And it's actually enforced? Two teachers have been fired for refusing to take an oath…an oath that was put in place during the McCarthy witch hunts. Apparently they just left it on the books, but now it's a hook that can be used to eject troublemakers.
You know, like those rabble-rousing, dangerous Quakers.
The most incredibly ironic thing about this whole controversy is that non-citizens are not required to sign it. Says Marianne Kearney-Brown, one of the fired teachers, "The way it's laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker."
That's America for you: the important things are the superficial, meaningless expressions in service of great ideals, and if it means throwing away the actual implementation of those important ideas like civil rights, freedom of expression and conscience, and a faith quietly and sincerely held in order to promote noisy but meaningless demonstrations of loyalty, so be it.
- Log in to post comments
Hmmm... reckon the ass-suing beams of the ACLU will smite the offenders?
Because we all know that if you're really, really evil and want to harm the country, signing a piece of paper will keep you from your nefarious plans.
I can see the bad guys plotting -
"I really, really want to bomb the school/attack the White House/spread Anthrax with you...but I signed a loyalty oath with my school district. Sorry, guys...I just can't do it."
Get this, if you're found out to be a member of the communist party in california and you're a public educator (even college level) they can deny your tenure and fire you. I was reading that in a bill back in 2004 or 2006 or so.
Well, if these two are such great teachers, where are their flag lapel pins?
Principles are never to be allowed to followed when obedience is demanded, no matter how petty the demand. Or precisely because of its pettiness.
This is of course what nearly all successful religions teach, with faith being the ultimate form of obedience. And the easiest to manipulate towards selfish and evil ends.
That's America for you: the important things are the superficial, meaningless expressions in service of great ideals, and if it means throwing away the actual implementation of those important ideas like civil rights, freedom of expression and conscience, and a faith quietly and sincerely held in order to promote noisy but meaningless demonstrations of loyalty, so be it.
It's the politics of "sending a message." Fuck real people's lives, as long as the appropriate message is sent. Needle exchanges. Opposition to the HPV vaccine. Pulling out of Iraq. Requiring a signed oath. all symbol no substance. That's American politics!
I had to sign a loyalty oath when working for a university back in NJ many years ago. It was absolutely hilarious - the head of the department who was witnessing me complete the paperwork kept apologizing for the whole loyalty oath thing. He kept laughing because it made me swear to God, and philosophers aren't known for their general religiosity, and it made me swear (to God) that I wouldn't use the university to overthrow the government.
It hadn't even crossed my mind until I signed the damn thing.
@ Heather
That's what alsways got me about all the communist witchhunt reactionary insertions of religion. "No atheist commie would ever say "Under god" in the Pledge! We can root 'em out that way!"
Actual agents never, ever lie. People can be so freakin' stupid.
I, too, predict that the Constitutionality of this crap is going to be challenged soon.
I move to Florida in '06. I went in to get my new drivers licence and also handed in the voter registration form. When the woman behind the counter got to the voter registration she handed me this little slip of paper and said "Read this." So I read it and passed it back to her. She passed it back to me and said "No, read it out loud." It was basically the same oath as the teacher one with Florida substituted for California.
Seemed strange but basically a lot less strange than "under god" in the pledge or the really big "In God We Trust" that I sat and looked at for 6 hours in a court room last week.
Meanwhile back in Florida - that was also the moment I gave up my dearly loved independance and the invisible hand of GWB forced me to check the Democrat box on that voter registration card.
BTW, I'm safely back in New York now.
#6, MAJeff, OM,
I know it's small fry, but don't forget airport 'security'. Though I guess one could view that as a ploy to reduce air traffic. Only I don't expect politicians - US or EU - to be that clever.
NY has one too. I had to sign back when I was hired at a college there.
Is this a great country or what?
In a similar vein, check out the religious test for public office in the Texas Constitution.
I'm not making any kind of historical insinuations here but exactly what happened the last time an Austrian ex-pat gained control of foreign state?
