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

Somebody please send this clueless poster a link to an English-Spanish dictionary so he can read fairly simple articles with improved comprehension... Yawn.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

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).

The basic problem is the person is making a mountain out of a mole hill. If she doesn't want to agree to protect and defend the government she wants to work for, then I would say SHE has a problem, not anyone else. Yes, this is a silly thread, about a silly problem that somebody has caused for themselves over basically nothing. If her religion says she shouldn't kill anyone to defend the country, there have traditionally been provisions made for people with those religious beliefs. If I am not willing to protect and defend the company that pays my paycheck, then I should get a new job, end of story.

0 Replies

My feeling is that the government should be protecting and defending its citizens.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My feeling is that the government should be protecting and defending its citizens.

My thought exactly.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My feeling is that the government should be protecting and defending its citizens.

You have it bass ackwards. There is no government or constitution if we don't defend it. The government and the country is nothing but a piece of paper without us defending it and protecting it. You guys seem to think there is some holy entity called the government, to trust in, to save you, to provide for you, on and on, and all you have to do is nothing. Wake up. It is up to us, the citizens. We are it. That is the whole point of protecting and defending it, that is our job if we want to be a citizen of this country. Did you guys take civics?

We have a serious problem here with people not understanding something called citizenship. We need to learn how to support ouselves and do something for ourselves, and when we do, we help the country, but it starts with us, not the other way around. That is the whole point of this country. Remember JFK's famous quote?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
My feeling is that the government should be protecting and defending its citizens.

You have it bass ackwards. There is no government or constitution if we don't defend it. The government and the country is nothing but a piece of paper without us defending it and protecting it. You guys seem to think there is some holy entity called the government, to trust in, to save you, to provide for you, on and on, and all you have to do is nothing. Wake up. It is up to us, the citizens. We are it. That is the whole point of protecting and defending it, that is our job if we want to be a citizen of this country. Did you guys take civics?

We have a serious problem here with people not understanding something called citizenship. We need to learn how to support ouselves and do something for ourselves, and when we do, we help the country, but it starts with us, not the other way around. That is the whole point of this country. Remember JFK's famous

No it is you who have it bass ackwards. More to the point... you fail to understand Democracy.

Every government... in any form... with any leader... has demanded loyalty. In a Monarchy citizens pledge allegiance to the King or pay a high price. In a Despotism citizens pledge alliegiance to a despot. In Communism they pedge allegiance to the party.

What makes Democracy different is that government is for the people. Yes there is a responsibility, but under a Democracy the roles are changed. This is my country and my government. I can say what I want without fear and exercise my rights without fear.

Our founding fathers set up the Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights with this in mind.

Now look at this case...

Obviously this woman has religious beliefs that are important enough to her to risk her job. Allowing this woman to alter the loyalty oath to match her personal conscience hurts absolutely no one.

There is no reason for a government under a Democracy to force its citizens to conform-- merely for the sake to conformance. This hurts its citizens with no benefit to society.

I would expect this from other forms of government, but under a free democracy, it is inexcusable.

I do expect this will be appealed and overturned thanks to our founding fathers who (in spite of the protests of Okie and Real Life) injected a regard for the rights of American citizens at the core of American law and society.

0 Replies

republican hypocrisy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you ehBeth.
Mr. Oakie is suffering from a bad case of republican hypocrisy.

On one hand the Repugs pretend they are the ultimate Christians and in the same breath he says that this lady should sign that dumb oath that violates her Christianity.

Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Magginkat wrote:

Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Ticomaya wrote:

Magginkat wrote:
Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

Agreed, and sometimes I wonder why I waste the time here arguing with such insanity. It is a hopeless pursuit.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

okie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

Agreed, and sometimes I wonder why I waste the time here arguing with such insanity. It is a hopeless pursuit.

I actually mean "insanity" in the "men in little white coats" sense.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

Agreed, and sometimes I wonder why I waste the time here arguing with such insanity. It is a hopeless pursuit.

I actually mean "insanity" in the "men in little white coats" sense.

Thats the definition of Mags, isnt it?

0 Replies

We are on the same page then.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Ticomaya wrote:

I actually mean "insanity" in the "men in little white coats" sense.

You and the boys are hardly in any position to be judging anyone when it comes to a question of sanity, Tico.

0 Replies

Quote:

As a Quaker, she is against violence and follows the Biblical teaching that Christians shouldn't take oaths.

How sweet. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all indulge ourselves with that sort of thing.

The position is dependent on the majority not holding to it. It's like free trade. A theoretical concept that nobody takes any notice of unless it suits them.

Any serious subversive would sign the oath as given as a strategy.

She takes herself too seriously I'm afraid and perhaps it is there to weed out such people.

0 Replies

As long as oaths remain, why do they not include something about not having made any other oaths that would compromise one's loyalty? Isn't there a need to prevent double oathing?

0 Replies

k'noath.

Gotta watch them Quakers - they got weapons of mass barn-building.

0 Replies

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

ebrown_p wrote:

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

I suspect that she was not "forced" but rather required as a condition of employment.

California is not an "at-will" employment state (by any means!), and the State university system is hardly the John Birch Society. So if their lawyers told them they could fire her, the chances are that the laws of one of the most pro-employee states in the union will allow it.

Obviously she wasn't forced to sign the oath as is becauses she didn't It's simply silly to think or say that she is some sort of victim of political oppression.

0 Replies

Finn....

You conservatives always want to argue over words. She was forced.

If your boss says "do this for I will fire you".... this isn't an example of him "forcing" you to do something? The fact that this is a condition of employment makes this all the more forceful.

The point is that stupid loyalty oath has absolutely nothing to do with the job. Since it interferes with a religious belief, I bet it is illegal (and when the court says so, I will be sure to post it here).

But whether it is illegal or not-- it is stupid.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Finn....

You conservatives always want to argue over words. She was forced.

Huh?

She was not "forced." She was given a choice ... which, I believe, is rather the opposite of forced.

If my employer tells me my work schedule begins at 6:00 a.m. -- and if I am not able to work at 6:00 a.m. I need to seek other employment -- would you consider that I was "forced" to work at 6:00 a.m.? Or, is it more accurate, in your view, that I am required to report to work by 6:00 a.m. if I choose to remain employed there?

You leftists always think a job is an entitlement.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Finn....

You conservatives always want to argue over words. She was forced.

If your boss says "do this for I will fire you".... this isn't an example of him "forcing" you to do something? The fact that this is a condition of employment makes this all the more forceful.

The point is that stupid loyalty oath has absolutely nothing to do with the job. Since it interferes with a religious belief, I bet it is illegal (and when the court says so, I will be sure to post it here).

But whether it is illegal or not-- it is stupid.

No, I think it is us intellecuals who appreciate the power and significance of words who reliably care about their meaning.

I'm sure there are liberals among the ranks.

What is typical is that you and those like you (conservative or liberal) want to storm through rationality with your passionate beliefs.

If you care about the Rule of Law then you must care about definitions. If you simply want a society that operates on what you think should be cool or correct, who cares what words means because it is all about what YOU mean.

This woman was not, under any rational perspective, forced to sign the oath.

You reveal a terribly shallow and priviledged perspective on life if you perceive this as a situation where force was employed.

There are literally millions of people living outside of the US who would be delighted to live in a society where an expression of their convictions merely resulted in their termination from a specific job.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know