Tx Congressman on Warpath to Make Atheist Military Cadets Swear Oath Containing ‘So Help Me God’

Texas Congressman is on the Warpath to Make Atheist Military Cadets Swear an Oath Containing ‘So Help Me God’

Sam Johnson (R-TX), once named the most conservative Member of Congress by National Journal, thinks atheists in the military should be forced to acknowledge God and swear a pledge to the Almighty. He’s even introduced a bill to make that happen.

Johnson’s initiative is a response to the U.S. Air Force top command’s recent decision to make saying “So help me God” optional when cadets pledge they’ll abide by the military code of honor. In other words, cadets who want to say that phrase may do exactly that, as before; those who don’t will swear the oath just the same, but without the deity reference.

Sound reasonable? Not to Johnson it doesn’t.
patheos

Honestly do these people not have anything better to do? Do we really need a bill to force people into swearing to something they do not believe in?

Below is the link to his bill.

congress.gov

What would be the point in making someone swear to something they don't believe exists?

reply to post by terriblyvexed


I guess to reaffirm others beliefs.

I know crazy right.

Another religious nutjob that needs to be thrown out of office. Does this idiot know it's against the Constitution to make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

reply to post by Grimpachi


"So help me God, those damn atheists better be praying next time I lay my eyes on them"

Maybe he doesn't know what an atheist is, and thinks it's some kind of food faddist.

Maybe. It will make more of the young people in the military see that the leaders only care about their beliefs and dont care what anyone else thinks and will do everything in their power to force it on everyone.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I'm a Service Member, a veteran, an Eagle Scout and a fiscal Conservative.

I'm also an atheist.

The difference between me (and many other atheist) and so many other categories of people is that the majority of say oaths, pledges, or affirmations containing religious dogma, but are not offended. I don't make a scene during office Christmas parties, or during the Pledge of Allegiance. There are a lot more important things to get offended over.

With so many more REAL issues that affect us all, I find it disheartening that other 'enlightened' atheists are jumping on the bandwagon of lambasting others due to their using of religion as a litmus test of morality.

I honestly cannot think of a single time someone has asked, "What church/synagogue/mosque/temple do you go to."

The overwhelming majority of people, even many religious zealots, don't really care.

Looks to me like it says oaths require congressional change for rewording.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Gotta love Texas - can we give it back to Mexico?

FyreByrd
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Gotta love Texas - can we give it back to Mexico?

You can give it to me.

Waste of time and energy. There are far more important things to do in this country and this world. Let's keep the bible out of "merica" where it most certainly does not belong.

Lipton
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

The overwhelming majority of people, even many religious zealots, don't really care.

Indeed - but this particular one is an elected representative lawmaker, and does care, and wants to force people to do something they don't believe in.

you may not have a problem with lying on oath, but consider that other people might.

Lipton
The overwhelming majority of people, even many religious zealots, don't really care.

...excepting for this politician, a whole bunch of other politicians and a whole bunch of constituents that continue to vote em' in. The religious right do care and they do tend to make a scene about it. If athiests don't want to pray to God or any God, leave them be. If you're so insistent that there are more important issues to pay attention to then maybe you should start focusing your attention on the people trying to push this nonsense like this congressman here instead of being so concerned with how some atheists act.

reply to post by Lipton

I'm a Service Member, a veteran, an Eagle Scout and a fiscal Conservative.

I'm also an atheist.

The difference between me (and many other atheist) and so many other categories of people is that the majority of say oaths, pledges, or affirmations containing religious dogma, but are not offended. I don't make a scene during office Christmas parties, or during the Pledge of Allegiance. There are a lot more important things to get offended over.

I agree that there are more important things to be worry about, but doesn't that same logic apply to the politician? We're people talking about problems, he's a guy whose job it is to fix the problems and clearly he hasn't got a clue what the problems are if he thinks it has anything to do with forcing atheists (and people of non-Abrahamic religious faiths) to "acknowledge God." That concerns me a lot more than changing the words of existing oaths and pledges.