When the oath starts "Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Californian Reiches und Volkes Arnold Schwarzenegger", I'd really start to worry.
For visitors to the USA there used to be (not sure whether there still is) a question on the visa application or landing form, something like "Do you plan to attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States by force?". On reading this post, I remembered a story about some visitor answering "Sole purpose of visit" - and being admitted anyway. I thought it was the journalist (and communist) Claude Cockburn; but in googling the phrase, I find it attributed in various places to the librettist W.S. Gilbert, Evelyn Waugh (who was said to have been detained for a week), and the humourist Gilbert Harding (the most popular choice). Maybe they all tried it.
I can see the Quakers point. The oath is almost identical (accept for swearing loyalty to the CA constitution) to the one taken by federal employees (e.g., POTUS) and military personnel.
The real irony here is the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and religion, whether you take an oath or not.
Something else to consider is - if the Quakers object to the oath on religious grounds then wouldn't taking the oath amount to a religious test?
Here's a few examples of laws still on the books in my home state of N.C.
It's against the law to sing off key. (not a bad law perhaps)
Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields. (My favorite. I wonder if tobacco fields can lawfully plowed by pachyderms?)
While having sex, you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled. (If you've seen my neighbors, this law has some benefits)
If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married. (I think I may be married)
All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. (Ward , weren't you a little hard on the .....well you know)
When I hear "loyalty oath" I always think of Catch-22. Heller had a hilarious chapter on loyalty oaths. It has been 35 years since I read it, but I think I'll go look it up again.
Emmet - Apparently the courts, up to now, have said loyalty oaths are completely legal as long as they don't require membership into an organization (i.e.-Republican, Communist party). Of course Hitlers oath of allegiance didn't require membership, it was simply an oath of servitude to him. I don't see this disappearing in our current political climate, but I could be proven wrong.
PZ - Thanks for the link
Another anecdote. During WWII, Alan Turing decided to join the "Home Guard", in order to learn to fire a rifle. There was a form to complete. This included the question: "Do you understand that, by enrolling in His Majesty's Home Guard, you render yourself to military discipline?". Reflecting that there was no possible advantage to giving the expected answer, Turing wrote "No". Nobody noticed, but it turned out to be very useful later, when, having learned to shoot, he did not wish to spend his valuable time on pointless military parades. He stopped attending them, was summoned by the commanding officer, and pointed out how he had answered. All the authorities could do was decide he was not a member, which suited him very well.
The Bible says the unbeliever cannot say the name of God. One of the first clues I got that said "Hmmmm... This whole bible-is-inerrant shtick may be a load of shit..."
Yet we still practice that centuries old magic...
J,
The religious test for Maryland to be able to serve on a jury or as a witness is even more strict than the Texas one to hold office.
Article 36:
"...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come."
See, it works like this: Communists (who are really Atheists) are really robots, since nobody could sincerely not believe in the Son of God who protects the US of A, so if they try and lie when taking the oath they explode!
Or that's my theory anyway. And it doesn't take as long as trying to get them to laugh or feel love as a test, plus it's safer than checking for their toxic acid blood.
The first time I flew to the States, I was rather perplexed to be asked to fill out a landing card that asked me (among other things):
5. Do you intend to engage in the U.S. in:
a. espionage? ___Yes ___No
b. any activity a purpose of which is opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence or other unlawful means?
___Yes ___No
If it turns out that you lied, do you get sued..? And who would answer 'yes'?
I know Quakers pretty well, having graduated from a Quaker college. This law better start putting its affairs in order.
When I taught at the University of District of Columbia I had to sign a loyalty oath swearing fealty to the US Constitution and the Flag of the USA.
When I taught at a private Southern Baptist university I had to swear an oath to uphold the moral principles of the Bible. I was there for only one semester (by contract) and am friends with the Chair of the department in which I worked. A student tattled to Mommy who tattled to the Dean because I read the word "shit" out of a newspaper article we were examining for logical errors.
