Loyalty Oaths? I thought this crap stopped after the 50's

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A Quaker teacher in a California state college got fired in January for altering a loyalty oath she was forced to sign.

As a Quaker, she is against violence and follows the Biblical teaching that Christians shouldn't take oaths. She simply crossed off the word "swear" to turn the oath into an "affirmation"... and inserted the word "non-violently" to the clause about defending the constitution.

Who would have thought this would ever happen in 2008?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/29/BAQPVAUVO.DTL

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,526 • Replies: 124

No top replies

Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution? In Britain there is no such separation, and yet in any situation where an oath is required, e.g. before giving evidence in court, the option of affirming instead is available and guaranteed by law to those whose beliefs forbid swearing oaths or who have no religious beliefs and find an oath before "Almighty God" ridiculous.

I do not think that it is open to people to modify the wording in an ad-hoc manner, however, but I note that upon acquiring UK citizenship by naturalisation, new citizens are required to either swear an oath or affirm, and if they choose the oath they may substitute the name of their own deity.

Quote:

After a speech of welcome, the Superintendent Registrar will invite you to swear the Oath of allegiance or, if you prefer, to speak the affirmation of allegiance.

Oath of allegiance

I (name) swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

(If you wish you can swear the above oath on your own Holy Book which you are free to take with you and substitute the name 'God' with your own deity.)

Affirmation of allegiance

I (name) do solemnly and sincerely affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

After the Oath or affirmation, you will take the citizenship Pledge

Pledge

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

The Superintendent Registrar will then present you with your citizenship certificate and an information pack. There may be an informal celebration with light refreshments.

0 Replies

contrex wrote:

Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution? In Britain there is no such separation, and yet in any situation where an oath is required, e.g. before giving evidence in court, the option of affirming instead is available and guaranteed by law to those whose beliefs forbid swearing oaths or who have no religious beliefs and find an oath before "Almighty God" ridiculous.

I do not think that it is open to people to modify the wording in an ad-hoc manner, however, but I note that upon acquiring UK citizenship by naturalisation, new citizens are required to either swear an oath or affirm, and if they choose the oath they may substitute the name of their own deity.

Quote:
After a speech of welcome, the Superintendent Registrar will invite you to swear the Oath of allegiance or, if you prefer, to speak the affirmation of allegiance.

Oath of allegiance

I (name) swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

(If you wish you can swear the above oath on your own Holy Book which you are free to take with you and substitute the name 'God' with your own deity.)

Affirmation of allegiance

I (name) do solemnly and sincerely affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

After the Oath or affirmation, you will take the citizenship Pledge

Pledge

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

The Superintendent Registrar will then present you with your citizenship certificate and an information pack. There may be an informal celebration with light refreshments.

Can they substitute their own monarch in place of "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors"?

0 Replies

Quote:

Can they substitute their own monarch in place of "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors"?

Of course not. What a silly question. I suspect you were not serious however. Upon gaining UK citizenship, the current occupant of the throne becomes "their monarch". Anyway, they may have lived in a republic before.

0 Replies

I suspect there will always be loyalty oaths, or something similar. "You are for us or against us."

0 Replies

That's scary.

0 Replies

When Bush said, "You're with us or with the terrorists", wasn't that some kind of twisted line in the sand?

0 Replies

The whole concept of "You're either with us or against us" in almost any situation is just scary fanatiscism.

I'm still trying to read the whole story - I can't open links - even when I go straight to google - I don't know why - but anyway - I cannot imagine any situation where this would be an appropriate or sane response to her situation.

You said it was a state school - so it was a public institution- unbelievably scary...you know - because yeah- she sounds like a really dangerous, shady character whose ideas might be REALLY subversive and dangerous...(sarcasm).

0 Replies

wouldn't be the first time that the quakers' "insubordination" was not being welcomed .

