In October 2013, the United States Air Force Academy announced that the words “so help me, God” would be optional when cadets recite the Honor Oath. In response, several GOP Congressmen proposed legislation that would force all Academy cadets to add those words back. The Wild Hunt spoke with a Pagan military veteran as well as Air Force Academy (AFA) Public Affairs officials about the proposed legislation and why they believe keeping “so help me, God” optional is important.
We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God. – USAF Academy Cadet Honor Oath
Background on the Honor Oath
The first portion of what would later become the Honor oath, “We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does …” was created by the Air Force Academy’s first class to graduate in 1959.
In 1984, the Academy was rocked by allegations of a cheating scandal. As a result of the investigation, an Honor Committee was created. The committee’s recommendation was to turn the code into an oath, which all cadets would take. They also added “and furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and live honorably” and tagged “so help me, God” to give the oath more gravity. That same year, the cadets voted to approve the Honor Oath and have all freshman cadets swear the oath when they are accepted into the cadet wing.
In 2013, the Academy decided to make, “so help me, God,” optional.
Photo By Dennis Rogers (US Air Force Public Affairs)
Legislation Proposed
Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) have sponsored a bill that aims to force all branches of the military to seek congressional approval before they make any changes to any oath. Effectively, it seeks to force an Air Force Academy cadet to say, “so help me, God” when they recite the Honor Oath.
Johnson said that the bill, which is called the Preserve and Protect God in Military Oaths Act, is necessary to protect the freedom of religion of U.S. troops. First introduced in 2013, the bill has been reintroduced this year with the addition of Rep. Lamborn as a co-sponsor.
When The Wild Hunt reached out to the AFA Public Affairs office they said they still stand behind the statement AFA Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michelle D. Johnson made in 2013 when the AFA made “so help me, God” optional. They also provided background information on how the Honor Oath was created and why they made a portion of it optional.
In the statement, Lt. Gen. Johnson said, “Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect, and that respect includes the ability of our cadets, Airmen and civilian Airmen to freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not. So, in the spirit of respect, cadets may or may not choose to finish the Honor Oath with ‘So help me God.’”
Air Force Academy’s Changing Religious Culture
In 2007 the AFA made news in a string of articles showcasing the institution as the focal point for an evangelical Christian takeover of the military. When PNC-Minnesota looked into the changing culture of the AFA in 2011, this climate of Evangelicalism appears to have come about due to an over-correction to the sexual assault cases that shocked the campus a few years earlier.
Lt Col Dan Brantingham, AFA Cadet Wing Chaplain, explained, “In the aftermath of the sexual assault cases in 2004-5, some leaders looked to religion to assist cadets in living honorable lives. In doing so, the leaders unintentionally promoted a particular flavor of religion as the solution.”
Starting in 2007, the Academy took steps to renew its focus on freedom of religion. Brantingham says he supports the current Academy policy of religious neutrality, “As an Air Force Chaplain my responsibility is to ensure the free exercise of religion for all cadets to include the minority faith group cadets. When I protect and advocate the freedom of religious conscience for all cadets, I fulfill my oath and because of the brilliance of the First Amendment, I safe-guard my own freedom of religion as well.”
In 2008 and again in 2010, the Academy hosted the Conference on Religious Respect. Out of the 2008 conference the Cadet Interfaith Council was formed, the Religious Respect Training program was launched, and support was increased for the Spiritual Programs in Religious Education (SPIRE). The third initiative to come out of the 2008 conference is what the Academy calls its “cornerstone religious diversity program,” the Religious Respect Training program for cadets, faculty and staff. The program is unique to the Air Force Academy. It includes in-depth training on the First Amendment, and the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
The 2010 Conference on Religious Respect continued to examine and refine those initiatives. Sixteen national religious leaders were invited as panelists including Rev. David Oringderff, PhD, head of Sacred Well Congregation and sponsoring organization for the Earth-Centered Spirituality group at the Academy.
In a message to the San Antonio Military Open Circle’s Yahoo group, Rev. Oringderff said he was impressed by the emphasis on ways to promote respect, not merely religious tolerance. He quoted Chaplain Brantingham’s remarks during the opening of the conference, “I don’t want to be tolerated; I want to be respected—and everyone else is entitled to that same right.”
Falcon Circle dedication ceremony, 2011 [Photo credit: USAFA]
Air Force Veteran Reacts
Don Branum is an Air Force veteran and Pagan of 19 years who lives in Lamborn’s district. He also works as a staff writer for the Academy Spirit, the weekly newspaper for the United States Air Force Academy.*
When asked how he felt about the proposed bill, H.R. 1425, he said, “I take great exception to Congressman Johnson’s ‘So help me God’ bill, both as a Pagan and a veteran. I’m even more disappointed to learn that Rep. Doug Lamborn, who represents a religiously diverse district, has chosen to co-sponsor it. Requiring any man or woman to swear ‘so help me God’ as part of an oath of office or oath of enlistment clearly violates both the religious test clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 3) and the First Amendment, which states, in part, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’
“I’m happy to share the public square with people from all walks of life and all beliefs, because I believe our nation draws its strength from the diversity of its people. But I will not stand quietly while someone attempts to impose his religion on the rest of the nation.” Branum went on to say that if the bill’s co-sponsors value the oaths they took to support and defend the Constitution, they should either immediately withdraw their support for H.R. 1425 or resign from office.
