Danny Schnathorst’s column, “Keep one nation under God” is a fine example of the rhetoric driving the misconception that tolerance of a belief needs to involve pandering to it.

The recent suggestion to remove “so help me God” from the Air Force Academy oath has caused some Christian folks to feel as if their beliefs are being infringed upon. Fascinatingly, those protests are, seemingly unwittingly, falling prey — or falling pray, for those desiring a little levity — to their own argument.

There is no rule, whatsoever, being suggested that “so help me God,” cannot be said or that there can be any penalty applied to continued use of that phrase. What the change potentially means is there would no longer be a requirement to utter it.

Is it disrespectful when people don’t take part in Lent? Is it offensive when the Lord’s Prayer is offered up before a dinner and someone that isn’t Christian does not recite it?

No of course not, because those situations would be nonsensical, or come from a place of belligerent ignorance in regards to finding offense, and therefore be worthless as counterarguments.

However, it is the same sort of jib-jab being applied against rationale for the objection to the requirement of the affirmation to God in the Air Force Academy oath. By forcing others to say “so help me God,” that person’s beliefs are being infringed upon.

Anyone that is Christian can still utter their oath to God, whereas everyone else can act according to their beliefs; many of which do not include an observance of a god to whom acknowledgment is given to in that manner.

For reference, court testimony oaths are a similar alteration to U.S. codes that have served to further the idea of tolerance. The court oath for “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is another area where an affirmation to God is unnecessary; as is the swearing in on a Bible.

Point in case, for those wishing that the “godless heathens” not worshipping Christ as the savior of mankind to not offer false testimony, the alternate oath for court testimony has far more gravitas:

“You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?”

Besides the obvious religious tolerance the alternate oath offers, it makes more sense for non-Christians.

How, you ask? Allow me to explain.

It could be argued that the laws for penalties for giving false testimony in the United States provide the necessary trust for everyone else to alleviate worry that a person being sworn in will not intentionally lie.

If that is the case, then what need is there for an affirmation to God? Why would anyone trust an oath sworn to an entity that the person offering testimony doesn’t believe in?

As such, removing an oath to God from binding arrangements is not only more tolerant of Christian beliefs — because Christians preach tolerance, and therefore making a rule that pushes for nontolerance would be utterly counter-intuitive to the basis of Christianity — but more logical than maintaining an asinine oath because the “wrath of a vengeful God” angle doesn’t bear much relevance when God isn’t on the agenda for the party involved.

No one logical is trying to stop the observance of Christian holidays or “campaign[ing] to get them to cease their religion,” or legally allowed religious observance activities.

Sometimes the outlawing of prayer or thankfulness to God has gone too far, and there needs to be allotment for religious activities in order to maintain tolerance. That said, it does not mean those activities should be forced upon those that do not wish to participate.

Schnathorst’s reference to the ban of after-game prayer in Michigan is hardly fitting as an example of proposed changes to affirmations to God, given the context of the event.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) established: “School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.”

As upheld in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits school officials from facilitating prayer at school functions such as school football games; note the part about “school officials facilitating.” The Michigan example was a mistaken understanding that the coach was leading and/or requiring the prayer.

Those are cases involving potential infringement upon a person’s religious beliefs. Eliminating a requirement for an affirmation to God in a government-created forum is exactly in line with the Supreme Court rulings and maintaining tolerance.

Comically enough, the Ronald Reagan quote at the end of Schnathorst’s column demonstrates a lack of what respect for beliefs are, rather than encouraging said respect.

A more apt reference would come from the man oh-so-oft-quoted by would-be scholarship applicants: “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” — John F. Kennedy

If someone in the United States requires another person to kow-tow to their beliefs in order to feel as if they are being granted religious tolerance, they do not understand what tolerance for beliefs is.