I also believe that there is meaning in taking oaths and pledges and that they shouldn't be perfunctorily recited. I trust that most people are able to separate the spirit of the entirety of the worlds from what are hopefully the last vestiges of quasi-theocracy.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- Then VP, George H. W. Bush in a 1987 interview

yikes. Now that's f'n scary.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

this particular one is an elected representative lawmaker, and does care, and wants to force people to do something they don't believe in. you may not have a problem with lying on oath, but consider that other people might.

This is the crux of the matter and it seems that this elected representative need to read his bible a little closer in regards to causing others to "sin" by baring false witness on themselves. If a person does not believe in God, that's their choice and you cannot force them to believe otherwise.

Though I understand where he is coming from, he is going about it the wrong way and in a way that will cause nothing but trouble. As an elected representative I doubt he even knows on what the US was founded upon.

reply to post by Lipton

Could not agree with you more here is my viwe of it:,
to each his her own, to force or make one do an act or take part in , is not brotherly love!

to except what they think or do with out voicing an opinion is the best act one can do

at one time is was like this so called congress rep, but now i am a true believer of let be, and let live.. if it is an thorn to you, then it is your problem not any one Else's problem

reply to post by Grimpachi


Maybe there is hope for Texas yet:

www.alternet.org...

Are Politicians who Cut Food Stamps and Deny Health Access Truly 'Pro-Life'?

November 8, 2013 |
When Wendy Davis proclaimed that she is "pro-life" — a description long since appropriated by conservatives opposed to abortion rights -- the right-wing media practically exploded with indignation. How could she dare to say that? But having won national fame when she filibustered nearly 12 hours against a law designed to shutter Lone Star State abortion clinics, the Texas state senator with the pink shoes doesn't hesitate to provoke outrage among the righteous.

Speaking to a crowd at the University of Texas in Brownsville last Tuesday, Davis, now running for governor as a Democrat, made a deceptively simple but profound declaration: "I am pro-life. I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry their children's future and their ability to provide for that."

Her argument directly pierced to the contradiction within the right's "pro-life" sloganeering. So far the feeble answer from the right is that Davis must be "lying" because nobody who supports a woman's right to choose is pro-life.

As a matter of policy all atheists, non-believers, satanists (especially those inspired by Aquino ), witches, wiccans, homosexuals, gay marrieds, and all other forms of perversion (religious and otherwise) ought to be banned from the military, and most especially from all service academies - this admonition also includes women in combat. The admission of the aforementioned compromises our armed forces all of which have been promoted and inculcated by obama in order to weaken and dis-establish our fighting forces. All of this is happening in tandem with obama's purge of "non-compliant" officers - 250 or thereabouts so far - and counting.

Rape, unwanted pregnacies, infidelity, divorces, and abortion are rampant in the armed forces as a direct result of the mixing of the sexes in the military.

As a result we should seriously consider bringing back the WACS and WAVES etc., as separate from the regular armed forces. In addition to the Navy WAVES, and Army WACS, there were also other branches of the U.S. military that had similar women's units, the SPARS of the Coast Guard, and the (civil) Women Airforce Service Pilots. The British Armed Forces also had similar units, including the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

JHumm
Maybe. It will make more of the young people in the military see that the leaders only care about their beliefs and dont care what anyone else thinks and will do everything in their power to force it on everyone.

I think you just described a politician

reply to post by Lipton


Simply stated, it's against the Constitution. The wall separating Church and State crumbles more and more all the time and it can't be allowed to happen. So while you as an atheist deem it not a big deal, a simple choice not be offended... I as a believer in a God (though undefined) am outraged and concerned that zealots allowed to go unchecked will lead to an official religion being declared or more and more laws made that reflect only Christianity.

It's not okay... not by law, not ever.