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

Joe Nation wrote:

okie wrote:
jasonrest wrote:

Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

What grounds if not religious, are used to ban robbery? If I need something, why not just take it from somebody that doesn't need it? What could be wrong with that?

Robbery isn't banned because of religion, it's banned because it disturbs good order.

Joe(Just because Moses had a sentence about stealing on his plaques doesn't give the idea that theft is wrong for society any greater meaning.)Nation

Exactly.
I don't think these laws are based on religious standards but a common moral standard shared by most sane people. In comparison, the gay agenda is in direct opposition to that of Christian beliefs.

I am not saying I agree either way, I'm just pointing out how in some ways it can be argued that the church and state are not so separate.

0 Replies

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/BADRVG6CI.DTL

CSU East Bay teacher fired over loyalty oath gets her job back
Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 7, 2008

(03-07) 18:22 PST HAYWARD -- A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs.

"It's the best possible outcome," said Marianne Kearney-Brown, 50, a graduate student in mathematics who was teaching a remedial class for undergraduates. "My concerns have been addressed."

As a Quaker, Kearney-Brown is committed to nonviolence and was unwilling to sign the state oath of allegiance that required her to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and California constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." She tried inserting the word "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," but was told by university officials that altering the oath was unacceptable.
Kearney-Brown, a former high school math teacher, was fired Feb. 28 after six weeks on the job at the Hayward campus. She filed a grievance with the help of her union, the United Auto Workers.

In a grievance hearing Thursday conducted in a telephone conference call, an attorney for the California State University chancellor's office presented Kearney-Brown with a statement saying in part, "Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence."

With that statement stapled to the loyalty oath, and a promise by the university to present the clarifying language to other new employees, Kearney-Brown said Friday that she felt comfortable signing the form and returning to work.

"We're very happy with the results," said Clara Potes-Fellow, a spokeswoman for the CSU chancellor's office. "The university would very much like her to be an employee. ... We were acting in good faith and we wanted to resolve the situation in a positive way."

A veteran public-school teacher, Kearney-Brown said she had signed the state oath when she took teaching jobs in Sonoma and Vallejo, and each time she had crossed out "swear," circled "affirm" and inserted "nonviolently" before the word "support."

But university lawyers would not permit her to tinker with the wording, and after she filed her grievance they consulted the state attorney general's office for legal guidance.

The attorney general's office issued a letter March 4 affirming that Cal State East Bay had acted appropriately. But the agency also said that "the oath does not compel an employee to take any violent action and, in fact, requires an employee to work within the system of government to resolve problems and achieve change."

In addition, the university's statement Thursday cited a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming that public employees need not violate their religious beliefs in their defense of the government and the Constitution.

Kearney-Brown said she initially tried to tell herself that signing the form was no big deal because it would just get stuffed in a file cabinet.
"But I thought, if I'm going to sign it, I'm going to take it seriously," she said. "All I was asking was, 'Does this oath require taking up arms?' If nonviolence is incompatible with this oath, I can't sign that. ... It was a visceral thing."

When university officials offered during Thursday's telephone conference to reinstate Kearney-Brown with back pay, she burst into tears.
"I told them, 'I would like nothing more,' but they couldn't hear me," she said. "They asked, 'Do you have an answer?' I was nodding and crying. My lawyer had to tell them yes."

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/BADRVG6CI.DTL

CSU East Bay teacher fired over loyalty oath gets her job back
Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 7, 2008

(03-07) 18:22 PST HAYWARD -- ..............

As a Quaker,...........was unwilling to sign the state oath of allegiance that required her to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and California constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." ............

Thanks for posting that article.

The original poster obviously misunderstood (or never knew) the "OR AFFIRM" bit and started this thread in error even after so many here tried to correct his mistake (or ignorance).

Maybe with this second article that point will sink in.

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
okie wrote:
jasonrest wrote:

Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

What grounds if not religious, are used to ban robbery? If I need something, why not just take it from somebody that doesn't need it? What could be wrong with that?

Robbery isn't banned because of religion, it's banned because it disturbs good order.

Joe(Just because Moses had a sentence about stealing on his plaques doesn't give the idea that theft is wrong for society any greater meaning.)Nation

Exactly.
I don't think these laws are based on religious standards but a common moral standard shared by most sane people. In comparison, the gay agenda is in direct opposition to that of Christian beliefs.

I am not saying I agree either way, I'm just pointing out how in some ways it can be argued that the church and state are not so separate.

Some indians in the old days thought stealing horses was admirable if stolen from somebody outside their own tribe or band, but it was unforgiveable if stolen from their own tribe or band. Stealing is viewed differently in some cultures, and I think religious heritage has some influence on how we view it. In some cultures, there is something called good and bad, in Judeo Christian culture it is more like right and wrong. In other words, good and bad relates to who you did it to rather than what you did.

Also, homosexual practices have been frowned upon or forbidden in most cultures, historically, has it not, primarily because it ends up being detrimental to the culture.