*Don Branum’s views reflect his personal opinion only and do not in any way represent the official position of the Air Force Academy, the Air Force or the Department of Defense.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
It’s like kudzu. Pull it up, it grows back.
“As an Air Force Chaplain my responsibility is to ensure the free exercise of religion for all cadets to include the minority faith group cadets. When I protect and advocate the freedom of religious conscience for all cadets, I fulfill my oath and because of the brilliance of the First Amendment, I safe-guard my own freedom of religion as well.”
As an Army brat, wife of a former Army soldier and a practicing Pagan, I find this statement amazing and heartening. While I’ve met a couple of truly accepting Army chaplains, I’ve met more than a few who were really ignorant and intolerant. Chaplains are supposed to be there for all their troops, not just the ones practicing the “right” form of religion.
Texas has one of the biggest Pagan military groups in the US. It’s shameful that the state’s representatives believe it’s their job to force their own religion down the throats of those who serve and protect.
Great piece. I’m especially happy to see comments from so many relevant Pagan and military sources here.
On a more personal level, I’ve always been astounded at the hypocrisy that allows those who mandate adding words like the “so help me God” of this oath to pretend their aim is not the establishment of religion, and the creation of a religious test. What absolute and utter bullshit.
Things like this make me glad to NOT be in the Air Force.
One of the other branches has quite clearly made “so help me God” optional for the oath of enlistment and the oath of office for officers.
It really doesn’t matter. It’s similar in other branches too. The military is filled with a significant Conservative Christian presence and they harass anyone who is not.
I disagree that it doesn’t matter.
I can point to specific Army Regulations which allow affirming the oath instead of swearing, and the omission of do help me God.
Whether other branches have that, or not, I don’t know, but I DO know that Army personnel ADMINISTERING the oath are *required* to determine if it will be sworn or affirmed, and tell the person taking the oath they have the option of omitting so help me God.
As for harassment, that’s what EO reps and IGs are for, and guess what?
Going to them works, and it’s a legally protected right.
They can’t.
First it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Second (and most importantly), it’s not an oath if it’s given under duress.
So folks, let’s turn this around. If a Congresscritter proposes a law that directly violates the U.S. Constitution, doesn’t that violate their Congressional oath? Isn’t that grounds for charging them with treason?
Treason is defined in the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Violation of oath of office doesn’t rise to that level (and you don’t want to argue it does because, if successful, you’d generate a precedent that could turn around and bite you). It does, however, suggest unfitness to hold office.
The word people may be looking for is “sedition”. Many Republican politicians and their supporters, including the entire Tea Party faction, are openly, blatantly seditious. Not currently a crime; protected by the very same First Amendment.
One of the news commentators on MSNBC pointed out that there is no legal definition of enemy of the US unless we are in a declared war, which we haven’t been since 1945. Not possible to commit treason in peacetime, or should I write “peacetime”.
If this is correct, I wonder about the legality of charges against people who join, or seek to join, foreign fighters in other lands who may wish to, or actually do, get into engagements against U.S. forces. Seems blatantly unconstitutional to me, but U.S. citizens have gone to prison on such charges and no one AFAIK has brought a constitutional challenge.
The charge need not be treason. The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage.
I think what is and isn’t espionage under U.S. law is pretty clearly understood by people who might be accused of it. Enforcement may be selective, but it is not a catchall charge.
The American Revolution succeeded in part because of people like Lafayette volunteering to fight in our war. Americans also travel to foreign lands to fight in other people’s wars, and sometimes they get in trouble for that and sometimes they don’t, and it seems to me that it depends on the political climate at home more than on what they actually do.
“Providing material support to terrorism” covers a whole range of crimes – training, expert advice, service or personnel. Most dont have to show a highburden at all fpr conviction
Thank you for that. Perhaps then the problem is that our legal system does not include a stable and clear definition of terrorism. I gather these prosecutions are relying on lists of terrorist organizations issued by the executive branch based on standards that are sometimes arbitrary. The judges are going along with it. That first guy who was tried, convicted and imprisoned after 9/11 for fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, it seemed to me at the time that that was an ex post facto prosecution.
I take my Constitution very seriously.
Someone needs to tell the bastards that given what you know about Christianity that an oath to their god not only negates any promise not to lie, steal or cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who does, but would actually require you to actively do so.
At the very least it’ll make the scumbags scream in outrage.
Personally, I feel that it should NOT be there period. Do NOT make it even optional. If you cannot swear on your personal honour, then you are the one with a problem. As everyone can see, the Gods do not come down and strike those who have not followed their oaths. This is because these oaths are really to their fellow human beings, not to a God or Gods. I feel that these oath-breakers should be dealt with harshly (ie. removal from the military academy they are attending). There should be no leniency whatsoever. We need to bring back shame and its effects in order to redirect people into thinking why they behave as they do.
I am so sick to death of Rerpublicans pushing religion down our throats at every turn.
I am sick to death of Republican lawmakers shoving religion down our throats at every turn. Wouldn’t it be nice if the three representatives put as much time into crafting a Jobs Bill as they have into writing this worthless piece of garbage?????