Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating

[This is The End]

Your thread title is wrong. The bill proposes requiring people to say something that an atheist might object to saying. But it doesn't actually prevent atheists from graduating. I'm not saying the bill isn't objectionable, but you haven't accurately represented what it is.

If the line was changed to "....and I believe that there is no god or creator." would that not prevent the religious from taking the oath? Therefore it would prevent the religious from graduating?

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that people should lie to progress...

 

[Belz...]

Maddening.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

A group of Arizona politicians — all Republicans, of course — have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students to recite the following oath in order to graduate:

I, _______, do solemnly swear 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 these duties; so help me God.​

As written, the bill does not exempt atheist students or those of different faiths from the requirement, though Thorpe has pledged to amend the measure. "...I do not want to create a requirement that students or parents may feel uncomfortable with.”

Misleading thread title is misleading.

I'm not surprised, however. I expected as much.

I'd object to the creepy uber-patrioticness of it more than the religiosity.

Right. Why would one "solemnly swear" anything ? What does that even mean ?

And what does this oath have to do with graduating from high school ?

 

[applecorped]

Words are the vessels of meaning and emotion.

I'm if during your mother's funeral somebody stood up and said vulgar things about her you wouldn't appreciate it.

I might be that person.

Still, just words.

 

[Belz...]

Politicians love solving problems that don't exist. They're so much easier than the problems that do.

 

[Belz...]

I might be that person.

Still, just words.

I usually hold people to their word.

 

[rwguinn]

Since that Oath means so damn little to the elected officials who also swear it, I don't know why they bothered.
Besides, what office does High School graduation elect you to?

 

[This is The End]

Misleading thread title is misleading.

See post #29.


It's not misleading if you add the word "lie".

They have to choose between lying and graduating. Requiring a student to lie to graduate just seems weird.

 

[Skibum]

See post #29.


It's not misleading if you add the word "lie".

They have to choose between lying and graduating. Requiring a student to lie to graduate just seems weird.

Post 29? You can see into the future?

 

[Loss Leader]

It's not misleading if you add the word lie.

Posted to avoid inconsistency in accordance with the Temporal Prime Directive.

 

[Vortigern99]

Misleading thread title is misleading.

I'm not surprised, however. I expected as much.

The thread title accurately reflects the topic that's open for discussion. If you reject the truth value of the title, this is the proper thread in which to pursue that line of argumentation.

I submit the thread title is an accurate description of the bill in question. As the bill is currently worded, even an atheist has to say the words "So help me God" to graduate. Hence: Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating.

In what way do you feel this is misleading, and in what way did you "expect as much"?

 

[sarge]

I object to the oath, period. By what logic must a citizen swear allegiance to anything? What's the connection between this oath and graduating HS?

That oath read almost word for word as the Oath of Office for someone being commissioned in the Armed Services.

 

[This is The End]

It's not misleading if you add the word lie.

Sorry, I should have made clear that I meant the "or lie" part is implied.

If or lie is implied, then it is not misleading.

I did not mean to break space time.

 

[This is The End]

Post 29? You can see into the future?

I assume I meant Post #21.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I keep God in my BVDs, so I'm sure of help when I need it.

 

[applecorped]

I usually hold people to their word.

Get used to disappointment.

 

[Baylor]

Just words

The Beatles music is just noise.

 

[Ziggurat]

I copied the thread title from the article, so if it's in error it's not one of creation but of perpetuation. In either case, I submit the thread title is an accurate description of the bill in question. As the bill is currently worded, an atheist has to say the words "So help me God" to graduate. Hence: Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating.

No, you're still wrong. The bill would only prevent someone from graduating if they refused to say those words. But being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of saying those words, or even necessarily of objecting to those words. As has been pointed out, some atheists may be willing to say those words precisely because their atheism leads them to believe the words are meaningless. In fact, it takes a peculiar kind of atheist to be unable to say that oath. Do they think the great nothingness will strike them down in its wrath? It's one thing to claim that the oath will offend atheists (but they aren't alone in that), but it's obviously not much of an actual impediment to graduation, let alone a categorical one as claimed.

So the title is wrong on its face.

If the "so help me God" portion were removed (which to date it has not been), then yes, problem solved.

To date the bill hasn't been passed, so it hasn't become a problem either.

 

[Vortigern99]

No, you're still wrong. The bill would only prevent someone from graduating if they refused to say those words. But being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of saying those words, or even necessarily of objecting to those words. As has been pointed out, some atheists may be willing to say those words precisely because their atheism leads them to believe the words are meaningless. In fact, it takes a peculiar kind of atheist to be unable to say that oath. Do they think the great nothingness will strike them down in its wrath? It's one thing to claim that the oath will offend atheists (but they aren't alone in that), but it's obviously not much of an actual impediment to graduation, let alone a categorical one as claimed.

So the title is wrong on its face.

To date the bill hasn't been passed, so it hasn't become a problem either.

Okay, great! Excellent points. The thread title accurately reflects the topic that's open for discussion. If you reject the truth value of the title, this is the proper thread in which to pursue that line of argumentation.

It bears noting that only so many words will fit into the space allotted for a thread title. So in creating the thread I was unable to add in the qualifying phrase:

unless they lie under oath​

... which would increase its truth value.

Agreed on all your other points.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the line was changed to "....and I believe that there is no god or creator." would that not prevent the religious from taking the oath? Therefore it would prevent the religious from graduating?

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that people should lie to progress...

My point is not about what should be. My point is about what is. And should or not, people do lie to progress, all the time. Furthermore, in this particular example there isn't even a mechanism, not even an in-principle one, to detect, prevent, or in any way sanction a lie.

We shouldn't be in the business of encouraging lies, even seemingly harmless ones like this, but again, recognizing that the bill is bad doesn't mean that we should misrepresent how and why it's bad.

 

[Vortigern99]

I for one am unwilling to lie under oath. On those grounds, and as an agnostic atheist, I object to the proposed bill.