Comments on: Loyalty oaths with religious affirmations…

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:07:11 +0000

@Richard: If someone wanted to pass a law that did a lot of harmless things but also mandated government agencies have separate drinking fountains for different races, would you respond that it’s inoffensive except for the separate drinking fountains provision which wouldn’t survive a court challenge anyway?

You and Ron seem to have this “What’s the big deal about separate water fountains? Are the seats in the back of bus less comfortable than those in the front?” mentality. Perhaps you are unaware of the history of discrimination against atheists.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:38:54 +0000

I have rarely seen such fulminating about a proposed bill. I agree that it wrong to attempt to mandate an oath of allegiance. However, students in many schools systems voluntarily say the pledge allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As you can see, that except for the mandatory part (which as I previously indicated would not survive a court challenge), it is quite similar to the oath, including the “offensive” reference to God. So this is not a new issue. I only wish that you would get as exorcised over the teaching of the religion of environmentalism in the schools. Then I would at least know that you were consistent in your (non) belief.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:33:26 +0000

Ron: Your example is not at all like either separate water fountains or public religious oaths. All the key points are different in your example and common to both separate water fountains and public religious oaths. Most importantly, your example is one person’s idiosyncratic reaction to something not meant to be exclusive. Both separate water fountains and religious loyalty oaths are specifically meant to symbolically exclude a disfavored group that has historically been discriminated against.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:12:45 +0000

Such is the saying, you can’t spell “CRAZY” without “R-AZ”.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:54:41 +0000

I can’t think of a reason for this oath. None, nada, zilch.

When pols or state employees take an oath, its because we want them to understand the grave responsibilites they are assuming.

Graduating high schoolers aren’t stepping into government jobs.

I’m 55 and I didn’t have to take an oath when I graduated HS in 1976. Neither should any high schooler anywhere in the country.

Naturally, this is sponsored by Republicans. They truly are The Stupid Party.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:16:04 +0000

Back in the day, we put in God We Trust on the money. I think those guys had separation of church and state in mind but they say, “Ah, let’s not cut it too thin here.”

My point is I don’t think these minor intrusions are a big deal.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:14:18 +0000

David, I don’t see the connection. How about the government employee who calls a woman “Mrs.” How dare they assume she is married! They don’t do it to a man!

That is one response. The other is “Oh, who cares?”

I would argue the injustice is more like the one I suggested than, you know, separate water fountains and what not.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:52:10 +0000

@Ron: Is it really such a big deal to drink from a separate water fountain? Is the back of the bus any less comfortable than the front? (Not to suggest that the issues are actually comparable in importance, just to point out that being treated unequally matters, even in trivial things.)

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:28:41 +0000

@Richard: What you describe is the likely outcome. However, the fact that people are working to make this happen is plenty disappointing.

@Ron: It doesn’t “bother” me, but if I have to take an oath where I need to affirm a belief in a deity (and thereby lie), what’s the point of even making me say the oath? You can’t dangle a diploma in front of me (or anything else, given the context of it being from a government) with the prerequisite that I become a theist. The “big deal” comes from making sure religion stays away from government, thereby justifying the quashing of any attempt that religion has to seep over.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:55:53 +0000

Jason, does it really both you that much? I’m not being rhetorical, I’m really asking. I think a lot of atheists really don’t care about it in their hearts but just get worked up about it to get worked up about it. Sometimes, you have to be able to say, “Really, what is the big deal?”