I have thought about this for a long time. I fall under the latter category for military service. I have seen in recent times many who say they took the oath of office and it has no expiration date.
This is not meant towards FoxMan as an argument but being put forth as an alternative view point. Those who may agree with me fine. Those who may disagree with me also fine. This is not a salvation issue.
First of all lets look at what that oath says:
“I, _____, 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.”
My primary duty under that oath is to protect the precepts of the law of the land, the Constitution and what it stands for while under contract to do so. As such if the President says we are at war against and enemy bent on destroying our nation I will go and fight. In so doing I will abide by not just the constitution but also by another set of laws or code designed specifically for the military the UCMJ.
While under contract I am obligated to do all that but does that end when my contract is up? I say yes. I base my answer on the simple fact that if I decide to go further I have to start on a new contract and again take that same oath. Now if the oath did not have a limit I by rights should not have to take that oath again. In my case I have taken that oath 4 times which implies for 4 times when the contract was over the oath was no longer valid in that I did not have to adhere to it. My reasoning is simple. While under oath I had to abide by two separate but equal sets of law, civil law as a citizen of this country or civil law as a visitor in another country and the UCMJ. Since I am no longer under contract, I am no longer obligated to abide by the UCMJ. The contract is then no longer enforceable. As a civilian the military can’t come to me and say tell me to get a hair cut or to shave and if I refuse to the have a legal leg to stand on to charge me for disobedience.
So by oath there is no obligation in my mind to do things that I can do if I choose or not do if I choose. For instance as a citizen I must pay taxes or face the consequences if I don’t. That is not a right but an obligation. A right on the other hand say freedom of speech allows for the option to speak or not to speak. Every right to do something has built in also the right not to do that thing. So I can speak out against something the government is doing that I perceive to be immoral or illegal. On the other hand I also have the right to say nothing and let the chips fall where they may.
My point is simply this, some of us think it important to even now abide by many of the stated rights of the Constitution. Others also know they don’t have to act on those rights if it is morally reprehensible to them for what ever reason. For every right to do is also the right not to do. Likewise the oath of office or in my case it was called oath of enlistment but they are basically the same thing, I swore several things, to uphold and defend the tennets of the constitution, be obedient to those appointed over me all the way to the President and that I would purposely abide by not one but two set of rules and be willing to be bound for the duration of the contract I was entering. Upon the expiration of that contract I had to options, start a new one and again swear and oath or not enter into another and not be bound by that oath since part of it pertained only to specific rules for the militar. Since even one part no longer applied the entire oath was now null and void. I could ignore the UCMJ rules and the military could no longer hold me accountable. Like wise based on the Constitution I could also disobey military officer’s commands all the way to the president as long as I was not breaking civil law in the process. That being said then the oath given upon entering the contract for military service had the same timer as the contract did. When the contract was over so was the oath.
I don’t fault those that claim their oath has no experiation but I assure you many who say that do not actually abide by the entirety of the oath as they would if they were still under contract. As such it is a personal desire on their part to invoke their rights to do things while others who had been under that very same kind of contract invoke the opposite side of those rights and not do.
I really hope this puts to rest any bickering between those that “WILL NEVER” and those that choose to vote. Which one is right? Both are right and for everyone’s sake can we put away the bickering over this problem. It is bad for several reasons. First it is not a salvation issue. Second it is a choice and those that choose to do so are not sinning against God for invoking their right to vote. Third those who choose not to vote are not violating in man made laws. And lastly the only sin that arises is one of pride for thinking our own choice is more morally correct than those who see it differently, in short taking the holier than thou attitude is simply the sin of pride.
