« Who comes up with this crap? | Main | Useless Error Message v.Infinity »
To Marianne Kearney-Brown, who refused to sign an oath that countered her moral and religious principals of non-violence, (she's a Quaker, they don't do violence):
Good Job.
Oh, what did she do?
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." All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.Of course, I look forward to various fundie Xtians' tortured logic on why Jesus requires you to be ready to kill for your country without thought or discourse. Because conscientious objection based on religion isn't a valid reason to refuse to commit violence.
Technorati Tags:
Non-Violence, Conscientious Objection
Posted by John C. Welch at 16:43 | Permalink
Comments
Who would Jesus torture?
What country would Jesus invade?
Posted by:
chuckgoolsbee 
|
February 29, 2008 7:45 PM
Anyone.
All of them.
Posted by:
Moeskido |
March 2, 2008 8:45 AM
Now maybe it's just me being a brit and missing out on an american history indoctri... I mean education, but the whole idea of signing oaths for employment stinks to me...
Is it a requirement to do the job well or completely? If not, why is an oath necessary at all? People should be allowed to believe what and in what they wish without prejudice (I had assumed this to be a constitutional right over there). If a set of beliefs is necessary for a particular job, then that's fair enough (although outside of working a religious pastoral role, good luck justifying that), but if beliefs don't impact on the job, asking someone to conform to a particular set of beliefs... Should that be allowed? I think it's amazing that it is.
Posted by:
Tom Hillman |
March 3, 2008 3:28 AM
@Tom Hillman:
The United States is unfortunately a failed experiment in Democracy. I think it has been a positive influence in the past: many countries around the world have been content to "do as we say, not as we do." Of course, Europe had to live through the 20th Century to get there.
It took 140 years, but the Confederate States of America has finally won the war. Using politics rather than arms, they have made the whole country over in their own image. All of their so-called "principles" other than chattel slavery itself, have now been imposed on the rest of us: No taxation for internal improvements, "States Rights," and the reduction of the States' legitimate functions to only one: making sure that there are always enough able-bodied men in prison to hire them out to Robber Barons to construct those internal improvements, so they can make their profits in tolls and the State only gets back enough to barely run the prisons. When everything has been "privatized" in this way, then they have a solution even better than slavery--you had to feed slaves! If Big Business has no use for you, they have no obligations to you at all.
If I had ANYWHERE to go, I would have left this country after the 2000 "election." I don't know exactly why there was another one: If the people elect one guy and the other guy takes power anyway, I really don't know why they bother!
Posted by:
Gatesbasher |
March 3, 2008 3:58 PM
Does anyone know if civilian loyalty oath requirements significantly predate the McCarthy era?
Posted by:
Moeskido |
March 3, 2008 4:19 PM