Quote:

The Quakers also professed a staunch pacifism, avoided paying taxes to Puritans, and refused to swear oaths of allegiance to any secular authority.1

Not surprisingly, these radical beliefs brought persecution upon the sect by secular and religious authorities in England, Massachusetts, Virginia, New Netherland, and North Carolina. Throughout the seventeenth century, Massachusetts accused eight Quakers of witchcraft and in 1692 Quaker insubordination became a capital crime, of which four were hanged. Colonial legislatures, such as one ruled by Robert Daniel in 1704, excluded Quakers from office holding.2

source :
QUAKERS

0 Replies

Public employees here only pledge to fulfill their duties according to the Basic Law and to obey the laws.

Civil servants swear that they will manage the office which they got to their best knowledge and skills, that they will regard the Basic Law and follow the laws, and that they will serve up justice to everyone.

"Loyality to the constitution" was a big issue during the cold war re the left ... and now again re new citizens (I'm not sure if they already have to swear an oath of loyalty to the constitution).

Conscripts pledge to serve loyally the Fedral Republic, to to defend bravely the law and freedom of the German people.
Volunteers and regular soldiers swear this (or the equivalent in their religion).

0 Replies

You cannot register to vote in the state of Florida without being under oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. and state Constitution.

0 Replies

Another example of a silly thread.

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

Another example of a silly thread.

we are all thankful to okie for his sage pronouncement . :wink:

0 Replies

Well, arguing for no oath of loyalty is about as intelligent as claiming you don't have to do what the boss wants when you take a job. Some people can question everything, to the point of ridiculous.

0 Replies

jeafl wrote:

You cannot register to vote in the state of Florida without being under oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. and state Constitution.

That's funny, because the president of the U.S., on his inauguration, only has to "swear or affirm" about the Constitution.

President Herbert Hoover, btw a Quaker, chose to "affirm" in 1928 and so far no complaints have been heard on that account......

Jeafl - are you entirely certain that voting in FLA requires a commitment more binding than getting inaugurated president of the United States?! Well that might account for all those hanging chads <G>

0 Replies

We keep forgetting, Okie, this is not the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, it's now the Land where you do as you are told when you are told to do it.

Joe (we have ways of making you behave.)Nation

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

okie wrote :

Quote:
Another example of a silly thread.

we are all thankful to okie for his sage pronouncement . :wink:

Hamburger - Okie is naturally more familiar with the U.S. Constitution than Mr. Brown-Munoz, who started this thread - probably with excellent reason Smile

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

We keep forgetting, Okie, this is not the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, it's now the Land where you do as you are told when you are told to do it.

Joe (we have ways of making you behave.)Nation

Joe - reply addressed to Hamburger may be relevant to your post also; it's been 80 years since Hoover took the oath i.e. affirmed - how did this "problem" only surface now?!

0 Replies

P.S. reference to the actual article on events in SF (as opposed to possibly deliberate misunderstanding evidenced by the original poster) will show that the problem was a change in the wording, not the choice between swearing and affirming.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, arguing for no oath of loyalty is about as intelligent as claiming you don't have to do what the boss wants when you take a job. Some people can question everything, to the point of ridiculous.

The government in a democracy is supposed to serve the citizens... not the other way around. This is a government job paid for by tax-payers (including the applicant).

There are a couple of issues here...

This is a meaningless oath for most of us. I think that Okie supports positions that defy the Constitution. Okie most likely thinks the same thing about my positions. So this oath basically means... I will "protect and defend" my opinions. I don't even know what protect and defend means. I believe it is important for the constitution that Obama wins the election (and I am doing what I can to make sure this happens).

The problem with this oath is that it is not meaningless to this person. Signing this oath with a vague term of "defend" obviously violates her religious conscience.

This would mean that Americans with certain religious beliefs can be denied their right to take public jobs... or even to vote?

How is this not troubling?

These types of oaths that are so vague that no one can even agree what they mean should be scrapped.

Based on that... I agree this is a silly thread (except that an American lost her job because of her religion).

0 Replies

Loyalty Oaths? I thought this crap stopped after the 50's

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know