I would contend that almost all laws spring out of some religious foundation or religious belief. All you have to do is study any culture, take Native American culture, and most of what they did and how they governed themselves was almost all tied to how they viewed their gods and the relationship to their gods and each other. This should all be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Quote:

I would contend that almost all laws spring out of some religious foundation or religious belief. All you have to do is study any culture, take Native American culture, and most of what they did and how they governed themselves was almost all tied to how they viewed their gods and the relationship to their gods and each other. This should all be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

You can contend this all you want, but then you have to decide what comes first: the social bonds or the the belief in a supernatural's power to effect those bonds. It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

By the way, you're impressing your belief standards onto "Native American culture" whatever that is. Pre-Columbian North American Indians (whew, that it a broad brush) didn't have gods, or relationships with them, as we think of them today. When the white man arrived and told the Indians that God has sent him to the Indians, most Indians said "Wow, your God speaks to you?" It sounded just as nutty to them as it really is.

But to get back to the chicken or the egg of social bonds vs. god says: the easiest way to keep people in line is to create the fear of something they can't control. Poof: here are the rules and god told us (the priests) and you have to abide by them. It really shows to me that belief in the bonds between the tribe members wasn't enough. They had to bring in the gods.

Which, to get back to the subject of this thread, loyalty oaths in a democracy are an indication of a lack of faith in Democracy by those demanding those oaths. You can't demand loyalty to a democracy.

Joe(we are all volunteers)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Okie wrote:

Quote:
I would contend that almost all laws spring out of some religious foundation or religious belief. All you have to do is study any culture, take Native American culture, and most of what they did and how they governed themselves was almost all tied to how they viewed their gods and the relationship to their gods and each other. This should all be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

You can contend this all you want, but then you have to decide what comes first: the social bonds or the the belief in a supernatural's power to effect those bonds. It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Name a culture that had no gods.

Quote:

By the way, you're impressing your belief standards onto "Native American culture" whatever that is. Pre-Columbian North American Indians (whew, that it a broad brush) didn't have gods, or relationships with them, as we think of them today. When the white man arrived and told the Indians that God has sent him to the Indians, most Indians said "Wow, your God speaks to you?" It sounded just as nutty to them as it really is.

I am not impressing my belief standards on them, but only recognizing they had them too. There are differences. I never claimed there weren't. That is my whole point, that each culture's belief standards influenced behavior and laws, both written and unwritten.

Quote:

But to get back to the chicken or the egg of social bonds vs. god says: the easiest way to keep people in line is to create the fear of something they can't control. Poof: here are the rules and god told us (the priests) and you have to abide by them. It really shows to me that belief in the bonds between the tribe members wasn't enough. They had to bring in the gods.

Bottom line, religious belief affects our laws, written or unwritten.

Quote:

Which, to get back to the subject of this thread, loyalty oaths in a democracy are an indication of a lack of faith in Democracy by those demanding those oaths. You can't demand loyalty to a democracy.

Joe(we are all volunteers)Nation

You have to have loyalty to the laws of the land, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, simply to maintain social order. I think this thread's argument is a mountain made out of a mole hill, basically stemming from an argument over word usage.

0 Replies

Quote:

Name a culture that had no gods.

San Francisco.

1967-1972

except Janis. goddess Razz

There's gods everywhere, okie, but they all arise out of social order, not the reverse, unless you want to name me a culture which had gods before they had tribal ties. Laws first, then, when the law isn't enough, (or the leaders need to instill a little fear into their followers) poof: gods.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Which, to get back to the subject of this thread, loyalty oaths in a democracy are an indication of a lack of faith in Democracy by those demanding those oaths. You can't demand loyalty to a democracy.

Joe(we are all volunteers)Nation

You have to have loyalty to the laws of the land, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, simply to maintain social order. I think this thread's argument is a mountain made out of a mole hill, basically stemming from an argument over word usage.

Silly, isn't it? Why was the person being asked to swear a loyalty oath in the first place.

Joe(that's the question.)Nation

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You have to have loyalty to the laws of the land, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, simply to maintain social order.

Correct. (Generally, at least.)

okie wrote:

I think this thread's argument is a mountain made out of a mole hill, basically stemming from an argument over word usage.

Well, if an oath is unclear by the word usage ...

Quote:

Each time, when asked to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," crossed out "swear," and circled "affirm."

... it's a picture of what someone wants, or wants to hide or ...

Any person signing a false oath is guilty of perjury (California Penal Code Section 118).

0 Replies

What is the penalty for violating a loyalty oath such as the one being discussed here? And what would entail such a violation? This person was fired (temporarily) for making inappropriate additions to the oath, but what would be an example of a violation?

Joe(I'm as loyal as a golden retriever)Nation

0 Replies

I am guessing giving away scientific secrets to someone we are at war with..
or something similar.

0 Replies

Quote:

Name a culture that had no gods.

China, from time immemorial until the Jews, Christians and Muslims began to arrive, thousands of years later--at which point, most of the Chinese put up a Jewish shrine, a Christian shrine and a Muslim shrine, right next to (but not in the place of honor) the shrine to their ancestors. The Chinese are inveterate gamblers, and always hedge their bets when they can.

okie wrote:

Also, homosexual practices have been frowned upon or forbidden in most cultures, historically, has it not, primarily because it ends up being detrimental to the culture.

