Air force requires an oath to God to (re)enlist

[DavidMcCann]

I don't understand your post. Why are you assuming atheists and Pagans are naturally separate groups (and thus ignoring the existence of atheist and agnostic Pagans)?

Paganism is a religion. Atheism is a denial of religion. Hence "atheistic paganism" is a contradiction in terms. If you want to assign your own meanings to words, do a Zamenhof and invent your own language.

Hm.  Well... not an atheist, but any oaths I take are on my terms.

Well, unless you're conscripted, no one will force you to join the USAF. And even if you were, you could always opt for the army.

And I certainly don't have to be an atheist -- or anything else -- to want to defend someone's Constitutional rights.

Feel free! The question is whether the constitutional ban on a state religion in the US was actually to be a ban on all references to religion by the state, or just a protection for minorities (like the Unitarian Jefferson) against intolerant majorities (like most of New England in those days). I suspect the latter. From my point of view, the combination of a written constitution with the common law system of judicial interpretation just enables judges to make up laws without the bother of actually running for office. Of course, neither my opinion nor yours has anything to do with religion.

[Sage]

Paganism is a religion. Atheism is a denial of religion. Hence "atheistic paganism" is a contradiction in terms. If you want to assign your own meanings to words, do a Zamenhof and invent your own language.

Nope. "Atheism" means "doesn't believe in a deity." "Paganism" is not for you to define. There is nothing that unites modern Pagans besides the use of the term Pagan. That's it. Nothing about belief, nothing about practice, not even agreement about what "Pagan" as a term means. Many modern Pagan religions are orthopraxic, about action, rather than orthodoxic, about belief.

Citation: I was an atheist/agnostic Pagan for a few years. I didn't believe in deities. I might have prayed to them and I certainly sat in circle several times. I considered myself a Pagan, so I was a Pagan. That's for individuals to define for themselves. Not you.

[Darkhawk]

Paganism is a religion.

And fruit is an apple.

[AineLlewellyn]

Well, unless you're conscripted, no one will force you to join the USAF. And even if you were, you could always opt for the army.

 
Except, you know, for the many reasons someone might prefer being in the USAF, not to mention that most people who have been in the military or are currently there really recommend that new recruits go for the USAF, as it is one of the better branches. Especially compared to the Army. People in the USAF get extra pay if they end up on an Army base, as compensation for the difference in quality and space. And that's just barely beginning to touch on the issue...

It's not constitutional for them to require an oath to god. That's it. (Your claim that Pagans are somehow 'included' in this is...so naive and/or ignorant of reality as to be hilarious. Others have already addressed how not liking a group doesn't mean you toss out their rights.)

[MadZealot]

Well, unless you're conscripted, no one will force you to join the USAF. And even if you were, you could always opt for the army.

You miss the point.  Conscripted or no, we cannot be compelled to swear a religious oath.  To require such is a violation of our free-exercise rights.

[Aster Breo]

You miss the point.  Conscripted or no, we cannot be compelled to swear a religious oath.  To require such is a violation of our free-exercise rights.

Not just our free-exercise rights.  As need about, it also violates a different section of the Constitution that says a religious test can't be required to hold public office.

[MadZealot]

Not just our free-exercise rights.  As need about, it also violates a different section of the Constitution that says a religious test can't be required to hold public office.

 
Yeah I looked at the language on that.  Is enlistment considered the same as holding public office?

[HarpingHawke]

Yeah I looked at the language on that.  Is enlistment considered the same as holding public office?

 
Pretty sure that's a no.

[DavidMcCann]

"Paganism" is not for you to define.

Nor for you. The meanings of words are defined by the society which uses them.

"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

[carillion]

Nor for you. The meanings of words are defined by the society which uses them.

"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

 

There is an easy solution - change a declaration to an opinion , vis: " To me, paganism is a religion".
There are no demographic studies/census results which show that society regards the term paganism as a religious signifyer. In the absense of such information all that is available is a personal opinion, not a consensual 'truth'.

[Sage]

Nor for you. The meanings of words are defined by the society which uses them.

 
And there is no one definition of Paganism. There is no one Pagan community. Those things do not now, nor have they ever, existed.

My definition matches the board's (the one you're currently posting on) which involves self-identification. If you identify as Pagan, you're in as far as I'm concerned.

You're going to have to deal with the fact that there are atheist, agnostic, and humanistic Pagans. You can ignore them or play the No True Scotsman fallacy all you want, but hey. They exist whether you like it or not.

[Aster Breo]

Yeah I looked at the language on that.  Is enlistment considered the same as holding public office?

I wish I could do the case law research to answer this for you myself, but that's not something I can do anymore. However, the article linked in the OP of this thread indicates that the section of the Constitution in question does apply to this case.

Sorry I can't be more definitive. :-(

[MadZealot]

I wish I could do the case law research to answer this for you myself, but that's not something I can do anymore. However, the article linked in the OP of this thread indicates that the section of the Constitution in question does apply to this case.

Sorry I can't be more definitive. :-(

No worries.    

The wording in the article is a bit vague, but I'd bet that any extant case law hinges on an argument that the enlisted person is as much a 'public servant'-- public employee-- as any elected or appointed public official.  Which makes sense.

[Aster Breo]

No worries.    

The wording in the article is a bit vague, but I'd bet that any extant case law hinges on an argument that the enlisted person is as much a 'public servant'-- public employee-- as any elected or appointed public official.  Which makes sense.

Yeah. Like I said, I haven't and can't do the case law research, but my guess would be that there's a very strong legal argument for extending that provision to military personnel, if it hasn't been already.

[Valentine]

Nice! I knew it was unconstitutional, but I didn't know it was unconstitutional
explicitly in bold letters, underlined.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that it's the Air Force that does this. As I recall, until some proselytizing shenanigans got publicity a few years ago and the commanders were forced to dial it back, the Air Force was the branch of the armed services most thoroughly colonized by evangelical Christians--to the point that they were nearly a wholly owned subsidiary of Focus on the Family et al.

 
Indeed.  It's no mistake that they're bunked up together in Colorado Springs.  Jeff Sharlet did really interesting research on the Evangelical takeover of the Air Force, much of which is google-able online or in his book "The Family."

Take note, all y'all: when it gets ugly, Focus on the Family et al. have a mountain fortress equipped with nuclear-armed fighter jets.  Just saying.