09-25-2014 08:21 PM
71 123
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    You don't consider a military career to be a government position? What's the difference between this and the town that got sued for requiring the city council to declare themselves Christians? Both are voluntary positions and in both cases the relevant part of the Constitution would apply, wouldn't it? I think I agree that no rights are being violated as it is not addressing the rights in the amendments, etc... But that isn't the same as saying the government is not stepping outside of its boundaries. The president isn't allowed to declare war. If he/she does, they're not violating your rights, but that action is still unconstitutional and illegal.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime. Android Central Moderator.
    It is not unconstitutional though, that is the thing. Unless someone can point to where it says it is unconstitutional to swear to god for military service, I will continue to say so.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-12-2014 11:15 AM
  2. Timelessblur's Avatar
    So all those oaths swearing to god for public offices are unconstitutional?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    And they have been challenged before and guess what every time they get declared unconstitutional. It will never make it even pass district court as it so clear cut and all of them been ruling the same.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-12-2014 11:26 AM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    It is not unconstitutional though, that is the thing. Unless someone can point to where it says it is unconstitutional to swear to god for military service, I will continue to say so.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    SC Judicial Department

    They ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.

    Additionally, this is from the SCOTUS: We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

    The "pointing out" part already happened, when I referenced Article 6 earlier, but here is a copy of the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf - Article VI is on page 11 or so of this PDF.
    09-12-2014 11:26 AM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    As a citizen we are required to follow the law as written. REQUIRED. You have to follow the law, and then challenge it in court. Or, remove yourself from the situation and then challenge it in court.

    This is very similar to people that don't want to "submit" to law enforcement when they violate a law because they "don't agree with it". There is a process for challenging laws. That process needs to be followed.
    A895 likes this.
    09-12-2014 11:36 AM
  5. UJ95x's Avatar
    So all those oaths swearing to god for public offices are unconstitutional?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    No, you have every right to do so. You also have every right to do it on the constitution. What's unconstitutional is forcing you to swear on the Bible
    09-12-2014 11:44 AM
  6. UJ95x's Avatar
    As a citizen we are required to follow the law as written. REQUIRED. You have to follow the law, and then challenge it in court. Or, remove yourself from the situation and then challenge it in court.

    This is very similar to people that don't want to "submit" to law enforcement when they violate a law because they "don't agree with it". There is a process for challenging laws. That process needs to be followed.
    What citizen is not following a law?
    09-12-2014 11:46 AM
  7. A895's Avatar
    What citizen is not following a law?
    The very man this whole thread is about. He does not want to follow the law.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-12-2014 07:06 PM
  8. UJ95x's Avatar
    The very man this whole thread is about. He does not want to follow the law.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    It's already been explained to you that said law is unconstitutional. The constitution overrides any other laws that may be in place.
    09-12-2014 07:30 PM
  9. A895's Avatar
    It's already been explained to you that said law is unconstitutional. The constitution overrides any other laws that may be in place.
    It is up to the Supreme Court with judicial review whether it is unconstitutional or not. Until then it is the law whether you agree with it or not.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-12-2014 07:33 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    It is up to the Supreme Court with judicial review whether it is unconstitutional or not. Until then it is the law whether you agree with it or not.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Which is exactly why I said he should either comply, join and then file suit or he should not join and then file suit.
    09-12-2014 07:34 PM
  11. A895's Avatar
    Which is exactly why I said he should either comply, join and then file suit or he should not join and then file suit.
    That's why I said that to UJ95x, as it isn't considered unconstitutional unless it is struck down from Supreme Court. Otherwise the choice is still left to him what he decides to do.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-12-2014 08:26 PM
  12. jdbii's Avatar
    How can you ask somebody to make an oath if they don't believe in it? Essentially you are forcing them to lie which contradicts and negates the whole purpose of an oath in the first place. Inserting "so help me God" turns the oath into a religious ceremony. How would you like it if the Air Force said all future weddings for active duty Air Force personnel will only be Hindu weddings.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    09-13-2014 02:21 PM
  13. UJ95x's Avatar
    That's why I said that to UJ95x, as it isn't considered unconstitutional unless it is struck down from Supreme Court. Otherwise the choice is still left to him what he decides to do.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Yes, I agree that he should appeal it afterwards. But I don't see how it wouldn't be unconstitutional. The first amendment says we have freedom of religion...
    09-13-2014 03:20 PM
  14. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    No problem with the requirement.