A furious story related to that class, I allowed the students to use examples of logical fallacies from message boards such as this for their Informal Fallacy Project. One student used as an example where someone claimed "homosexuality is on the same par as rape" but claimed there was no fallacy in that statement but rather a woman who responded "bullshit" and gave her story of how she was raped as a child and is also a lesbian was committing the subjective fallacy. I had to spend a half hour explaining the multiple fallacies in the aforementioned quote.
Now, as for the firings... Being from California, and knowing many people who've taken it, the Oath can be amended by the person to the point that it says pretty much nothing. Other Quakers sign the oath all the time by affirming to support the Constitution non-violently. And there are many other ways to water it down to it being a mere, meaningless formality.
So knowing that, I drilled down past the linked blog to look at the articles and I get the solid impression someone wanted to tilt at windmills by taking their faith to the edge. Which just goes to show, even Quakers can get their religious panties in a wad. They're not all just a bunch of benign milquetoasts sitting around and knitting while waiting for God to dial them up on the telly. For example, the evangelical Quakers are much more aggressive in putting themselves in these positions to tilt at "social justice" windmills.
And, for the people who don't know, yes, there are EVANGELICAL Quakers. That suffer most of the 'evils' of your regular evangelicals, if only to a lesser degree, and they're non-violent in their approach. They're also not big on preaching the 'Mission of Hate' and 'Die Fags' like many of the shit-stains that dominate, and are supported by, the evangelical movement.
Actually, speaking of "Die Fags" there was a bit in the news about Westboro Baptist yesterday.
Ah, yes! 'Captain Black's Glorious Loyalty Oath Campaign', which only ended when Major _______ de Coverley refused to sign one in order to get fed.
But I haven't read Catch-22 too much. No sirreee!
Kearney-Brown said she believed she was defending the Constitution by objecting to the oath
My thoughts exactly.
I would have no problem signing something like that, as silly as it seems.
By my interpretation, I do that everyday, even if through just pointing out the real (as accurate as I can get) history and application of church - state seperation on the internet. In my view, 'defending', means exactly that. I believe strongly in the principles of the US constitution (and to the extent that I am familiar with them, most state constitutions).
Of course, the biggest problem with something like this is that dissent will be (probably intentionally) confused with disloyalty. That's the problem Of course, at that point, one would hypothetically still have recourse of the courts.
Cheers.
Color me naive, but I thought this was standard practice. I had to sign paper when I worked for fed gvt saying I would uphold the constitution.
Since then I've been teaching at various Michigan universities. Here we also sign some sort of oath that basically says we won't work to subvert the Michigan state constitution.
I've always found it odd, but there is no religious speak in it so I figured it was standard play... Not at UMM?
@#10 Sili --
I once accidentally left a pair of broken scissors (one blade was completely missing; they could have served no constructive purpose) in my book bag. They didn't even notice them on my way to LA; on my way back, they searched my bags and found the scissors -- and then let me keep them.
Incompetent fools...
Moses - If you read through the LA Times article it talks specifically about this issue of amendments, which is at the heart of the case. The enforcement of the law is left up to the institution so at some colleges people have been able to amend it, but at Cal State they did not allow her to do that. Kearney-Brown amended hers by putting *non-violently next to the word 'defend' and it was not accepted. The problem in both cases was a lack of understanding and clarification as to how amendments to the oath should be handled and whether they are allowed.
Far be it from me to defend the Quaker religion, but I think the point of this is not religion but reality. If the oath could be used to deny jobs/tenure to people based on their willingness to, seemingly, abdicate their rights fo free speach it should be taken off the books. If the oath can be watered down to nothing why should it be on the books? In that case the fear is that it will be used selectively to enforce the whims of those who hold the power of employment/tenure.
Here's the story from Inside Higher Ed, for anyone interested:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/03/loyalty
#23: I think that's not so much to catch spies and subversives, but just a way to kick you out more easily if they want to. The way it's worded, it looks like they can get rid of you for as little as resisting arrest.
