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

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.

Did you ever read Herman Melville's short story, Bartleby the Scrivner? Bartleby tells his boss, "I'd prefer not to," when the boss asks him to do something. In the story, the boss doesn't know what to do to get Bartleby to do as he is asked. My point? Life is not a story. This woman does what the job requires, or she would not be satisfying the requirements of the job. That is not forced. Civilian jobs are not like the military service, where one takes direct orders. One always has the right to vote with one's legs, and walk out.

What do you mean it is "stupid"? This sounds like a Soupy Sales opinion. You're not doing White Fang also?

0 Replies

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.

I think ebrown states the obvious with great clarity.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

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.

I think ebrown states the obvious with great clarity.

Isn't a marriage ceremony a loyalty oath? There's many similarties between marriage and a job. Would marriage ceremonies then be stupid?

0 Replies

tico wrote :

Quote:

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?

to my untrained eye there is at least a bit of a difference between "working hours" and "loyalty oath" .
if a teacher cannot be in school when classes start , obviously the teacher would not be in class and would not be teaching when the students are there .
not having sworn a loyalty oath would not prevent the teacher from teaching the students . the teacher is there ready to teach , the students are there - so what's the problem ?
are teachers that have not sworn the loyalty oath considered as not being trained properly to teach ?
hbg

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
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.

I think ebrown states the obvious with great clarity.

Isn't a marriage ceremony a loyalty oath? There's many similarties between marriage and a job. Would marriage ceremonies then be stupid?

You can rewrite marriage vows to suit yourself.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Finn....

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

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

Modest chap, aren't you, Finn? Smile

Is there a law to describe this? There should be because it always seems to happen when someone makes a major pronouncement on language or its import.

Maybe you actually did do a spellcheck, eh Finn. Able2know's SpellCheck has no suggestions for this wee slip up.

Actually Ebrown, using words effectively is not a conservative long suit.

"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?"

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

to my untrained eye there is at least a bit of a difference between "working hours" and "loyalty oath" .

Yes, of course. But the issue I was focusing on wasn't the difference between the two concepts, but the issue of whether one is "forced" to comply with a condition of voluntary employment.

0 Replies

Let me say this as clearly as I can.

Violence has nothing to do with the requirements of this job. Neither does her religion which follows the biblical teaching that says not to make oaths. There is no reason whatsoever for this requirement. This is what makes it stupid.

Showing up on time is a reasonable requirement of most jobs. Not screwing around is a reasonable requirement in most marriages.

This oath, which is too vague to even be meaningful, is an arbitrary hoop to jump through. The fact that they would force her to go against her religion or lose her job is inexcusable.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

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.

No, edgar, it is not. You may feel a strong compulsion to do what he/she asks you to do, but you are not forced to do whatever it is. Forced employment has been outlawed in America for quite a few years now.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn....

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

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

Modest chap, aren't you, Finn?

Is there a law to describe this? There should be because it always seems to happen when someone makes a major pronouncement on language or its import.

Maybe you actually did do a spellcheck, eh Finn. Able2know's SpellCheck has no suggestions for this wee slip up.

Actually Ebrown, using words effectively is not a conservative long suit.

"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?"

As ever JTT --- Blow me (no emoticon required)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Let me say this as clearly as I can.

Violence has nothing to do with the requirements of this job. Neither does her religion which follows the biblical teaching that says not to make oaths. There is no reason whatsoever for this requirement. This is what makes it stupid.

The oath doesn't mention violence, does it? Do quakers believe in marriage vows?

0 Replies

This has probably been written about at length over decades. I remember signing a loyalty oath when I went to work for UCLA - a state of california institution - in the sixties where I had long term employment. As in, huh? But sure. I suppose I'm glad to see that affirming will do.

I do remember there was some consternation about this kind of oath that I read, sometime after I'd signed it, re why the hell you should have to, and I might agree with that basic questioning if I read more. Somehow I suspect there have been court challenges on this. Don't know if the state universities still require it or not.

