as mindless and lame."
Do you not believe in the Golden Rule? Aren't Christians and social conservative just receiving the same treatment that they have been putting out there for the last 20yrs? In my view Christians are asking for this disrespect and mindless stereotyping. I am only happy to fulfill their request.
0 votes
by
There are two things at play, bigotry and chauvinism. People forget how chauvinism plays a role. People who would normally be more open minded (hence not bigots) get pulled in to agreeing with something when another person they identify with says it. The radio host is thinking, he's a christian, I'm a christian, I should be supporting, defending, and agreeing with him to show support and unity, even though you could easily sense his cognitive dissonance in that slight pause. Chauvinism is part of the in group bias that goes back to tribalism. That's why chauvinism and tribalism are so dangerous; all it takes is 5 bigoted monkeys and the rest of the monkeys start to go along.

Chauvinism is something one has to constantly be conscious of to guard against, and is a daily struggle. We can never truly put it behind us. We all have square thoughts that resist circles.

The ironic thing in this case is that the U.S. constitution is very clear as Bastion has posted here. http://www.********.com/livin... It should be an open and shut case, especially in the light of concern amongst Christians that their religious liberty is under attack. The Supreme Court should rule the way we want.

When I take Christians to task for hypocrisy, I do it by speaking Christian, which is easier for m...





There are two things at play, bigotry and chauvinism. People forget how chauvinism plays a role. People who would normally be more open minded (hence not bigots) get pulled in to agreeing with something when another person they identify with says it. The radio host is thinking, he's a christian, I'm a christian, I should be supporting, defending, and agreeing with him to show support and unity, even though you could easily sense his cognitive dissonance in that slight pause. Chauvinism is part of the in group bias that goes back to tribalism. That's why chauvinism and tribalism are so dangerous; all it takes is 5 bigoted monkeys and the rest of the monkeys start to go along.

Chauvinism is something one has to constantly be conscious of to guard against, and is a daily struggle. We can never truly put it behind us. We all have square thoughts that resist circles.

The ironic thing in this case is that the U.S. constitution is very clear as Bastion has posted here. http://www.********.com/livin... It should be an open and shut case, especially in the light of concern amongst Christians that their religious liberty is under attack. The Supreme Court should rule the way we want.

When I take Christians to task for hypocrisy, I do it by speaking Christian, which is easier for me because I used to be one. Quotes like: "My kingdom is not of this world" can be helpful, and remind them that separation of Church and state evolved out of the early Catholic church; which is why the pope anointed Kings instead of taking direct power, and later from the reformation in challenge to the entrenched power of the corrupted Catholic church. And finally I remind them that it is they who believe that Christianity heavily influenced the drafting of the constitution, and that religious freedom extended to non-christians is a Christian thing to do. It doesn't bother me to "switch languages". If I went to Germany and started berating Germans who don't speak English, my ******** would be an enormous road block to communication.

This happens on ** all the time, people quoting scripture to non-believers (when the topic isn't scripture), relativists making moral cases against judging others to those who believe in Natural Law. The qualitative differences in base *********** is a chasm so wide that it can't be crossed without translation into the intended targets language, and that requires understanding the other persons language and the *********** their arguments are based upon. On practical matters if one holds that the person must be convinced out of their own beliefs first, before you can persuade them, then one will be waiting a very long time indeed. Meanwhile the other team is taking the ball down the field.

Libertarianism and upholding the constitution requires the support of such a wide base of people that no one group can afford to alienate another. I'm interested in building a lexicon that can be understood by Theist and Atheist libertarians and constitutionalists equally, as well as between religious faiths. A kind of political manifesto that would point out that if we arrive at the same conclusions in the exercise of political power it doesn't matter how we arrived at those conclusions in order to get behind sound policy. The infighting only helps the enemies - the Statists to seize ever more power.

That is not to say that these subjects can't be discussed civilly, and they should, but once it comes to political action we can act in concert to move the ball to the next set of downs.
(more)
...