Does having voted for Bush or planning to vote for McCain, constitute a violation of the oath, specifically:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..."
ellipsis and emphasis mine of course.
A somewhat related link for those interested in rights on campus:
http://www.bordc.org/involved/student/index.php
@16
Todd,
The oath is already suited to accommodate Quakers, as virtually all public oaths have been since 1787 (in imitation of the Presidential oath in the Constitution.) The key point is the word "affirm" in parentheses after the word "swear" in the text of the oath. Quakers are allowed to affirm an idea or principle, so long as they do not swear. It's the same when a Quaker is sworn in as a witness in court, etc.
I doubt that these two actually have a Constitutional leg to stand on. They are public employees, and that ground has already been well worked over in the past. My bet is that their suit won't get past the initial appellate stage.
By the way, here is the military officer's oath, just for comparison. Note both the similarities and differences, especially when it comes to things like authority and religion.
One last point: I don't have a real problem with this California oath, though it is certainly a pointless exercise. The idea that somehow this will stop foreign agents or terrorists or "godless communists" or whomever from doing what they want is ridiculous, no more credible than the idea that the oath in court keeps people from committing perjury. What it does do is make those who take it responsible for the Constitutional violations they may make. In the case of a teacher, these are naturally limited (though hardly impossible) while for those higher on the public service ladder, they may be...somewhat greater. I regard the Constitution (and it's amendments) as our last great protection, the one document that stands between us and real tyranny, of the kind we've had all to much of a taste of these last eight years. Perhaps if we started enforcing this oath from the top down...
Having read the oath (which seems idiotic to me as well), it doesn't mention any requirements for _how_ you would defend the Constitutions (both US & CA), so I'm not sure why the Quakers feel the need to have exactly how they would defend them codified. Should we get down to what caliber firearm we'll use as well, for us violent types?
They seem a bit to me like people who want to put 'god' above 'country'.
here is a quote from the oath the teachers were supposed to sign:
"that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"
they either *freely* take the oath or get fired.
no coercion here folks. please go on about your business.
Calling this a "loyalty oath" is just a bit misleading, I think. It's certainly not an oath declaring loyalty to any person, or to the government, or to a party, or any of the things that would be the most objectionable. It doesn't require that one favor the US over other countries or refrain from criticizing the government, or anything like that. It's loyalty to the constitution -- the principles on which our country was founded. Is that really so objectionable in a public employee?
The "defend" issue the Quakers raise, I could understand if the oath really implied violent defense. I don't think it does, but I don't in principle have an issue with making it more clear, as the Quakers ask.
Gimme eat!
@37 and @38
I think you are both misunderstanding Kearney-Brown's position.
From what I have read, she is assuming that if California or the United States was invaded (presumably by Communists, since they are the biggest threat these days), her superiors would tell her to take up arms against the invaders. She could refuse then, but that would mean that she had lied when she signed the oath. It contains an "evasion" clause.
She doesn't want to lie. She is not even allowed to clarify the terms of the oath so that she could be truthful. That seems to me to be her immediate concern.
"All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don't care if I meant it...."
How many people who have signed that oath were willing to lie, and can be drummed out of public service (selectively, of course) for their deception? (Never mind how many will abandon their posts when the Reds come for us all? ;) )
It may be true that the courts will not end this practice. Maybe the best approach is to simply repeal these requirements, or clarify them and/or give people choices. And that would take a movement.
You'd be amazed how much trouble I have convincing some of my american friends of that, PZ
Americans are lovely people, but America is not a country built on a firm foundation, unfortunately. The media and the government play the tune, and the citizens mouth the words, and no one ever bothers to sing.
At my current university I was not required to sign a loyalty oath. However let us suppose that I was required to sign such an oath. A large number of citizens here, which I support, are demanding a rewriting of the state constitution. Would that count as being subversive? I would say "No" but who knows what the neocons would say.
I am also part of a movement called Democratic Structuralism (not a political party) that is working to restructure our society around more democratic ideals such as:
* Term limits on all elected positions
* No corporate contributions to political parties or candidates.
* An end to lobbying
* Nationalizing K-12 education
You can learn more here:
http://www.philosophicalturn.net/Opines/Democratic_Structuralism.pdf
Aye, there's the rub. The DoJ and Congress aren't doing anything about those who have not upheld their oaths to defend the Consitution.
stwriley #47: I regard the Constitution (and it's amendments) as our last great protection, the one document that stands between us and real tyranny, of the kind we've had all to much of a taste of these last eight years.
I don't understand this religious devotion to the "Constitution". What stands between us and real tyranny is the will of people not to put up with tyranny, not some centuries old document who's meaning has been twisted (by history and changing context) beyond recognition in the sections where it's actually substantial, while the mass of it is simply rules of order that could be completely rewritten without making a whit of difference - rules of order only matter in that some exist, not in their details.
It's like a madness - what constitutional order do you think has led to the tyrannies in our history? It's not magic, dammit!
Yes, California has an oath that you have to sign to be a state employee. When I signed it, I thought, Oh Boy! I get to defend the California Constitution!
A friend of mine had objected to it, saying she thought it meant that she had to defend the constitution in the sense that she agreed with all the laws in it. That signing the oath meant that she couldn't object to any California Laws... I responded, well, the California politicians have to sign this oath, and they change the laws! If her interpretation was true, then the politicians could be punished for doing the jobs they have to sign the oath for!
@37
Stwriley,
Good point on the swear vs. affirm. I'm not a Quaker so I don't know the full extent of their objection other than what I could get from the story.
With regard to the military oath, the one you quote is actually the oath taken by enlistees and not officers. Officers don't swear to obey the orders of officers appointed over them (it's inferred because officers swear to uphold the constitution which establishes the command authority). The officer's oath is:
I, (Full Name) having been appointed a (Rank) in the United States (Service), 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD.
The "so help me god" part can be omitted.
I regard the Constitution (and it's amendments) as our last great protection, the one document that stands between us and real tyranny
Oh, right. It's because we are not protected by the US constitution that all of us in Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, India, Brazil, Argentina... are currently groaning under evil tyrants. I keep forgetting that.
(Well, OK, I admit the governments of a good many of those states, including my own, appear to be working toward that situation, but no faster than that of the USA.)
The Quaker position is from the New Testament injunction to "let your yea be yea..." and so on. The implication is that one should always be honest and that swearing an oath implies a double standard in one's daily life.
As for the non-violent part, Quakers are pacifists by orthodoxy and (many of them are) social justice activists by inclination. So I'm not at all surprised that someone decided to make a point in this situation.
As an atheist, I can only take oaths on a capuchin monkey's head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5CXy_MYTJM
I had to sign one of these just to be on the *Sound Crew* (how is that for nerd cred?) in High School in the early 80's.
As a teenager I had a lot more greed than principles, so I signed it.
"Loyalty oath" is a contradiction in terms. What this verbiage amounts to is an oath of fealty.
I am also a CalState employee, so I was amazed that I didn't balk at signing this, myself (although I was probably still so thankful at having a job that I'd have signed anything at that point!!!!) this is what one of my colleagues just told me: "This issue was resolved - she was reinstated about a week after this article ran. Jerry Brown issued a ruling which clearly stated that there was nothing about the oath to CA that required taking up arms. She signed the oath and then had a memo added to her file registering her concern about
"defending" CA in the military sense."
Kearney-Brown was given her job back after the AG wrote a statement saying that affirmation of the oath would not require her to violate the Quaker peace testimony. I'm surprised after the brouhaha that the Kearney-Brown case caused that CSU-Fullerton is crazy enough to try to push it. Of course, if they do, perhaps this would mean a court case which could lead to the end of the oath. I don't think too many people would be disappointed if it went away entirely.
