It's long overdue.

K/R

So there hasn't been a chance yet for someone to challenge it. This is more proof that everything is run by the Republicans.

Up until last year the regs specifically allowed personnel to omit "so help me God" and to affirm rather than swear (I affirmed rather than swore, simply because affirming is meaningful to me and swearing isn't), but apparently USAF changed that. I don't know how "so help me God" will stand up, but requiring an oath rather than an affirmation is pretty clearly unconstitutional.

Who will they pray to for forgiveness when their
conscience comes to call?

I suppose the irony escape them.

The fundies have taken over the USAF. Must be that big church in Colorado right next to the Air Force Academy. Sickening.

It's always been this way. I had a Baptist minister refuse to marry me and my first husband because we were living together. He passed us on to another person, which was fine with me. He insulted me in every way possible.

The regulation is Air Force Instruction 36-2606 of 9 May 2011. If you scroll to paragraph 5.6, Active Duty Oath of Enlistment, you will find:

"All Airmen enlisting or reenlisting must take the following oath:

'I, (state your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend...etc., etc., etc...according to 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.)"

But stapled to the front of this book is a change as of 30 October 2013:

Paragraph 5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment - Cancelled
Reference to Paragraph 5.6. Active Duty Oath of Enlistment MUST READ: (and the words "so help me God" are stuck right on there)

Probably the Reverend Colonel Beauregard Holier-Than-Thou.

The original approving authority of this reg, according to the AFI, is Major General Sharon K.G. Dunbar, who was Director of Force Management Policy when the original Air Force Instruction was promulgated. However, she was reassigned as Commander of Air Force District of Washington in July 2012 - long before the illegal administrative change was done.

I thought, "maybe it was the Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force." I don't think so...the current Chief of Chaplains is Major General Howard Stendahl, who's an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America minister. ELCA isn't that hardcore - they have LGBT clergy, requiring only that they be in monogamous relationships.

Go straight to Colorado Springs, young Archae; it is there you will find the truth.

I tried to find the new revision a few days ago (when I first heard about this) and discovered that every site that had a possible link - active AF, Reserve pages, Guard pages . . . even other service branches - gave me a 404 error or simply file not found.

Seems a little hinky to me.

The new revision, which presumably happened in October 2013 (according to the AHA and confirmed by the AF), has had the proviso removed from section 5.6 that allowed airmen to omit the 'so help me god' if they chose.

Putting "minor administrative updates" (this one's not minor nor is it constitutional, but it's considered "minor" because it only changes one paragraph) on single sheets of paper, e-mailing them to everyone who holds a copy of the manual in question (in the old days they went to the post print shop and were duplicated and distributed to all units from there) and telling the users "attach this to the front of AFI such-and-such or Technical Order such-and-such" is a very common way to update military manuals. All the services do it.

Don't know if that's of any significance.
Maybe they were drunk from a Halloween party and did it as a joke?

This abomination is a direct result of changes made by Congress (useless dirtbags! Though some {House} are more useless than others {Senate}) to Title 10 US Code Section 502. Somehow this passed not only the idiots in the House, but also the dumbasses in the Senate.

This will fall by the wayside as soon as someone brings suit, as the right to affirm is granted in Title 1 US Code Section 1, and an affirmation is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "a pledge equivalent to an oath but without reference to a supreme being or to "swearing.' "

Some Super-Christy JERK jammed this in actually believing it casts a fucking SPELL.

When I served in the Air Force (1972-1984) we were given the option. Someone with a bug up their ass recently checked the actual laws that govern enlistment, and here's what the law says:

---------------------------------
10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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.”
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------

While there is an option to either swear or affirm, there is NO legally stated option to not put in the god words.

Is it wrong? Absolutely! Should it be changed? Without any doubt in my mind.

However, the prescribed words are currently a part of federal law, and, unfortunately, must be adhered to until the time comes that the law is changed so as to not force people to rely on a sky-pixie to seal their oath.

It's up to Congress to make an amendment to this section of US Code to stop discrimination against non-religious Americans serving (or attempting to serve) their country.

That had all kinds of bullshit going on, a few years ago?

were on board the planes that were hijacked on 9/11???

......since all 19 hijackers were Muslims.

Says in part, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." One would think that requiring the "so help me God" as part of the oath would not stand up under Article 6.

No way it stands up in court, so whoever is responsible for making this change has only subjected the USAF to a senseless legal battle that is a waste of time and energy.

-- Mal

theocracy.

The oath, was fixed by Congress in 1962 when Congress added the phase "so help me God". This reflected George Washington's addition of that phase to the Presidential oath when he first took it in 1789. Every President has followed the precedent.

The Supreme Court has ruled the phase is a meaningless phase meant to show that the oath is something more then words.

Taking the oath is a requirement set by Congress, but it is a requirement whose only punishment is you can not enlist.

Please note, the enlistee would have had to sign such an oath when he or she enlisted in the first place, thus I can see a court ruling any right to object to the phase was waived at that time period. Thus bringing it up now is meaningless. i.e what harm are you suffering by NOT saying those words? Given you said those words in your prior enlistment?

Just pointing out the Air Force do have a defense, that all they are requiring is a statement that has come to mean you are saying something more then mere words when you take the oath of enlistment. It is NOT a statement that you believe in God, but a statement saying you know this is something more then signing a normal contract. Given the enlistee did this in the past, when he or she enlisted in the first place, what objections can he or she have doing it AGAIN?

If and when the Air Force defends this, they have a defense, you may disagree with it (which is the point of any litigation) but they have a defense. The Air Force will NOT say a belief in God is required to be in the Air Force, but the phase is in the oath to show that the oath is something more then mere words.

Personally I do not think it is worth the fight, just have the Colonel recite the oath, have the enlistee say yes, and get on with your jobs. If the Enlistee refuses to sign, just said he or she did not want to sign, but took the oath as given by his Colonel. That is how it has been done for centuries, why require them to sign.

Republican talking points; 9/11, contraception/abortion and god.

the law until a court overrules it.

It's not like there is a shortage of federal judges unwilling to overturn laws that they believe violate the Constitution. We vest that power in the courts, not in each individual.