On defending, as in resorting to violence if attacked? Well, I don't remember the wording of what I signed, but I'm sure I didn't take it that I'd have to hit people with my then-high heels.

On the other hand, I can see the importance re scientific research, say, in the cold war, but I'm not sure that was what was meant by the "oath" either. As far as I know, requests for copies of publications were routinely sent to requesters from 'wherever'. Perhaps not - I've no idea. I presume that kind of question was worked out far above my job level.

0 Replies

Read the original story...

She was fired for crossing out the word "swear" and circling the word "affirm" and then writing the word "non-violently" before the word "defend".

This is simply saying that the "affirmed" (not not swore) that she would defend non-violently (i.e. without violence).

That is what she was fired for.

How does taking vague oaths to violently defend anything have anything to do with a job at a State College?

0 Replies

I guess I don't get the firing. More like this is some kind of double test case.
Defense can certainly be taken as 'standing up for'; the text doesn't specify bearing arms or baring arms to do that. Thousands and thousands of people have signed those papers (let's guess several hundred thousand) not thinking it meant they had to get violent. There could have been discussions between parties on the meaning of the text.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Let me say this as clearly as I can.

Violence has nothing to do with the requirements of this job. Neither does her religion which follows the biblical teaching that says not to make oaths. There is no reason whatsoever for this requirement. This is what makes it stupid.

Showing up on time is a reasonable requirement of most jobs. Not screwing around is a reasonable requirement in most marriages.

This oath, which is too vague to even be meaningful, is an arbitrary hoop to jump through. The fact that they would force her to go against her religion or lose her job is inexcusable.

Let me say this in the way you believe suggests clarity:

She was not forced. Whether or not her termination was "stupid," is immaterial. Individuals and organizations have the right to be stupid.

A governmental entity's requirement that you pledge allegiance to the government is, whether or not you accept it as so, also reasonable.

Be that as it may, there is no legal requirement that employment conditions be deemed "reasonable" by either you or me. They must be legal based on whatever precise statutes exist within their jurisdiction. To my knowledge, none of these statutes have been violated in this case.

I actually agree that loyalty oaths are silly. I doubt that there has ever been a traitor caught by his or her refusal to sign a loyalty oath, but this is simply my opinion and is immaterial as respects this issue.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn....

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

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

Modest chap, aren't you, Finn?

Is there a law to describe this? There should be because it always seems to happen when someone makes a major pronouncement on language or its import.

Maybe you actually did do a spellcheck, eh Finn. Able2know's SpellCheck has no suggestions for this wee slip up.

Actually Ebrown, using words effectively is not a conservative long suit.

"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?"

As ever JTT --- Blow me (no emoticon required)

Given the conservative record on these sordid issues, there's just no telling where that thing has been. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot fin, Finn.

It's really no big surprise here that Mr & Mrs McCarthy and their progeny support this type of thing.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn....

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

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

Modest chap, aren't you, Finn?

Is there a law to describe this? There should be because it always seems to happen when someone makes a major pronouncement on language or its import.

Maybe you actually did do a spellcheck, eh Finn. Able2know's SpellCheck has no suggestions for this wee slip up.

Actually Ebrown, using words effectively is not a conservative long suit.

"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?"

As ever JTT --- Blow me (no emoticon required)

Given the conservative record on these sordid issues, there's just no telling where that thing has been. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot fin, Finn.

It's really no big surprise here that Mr & Mrs McCarthy and their progeny support this type of thing.

Did I mention... Eat me?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Individuals and organizations have the right to be stupid.

This just had to be captured for posterity, right, Mrs McCarthy?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Did I mention... Eat me?

Do you seriously still read it's posts, Finn.

I haven't for years.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Did I mention... Eat me?

Do you seriously still read it's posts, Finn. (?)

I haven't for years.

Mr McCarthy steps up in defence of the little woman.

====================

"... read it's posts, Finn. [?]

Wasn't it you, Tico, that was recently pontificating about the atrocious manner in which people were using the English language?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know