Posted on 05/02/2008 11:46:40 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
A lot of professors must have lied. I guess the good of the oath is that violating it would constitute grounds for firing. But that won't happen, with the commies running the asylum.
It establishes procedural crime. Not just “intent to commit crime”. Association with seditious groups, like Communists, is considered a threat to the stability of our nation.
There is little effort made to sniff out Communists, but it can be sufficient grounds for termination with this oath.
The USSR may be gone but global socialists are as united as ever.
The Communists just held May Day illegal immigration rallies in the US.
Yeah, there is no domestic threat anymore. < /sarcasm >
Religious discrimination is prohibited. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of someone’s political ideology.
There is a domestic threat. However, requiring someone to sign a piece of paper does nothing whatsoever to combat such threats.
The threats will/would continue no matter what stupid piece of paper or oath one is made to sign.
Why I’m sure these professors would all be happy to fight. Of course, it would be for the other side!
California SB 1322:
“the bill would also strike the law that prohibits a teacher giving instruction in a school or on public school property from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism,”
Fat lot of good that did!
I will say that given the recent California home schooling controversy, my conclusion being that California's home schooling codes are poorly written, I don't blame the person in question for not wanting to commit to upholding other poorly written statutes in that state's constitution. And on top of that, you've got California judges who interpret that state's constitution any way they feel like anyway.
Same problems with the federal Constitution.
Still, this seems to be a non-issue issue; a purely emotional reaction to not wanting to sign a pledge.
What am I overlooking?
Vowing to protect the US.
Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses.... oh AND Communists!
If it is true that the state allows exceptions in other state agencies, then I think she has a case. Otherwise, I'd say she should just look for a job elsewhere.
Although you may be correct, the problem is that the article provided no specifics. I wish that the article would at least have provided the statement that she wanted to attach to the pledge. But lack of details is why I am inclined to think that the person's decision not to sign the pledge was emotional.
Quakers are the biggest libs around.
There is no statement to attach.
Either you will defend America and or California or you refuse to!
Her objections to the oath are religious, so reasonable accommodations should be made.
By the way things are going in Sacramento, I doubt if any of our California legislators have signed it.
These days I'm surprised anyone would object, given the diverse interpretations floating around of any constitution. In an educational environment in particular, just take the document and put it through the deconstruct and reconstruct modes until you are channeling whatever you want in the shadows of the document. It is way square to be a stickler. Just redefine and then confirm it. I thought schools were way past worrying about the actual details of intent in constitutions. Make it what you want it to be and then promise loyalty to your own creation. It is so 19th century to refuse allegiance to a document that can so easily progress into anything a liberal mind can dream it to be.
Not according to some people - I think it is, but I’ve got no real qualms with Quakers and if they are sincerely pacifists, then I don’t think she should be excluded.
It doesn’t specifically say violent means, but if I said I will defend you against all enemies, most people would assume that includes violence in defense. If she is sincerely a Quaker and a pacifist, she should be allowed to clarify her statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.