I remember having to sign a loyalty oath when I was employed by the University of California. I think it applies (or used to) to all state employees. I could tell the administrator who handed me the forms was kind of embarrassed, "Well, you either sign these, or you don't get paid." I was a 19-year old trying to make some money to go abroad, so what do you think I did?
The thing I found odd at the time was that, if I recall correctly, you swore you loyalty to the *Constitution of the State of California*. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) Just struck me as bizarre that I was basically being asked to swear loyalty to my *state*, but not the government of the US, which, ya know, I thought counted more.
My wife is a registered nurse in a critical care unit. She was not allowed to register with our local Emergency Preparedness department as a volunteer in the case of a catastrophic event because she refused to sign the loyalty oath.
OK, this is not directly related to the topic at hand, but I just came across it in the Chronicle:
"Evangelicalism Rebounds in Academe"
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i35/35b01201.htm
America, the land of smoke and mirrors.
Wow, but you guys are fucked. Seriously. I've worked for the Alberta government on and off, and have never been required to sign anything other than a non-disclosure agreement. And this is in Alberta, where 'librul' is an insult.
I don't think that's necessarily "America for you", but more simply humanity. Whenever you have a hierarchy, there's going to be people who make the argument that only by being slavishly loyal to it (which, oddly enough, usually means doing whatever they say) can you be loyal at all.
The truly infuriating thing about this is that the framers and founding generation made it rather clear that they were opposed to this kind of thing by their own actions. Quakers were employed throughout state governments in the revolutionary era. Heck, some of the Framers and Signers WERE Quakers and Quakerism was the source of many of this federation's most fundamental ideals.
Having said that, I'd also like to point out how vital this proves our developing advanced cloning or time-travel techniques to be. These issues will only be settled when petty-minded bureau-tyrants must forever face the furious fists of George Washington for their unconstitutional behavior!
As far sighted as they were, both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. The Constitution should change over the generations, but any change that restricts rather than enlarges individual rights should be opposed. The individual should not exist to serve the state, rather the state exists to serve the individual.
Keep them pledging, Cathcart!
For the record, it's not just teachers. I worked at a UC Berkeley run summer camp for several summers when I was in high school (I'm currently wrapping up my sophomore year of college, so this was not too long ago), and I, an unpaid volunteer "Counselor-in-Training," also had to sign a loyalty oath. Because, you know, a summer camp underling is in remarkable position to subvert democracy and replace it with a totalitarian communist regime...
Seems like California needs to fire the rest of the state workers for not upholding their oath and acting to impeach the entire White House staff.
>Hmmm... reckon the ass-suing beams of the ACLU will smite
>the offenders?
Probably not since the ACLU only protects Atheists and liberals. It wasn't always that way, but it is now.
That is a flat lie. You know better. If you don't, you seriously need to get an education.
Moron.
I could easily support a professional oath for teachers (like the Hippocratic oath for doctors)... but this is just wrong.
@#67 Kenny --
You're wrong.
(See? A link! I didn't tell you to just google it.)
I just wanted to weigh in here about why Quakers don't generally swear or take loyalty oaths, not because anyone is wrong, but because I am a Quaker and I think I may be coming at it for a different direction.
Basically, my understanding of it anyway, is that Quakerism was originally intended to purify the Protestant church- George Fox was concerned about people worshipping idols, like stained glass windows, priests, and elaborate ritual, rather than worshipping God. Quakers have always been very consciencious about this, hence the simplicity testimony, which basically says that if you find yourself worshipping things rather than God, then you need to cut back on your things and lead a simpler life. Some Quakers feel that signing or swearing an oath to a nation is similar to worshipping idols, which is why they have been wary of loyalty oaths since the seventeenth century.
Not all Quakers would agree with that reasoning now, but there are other reasons not to sign loyalty oaths either. Any oath that requires a promise to "defend" a nation might be considered a violation of the peace testimony. There are also specific Biblical references to not swearing oaths, although at least among liberal, unprogrammed Quakers those are not *generally* the only reason why one would refuse to swear an oath. Many Quakers feel about the Bible the same way they feel about stained glass windows and priests- if you spend too much time on it, you're going to start to worship it rather than God.
As for Evangelical Friends, who were mentioned a while back, yes there are Evangelical friends, and there's been a lot of discussion among the Quaker community as to what that means for us. Friends United Meeting is the group that they are most often associated with, and it almost broke off of the Friends General Conference last year I believe. There was a lot of discussion around that, it's a little too complex to get into here, but there's a number of articles and blogs about it if you're interested. The joke that I've always heard is that service wise you can tell the evangelicals from the liberals because the liberals go on work-camps while the evangelicals go on missions. I think the biggest difference is that the liberal (more traditional) Quakers are specifically against prostletyzing, whereas the evangelical ones are all about preaching the so-called "good news." You should have seen how much of a hassle it was to convince the meeting I used to belong to that it would be a good idea to get listed in the phone book and put a sign up outside the meeting house- they saw that as forcing Quakerism on others, I saw it as a way for out of town Friends popping by for a visit to find us. Eventually I think we did get a sign about the size of my laptop behind some bushes....
As for me, I decided to stop saying the Pledge of Allegience in fifth grade, and I've done a pretty good job at avoiding loyalty oathes since. I've always felt weird about it since I have dual citizenship anyway...
Messed up at the end there. Meetings that are generally considered more conservative, programmed, and decidedly Christian (though not evangelical) fall under FUM. Evangelical friends are affiliated with Evangelical Friends International. My bad.
Personally, it makes me feel safe knowing teachers, social workers, meter maids, etc. are all there to defend the Constitution from its enemies. I'm particularly grateful the postal workers are on the front lines, since most of them already have their own guns. My only question is, how far are they allowed to go in defending the Constitution? Is the park ranger nuclear option off the table?
Well, Kenny lad? No response to being caught in a bold-faced lie? Just another liar for JEBUS who runs away when busted?
Can't say I'm surprised.
I believe Kenny is mistaken.
Again.
My subtext here is that, although I could be wrong, I don't think Kenny is a bold-faced liar. He's simply handicapped with average intelligence, a mediocre education, a dreadfully unreliable personal knowledge bank, and a myopic world-view. He's largely a victim of his mentors, who have conspired to make and to keep him this way.
don't think Kenny is a bold-faced liar
unless one considers projection a form of lying, and denial a form of lying to oneself.
On most points, I would agree with you, Kseniya (And I love that name, BTW...) But when he makes a statement like "the ACLU only protects Atheists and liberals." he is either lying or repeating lies that were told to him. A lie is still a lie if the person is only repeating it.
A rational response would have been along the lines of "I'm not aware of anything that would contradict my position" followed by actual cases that might support his position, or perhaps "I just know what I'm told, and my (daddy/mommy/witch doctor) told me..."
Kenny did neither, which leads me to believe that he is just another liar for Jebus. I do have to admire his ability to remain just on this side of the dungeon after all this time.
IMHO, it serves a person better to be confronted directly when they lie. Pussyfooting around the subject only encourages them to be more creative in the future.
Lying, yes. Bold-faced lying, no.
Lying, yes. Bold-faced lying, no.
agreed.
but I'd say the jury is still out, either way.
he could in fact be lying deliberately with every post he has ever made, and just looking like he is the result of cult indoctrination.
there simply isn't really a way to tell.
However, for all intents and purposes wrt this blog, does it really matter?
@#77 Ichthyic --
In a sense I'd say projection would also fall under the category of lying to oneself; the real point of projection is to persuade oneself that the undesirable projected qualities belong to the other person, and it doesn't matter so much whether that person actually believes it. (In fact, the other person's refusal to believe the lie can serve to reinforce one's own belief in the projection -- after all, they wouldn't protest so much if they weren't really guilty. Projection of one's own denial -- it's amazing.)
In a sense I'd say projection would also fall under the category of lying to oneself
fair enough.
Yes, but a person repeating a lie while being unaware he is doing so is not a liar, he is misinformed. Come on, you've seen how limited this guy is. Is it not reasonable to believe he's spent most of his life surrounded by people who think the ACLU is nothing more than a Liberal pit-bull, a phalanx of the leftist army waging "the war" on Christianity, and should be thrown out with the rest of the trash? I know people considerably more broad-minded than Kenny who think so. Do they ever question their assumptions about the overall mission and actions of the ACLU? No, and my expectations for Kenny in that regard are considerably lower than it is for them.
None of this excuses him from being wrong, of course. But to call him a "bold-faced liar" presumes that he made the statement with full knowledge that it was false. I don't think he did. That's my opinion; I can't prove it, but it fits. He's simply wrong, as he is about so many things. That view of the ALCU is Xian Rightist boilerplate. He's just repeating it. Whether or not he accepts the correction is another matter altogether, and entirely up to him.
Kenny has done neither, so far. I guess we'll see.
Ichthyic:
Certainty is beyond us (wait... isn't that another thread?)
Does it really matter? Only if the distinction between someone who lies to your face, and someone who makes an incorrect stament based on a false belief, matters. Does it really matter with respect to the content of the claims themselves, and the way that content is addressed? No, I guess not.
There. Fixed. Sorta. I think. O_o
The inclusion of "so help me God" in the military oath is a gratuitous violation of the Constitution. I know, I know, someone will say "but it can be omitted", but I am damn sure that there is not a little seminar prior to taking the oath in which enlisted recruits are informed of this fact.
I briefly atended the Citadel, which is a public school, and the recruits were never told that they had any choice but to recite the full oath, which included "so help me God". In fact, had I not gotten the hell out of there when I realized that I was being told what and how to eat, I would have been compelled to attend religious services every Sunday during my knob year.
That being said, I don't have a problem with military recruits offering some sort of ceremonial oath, as they are expected to follow orders even when said orders will result in their almost certain demise, I just object to the part where, for instance, Hindu soldiers are forced to swear to what is an impossible God in their thinking.
Also, does swearing to "protect and defend the Constitution. . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic" not imply that anyone taking such an oath can be perjured by voting in favor of an amendment to the Constitution?
Loyalty oaths are just dumb.
I had to sign one in Georgia in '83 to work for the state as an educator. I would be not surprised if it is still required today.
Also, does swearing to "protect and defend the Constitution. . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic" not imply that anyone taking such an oath can be perjured by voting in favor of an amendment to the Constitution? --Logically no, because the rules for ammendment are part of the constitution. Not sure how the president justifies his attempts to ignore those parts that he finds inconvenient though. Personally, I LIKE the idea that teachers have a positive duty to protect the constitutional rights of their students.
I know people considerably more broad-minded than Kenny... - Kseniya
I know earthworms considerably more broad-minded than Kenny!
If that were so, such oaths would exist all over the world.
But, as with the Pledge of Allegiance, the USA seems to be the only democratic country which has such a thing (military and politicians excepted). Isn't it?
And Planaria are more broad-minded than earthworms... therefore...
Oh, never mind.
No really - the relatively broad-minded earthworms I know are called Gus (my wife and I dispute whether each of them individually is called Gus, or whether the name applies to them only as a collective entity). They live in a wooden bin that looks a bit like a beehive, in our very small garden, turning food waste we consider unsuitable for the dog into compost - so they're considerably more useful than Kenny as well.
#87, Blind Squirrel FCD: I had to sign one in Georgia in '83 to work for the state as an educator. I would be not surprised if it is still required today.
Probably. I had to sign one to become a student worker at UGA in 1994.
The Guardian reports that this just became a non-issue, with the CA legislature showing amazing spped in the application of common sense and decency by abolishing the loyalty oath requirements for public servants.
They also legalized the Communist Party.
(No mention was made about the dismissed teachers being given their positions back, however. I can't find out how that part of the story has ended.)
Please let the happy news in CA be more widely known!