Do you just make this **** up as you go along, or do you really believe it? Homosexuality was not only tolerated, but was an integral part of the culture of ancient Egypt. It was common and tolerated and widely practiced in Greco-Macedonian culture, and was almost as common among the Romans. Even in societies which claimed that homosexuality was "wrong," it has been common, and some pretty high-profile figures have been homosexual, such as Richard Lionheart, King James VI and I for whom the translation of the bible into English named, Leonard da Vinci and
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.

Most cultures in history, which have not positively celebrated homosexuality, have tolerated it; and even in those societies which have condemned it, no one has ever prevented or eradicated it, nor prevented well-known and powerful people from being and expressing homosexuality.

0 Replies

set wrote :

Quote:

...some pretty high-profile figures have been homosexual, such as Richard Lionheart, King James VI and I for whom the translation of the bible into English named, Leonard da Vinci and
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.

that's o.k. of course . those highly placed people knew how to deal with it , but we wouldn't want it to corrupt the morals of "ordinary" souls , would we ? Shocked

there has to be some "law and order" - for the ordinary people anyhow .
hbg

0 Replies

Yes indeed . . . i take it you refer to "the great unwashed," for whom the rules are made--but certainly not for those ordained by god to rule us all . . .

0 Replies

set wrote :

Quote:

Yes indeed . . . i take it you refer to "the great unwashed," for whom the rules are made--but certainly not for those ordained by god to rule us all . . .

i'm glad you have not forgotten the important lessons learned early in life !
there are also other contributors to this thread who will no doubt agree that there are some people who have indeed be "ordained by god" and must stand separate from those unwashed masses !
hbg

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I am guessing giving away scientific secrets to someone we are at war with..
or something similar.

This is about a teacher at a California State College.
What Top Secret Code Word materials are at the faculty's disposal?

The oaths are a remnent of the Red Baiting Era.

Where Richard Milhous Nixon now?

(He was the champion Red Baiter of Orange Co.)

Oh, yes, I remember now. He is now remembered as the President who opened relations with the Communist Chinese. In other words, early in his career Nixon got people fired, banned from public work and otherwise ostracized for even mentioning in an open manner the hated Red Chinese. Once in the White House, he sat down to dinner with them himself. Bygones were bygones for the US Government, the lives he destroyed? Um. Pass the rice wine.

Joe(what curious people these right-wingers are.)Nation

0 Replies

I know that. But when I signed that paper it was in the mid sixties, and the UC system does have some research departments of some rigor; I don't know about the state colleges that later became cal state universities. I said that was my guess. What it would have to do with the hundreds of thousands of employees over the years, I've no idea, but I think that kind of fear might be at the nub of it, fear of the reds.

Seniors in my high school year, by the way, did not have their transcripts sent to the university by the nuns (that was '59), as there was some sort of "little red school house" rep going on.

What the basis of the formation of the oath/affirmation was, I don't know.
I'm sort of amazed it is still required. I can see it being required in some specific labs and adjunct services, but don't get it in general. As I said, I would be interested in the arguments.

0 Replies

Quote:

As I said, I would be interested in the arguments.

Me too.

If asked to sign an oath as in the first post, I'd ask why it was required? Did they have some doubts about me and, if so, what were they?

Joe(imagine the dumb looks)Nation

0 Replies

... and spreading into one of the mother countries of democracy :

Quote:

LONDON - British students should take an oath of allegiance and participate in citizenship ceremonies as a way to boost national pride, a government-commissioned review said Tuesday.

Citizenship ceremonies for students, similar to those held for new citizens, would help them mark the transition into adulthood, said the review conducted by a panel led by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith .
"People from a wide range of backgrounds felt that ceremonies for young people would emphasize what they have in common; confer a sense of achievement for what they have learned and done as part of citizenship education at school; as well as provide them with a spur to continue to be active citizens," Goldsmith said.

(from MSNBC)

we need more "ceremonies" ! Shocked

ceremonies are always good !
hbg

ps. reminds me of coming to canada in the fifties and going to the movies .
we coudn't quite understand why people were getting up and moving towards the exit before the movie was finished ... as soon as the movie ended , "god save the queen" started blaring from the speakers and if you were unlucky enough not to have made it to the exit , you had to stand at attention until the music stopped ... we quickly became "true canadians" by leaving just a little early Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Name a culture that had no gods.

China, from time immemorial until the Jews, Christians and Muslims began to arrive, thousands of years later--at which point, most of the Chinese put up a Jewish shrine, a Christian shrine and a Muslim shrine, right next to (but not in the place of honor) the shrine to their ancestors. The Chinese are inveterate gamblers, and always hedge their bets when they can.

Bullshit.

The Shang Dynansty (1300 BCE) had quite a pantheon.

0 Replies

JoeN, I suspect it has been well argued or at least multiply written about on different sides over the decades, but I (lazy) haven't done the research.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know