    Sent via my Note 8
    A895 likes this.
    09-13-2014 03:24 PM
  15. A895's Avatar
    How can you ask somebody to make an oath if they don't believe in it? Essentially you are forcing them to lie which contradicts and negates the whole purpose of an oath in the first place. Inserting "so help me God" turns the oath into a religious ceremony. How would you like it if the Air Force said all future weddings for active duty Air Force personnel will only be Hindu weddings.
    But the question remains what happens during Hindu weddings? That is what stops me from agreeing. But I don't think you can draw parallels like that.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-13-2014 04:35 PM
  16. A895's Avatar
    Yes, I agree that he should appeal it afterwards. But I don't see how it wouldn't be unconstitutional. The first amendment says we have freedom of religion...
    He is still free to practice whatever it is the fact that this one symbolic phrase is just meant to be said to re enlist. It is like how we say "under god" for the pledge of allegiance. It is just a symbolic phrase.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-13-2014 04:39 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    I would be perfectly fine with separation of church and state, the way it was intended to be. I wonder what kind of uproar we'd hear if it was a Muslim phrase that needed to be uttered in order to gain entry into a government institution. It seems like we're complacent with allowing Christianity to seep into our government but want to take issue with anything else.

    Whatever happened to worshiping with a bit of humility? When did Christians decide it was ok to wave their belief in everyone's face? I don't care what religion you practice as long as it doesn't involve harming anyone else, but keep it to yourself. Projecting your religious affiliation to other people doesn't make you a better person, it makes you obnoxious.
    09-13-2014 06:09 PM
  18. Timelessblur's Avatar
    It is up to the Supreme Court with judicial review whether it is unconstitutional or not. Until then it is the law whether you agree with it or not.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Let's change this a little do you believe the oath is constitutional?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-13-2014 07:43 PM
  19. Javier P's Avatar
    Y We are forgetting something. This isn't about an atheist or an agnostic person claiming for his rights. This is about a secular state. This is about religious freedom!

    It doesn't matter what you think or believe. Public institutions MUST be secular. Period. The less secular a country is the less religious freedom its citizens have. And that's a fact. When you force anyone to agree with any religious dogma you are closer to a theocracy than to a free country.

    It's a shame that so many religious people doesn't accept or understand that. But that only means one thing. They don't care about freedom, they are just a bunch of theocrats with not enough muscle to impose their views. And all of us know a couple of examples about muscles and religion.

    I know that this sounds a bit harsh or even rude and I'm sorry for that. But that's the way a feel.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    09-13-2014 07:54 PM
  20. A895's Avatar
    Let's change this a little do you believe the oath is constitutional?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    I think it may be, but ultimately the Courts will decide that.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-13-2014 09:21 PM
  21. GadgetGator's Avatar
    He is still free to practice whatever it is the fact that this one symbolic phrase is just meant to be said to re enlist. It is like how we say "under god" for the pledge of allegiance. It is just a symbolic phrase.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    So....you seem to want it both ways. You say that he doesn't have to believe that, which would make the oath meaningless and a complete lie, but then go on to say it's a symbol. A symbol of what exactly?

    It would seem the military has a contradiction on it's hands. They tell recruits to be honest and trustworthy, but then place an oath in front of them that for some would be a complete false statement. It makes no sense and I can't imagine how you can possibly feel this is constitutional.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Javier P likes this.
    09-14-2014 03:34 PM
  22. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Ridiculous, as if pretending to believe in God to placate people is any better than omitting the phrase. Priorities!
    A895 likes this.
    09-14-2014 03:56 PM
  23. A895's Avatar
    So....you seem to want it both ways. You say that he doesn't have to believe that, which would make the oath meaningless and a complete lie, but then go on to say it's a symbol. A symbol of what exactly?

    It would seem the military has a contradiction on it's hands. They tell recruits to be honest and trustworthy, but then place an oath in front of them that for some would be a complete false statement. It makes no sense and I can't imagine how you can possibly feel this is constitutional.

    Posted via Android Central App
    The Courts decide what is constitutional not me. Or else the Patriot Act would have been gone by now right?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-14-2014 04:41 PM
  24. UJ95x's Avatar
    The Courts decide what is constitutional not me. Or else the Patriot Act would have been gone by now right?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    If it benefits them, they bend the rules. Off topic, but Comcast basically has a government sanctioned monopoly. So while they are ultimately the ones who decide if something is legal or not, doesn't mean that they'll always do what the constitution says. But it clearly states that we have freedom of religion. I don't see how that can mean anything else
    09-14-2014 04:47 PM
  25. rexxman's Avatar
    An oath is not codified in the law. The Air Force is not in line with the other branches of the armed forces as regards to the oath. If the airmen resigns over this just to file a lawsuit, then I, as a taxpayer, could face financial consequences. Get you head out Air Force!

    Posted via Android Central App
    09-15-2014 08:17 AM
71 123

Similar Threads

  1. FM Radio (real over the air fine-tunning FM radio)
    By Mihai Ceuca in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-29-2017, 02:22 PM
  2. Force gpu rendering
    By marios1441 in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-11-2014, 06:18 AM
  3. Hello from Buenos Aires!
    By fcmatteo in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 10:23 AM
  4. GSM version of the ZTE Force N9100?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2014, 02:26 PM
  5. Air printing with Android (Samsung Note 3)
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2014, 10:52 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD