Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating

[Ziggurat]

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.

Taking this "oath" is not the same as being "under oath". The latter has legal significance, and is used to describe testimony before courts, certain legislative hearings, etc. Lying "under oath" carries legal penalties. Lying while taking this "oath" has no legal significance. So the phrase "under oath" should be striken from your addendum. With that correction, then your update would make the title correct.

 

[Ray Brady]

The creepiest part to me is that they would be requiring students to state that they are reciting this mandatory pledge of their own free will. Here's a thought: if you want people to pledge their allegiance freely, make it optional.

 

[Vortigern99]

Taking this "oath" is not the same as being "under oath". The latter has legal significance, and is used to describe testimony before courts, certain legislative hearings, etc. Lying "under oath" carries legal penalties. Lying while taking this "oath" has no legal significance. So the phrase "under oath" should be striken from your addendum. With that correction, then your update would make the title correct.

Again, excellent points. But while I see the distinction you're making and which the law also makes, "lying while taking this oath" has ethical significance. You're entitled to disagree that it matters, but as a free American you've got a right not to care about lying during oath-taking. I have a right to object to the proposed legislation, which invites atheists to lie during oath-taking. Hence this debate.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Just words

So if the requirement was for high school graduates to say "I solemnly swear that I perform fellatio on pandas", you'd do it?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Indeed. I, too, am more bothered by the content of the oath than by the mention of God. Why do people hoping to have a high school diploma have to swear to uphold and support the Constitution.

If I work to get an amendment repealed, am I in violation of the oath?

How is getting an amendment repealed not upholding and supporting the Constitution? It's no more a violation than getting one PASSED. Like, you know, the Bill of Rights.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

I disagree. If the words ended with "And there is no god", by your logic no theist should object to saying the oath because they "know" that last phrase to be a lie. Yet you absolutely know that is not the case, i.e., that theists would totally object to having to say that.

 

[tsig]

So if the requirement was for high school graduates to say "I solemnly swear that I perform fellatio on pandas", you'd do it?

I imagine there'd be some happy pandas.

 

[Travis]

Have any of the bill's sponsors explained why this is even necessary?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So if the requirement was for high school graduates to say "I solemnly swear that I perform fellatio on pandas", you'd do it?

As long as everyone else has to say it, absolutely. See how long the rest of the class can keep a straight face.

To me, God is just a word, a harmless meaningless word referring to something that doesn't exist. Saying it isn't the same as swearing an oath to think or act a certain way. (Though I admit I'd still have to suppress the urge to burst into laughter while saying it.)

 

[Pulvinar]

Have any of the bill's sponsors explained why this is even necessary?

From the Arizona Republic:

Smith, a self-proclaimed member of the tea party with a history of sponsoring anti-illegal-immigration measures, said he introduced the legislation in response to a Maricopa high-school student who last year reported feeling mocked and embarrassed after she was the only one in her class to stand and say the pledge.

“Is this bill going to move heaven and Earth? No,” Smith said. “But it’s important that our kids do this.”

Since filing his bill, Thorpe is having second thoughts about the reach of his proposal and concerns about reaction from students, and says he is planning to amend his oath bill to make it optional and not mandatory.

Maybe he'll learn that true loyalty has to be earned, that he's trying to fix the wrong end.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.”

Maybe it's because I'm atheist myself but I don't see where that last part implies that I need to be a bible thumper to graduate. I'm not totally kosher with the idea of having to recite a line that makes me sound a tad cheesy like I'm taking the stand in a court room, but to go as far as suggesting the oath itself is discriminatory, religiously... is a stretch. I just think it's pork, that can be done a little less awkwardly

 

[Freddy]

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.”

"So help me God" is about the least troubling thing about this bill. Making every citizen take such an oath is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Apparently the AZ legislature has never heard of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, in which the Supreme Court held that students may not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. If it is unconstitutional to force students to recite the pledge, how can it be constitutional to force them to sign the oath prescribed by this bill?

Compelled speech is always highly suspect, particularly when it applies to everyone, as opposed to being limited to public servants. Anyone wielding the power of the state can be required to swear an oath that they will uphold the constitution in their exercise of that power. That is eminently reasonable. But beyond that, I will simply quote Justice Jackson, who said it about as well as it can be said:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

"So help me God" is no more worrisome than "in God we trust" appearing on currency. I can understand why it would annoy some, but it's essentially nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. The real problem here is the attempt to compel all students to swear allegiance to any particular set of beliefs as a condition of graduating. That is flagrantly unconstitutional (or, in other words, par for the course in the AZ Legislature).

I must say, though, that I am quite amused that a compulsory oath contains a sworn statement that the swearer is taking the oath freely. Someone in the AZ legislature is suffering from an acute irony deficiency.

 

[BTMO]

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

Hell yeah. I thought all that was required to finish high school successfully (we don't "graduate" here in the same way - we get posted a certificate in the mail if we pass - though a lot of that sort of thing is going online these days...) was grades that met certain criteria.

Incidentally, and as an aside, we were doing sound checks on stage the other night for an improv show I was involved in.

One of the ladies, from the States, quoted part of the pledge of allegiance, just to see if we could hear her from the back.

Gotta be honest - it sounded really odd. We don't do pledges of ... well, much of anything here either. While most kiwis (and Australians - I am originally from Australia) are very patriotic, we don't really need to rote-repeat it to reassure each other...

 

[Travis]

As long as everyone else has to say it, absolutely. See how long the rest of the class can keep a straight face.

To me, God is just a word, a harmless meaningless word referring to something that doesn't exist. Saying it isn't the same as swearing an oath to think or act a certain way. (Though I admit I'd still have to suppress the urge to burst into laughter while saying it.)

Maybe it is because I grew up in a very religious community but I don't see it as just a word. I see it as a symbol of something I have waged a kind of war against for the better part of my life.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...

Who cares! What is the point of the oath in the first place? Not to mention it's anti-American!


And what's the point about arguing over the title of the thread. That seems to be a common distraction in this forum. People are emotional, they have opinions, they write emotional thread titles. So what?

 

[pipelineaudio]

As an absolutely extreme right winger, an arizonan, in the Classical Liberal sense, free speech zealot and a small government nutter, this proposition makes me far angrier than the one that got a councilwoman shot in the buttocks.

I mean raging, screaming, not this pissed since the reign of Janet Come Lately- give away all of the pristine environment to developers to make houses with illegal labor- Napolitano, angry

And here I would be considered moderate

These douchebags are going down, HARD

Would the money spent on this nonsense have kept 1 or more of our Hotshots alive?

The possibility that it would have is all it takes

I don't know much of these lawmakers, they may be Calzonies or snowbird or eastern transplants, or a bit less likely, life long city dwellers, but this is NOT the state for this sort of BS

 

[Aridas]

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.”

I think there was thread about very similar bill a few months ago?

 

[Cain]

Yet again, I'm thankful to be living in CA, where my kids didn't have to take a silly oath just to finish high school.

Yeah, one of the cool things about living in California, under the auspices of LA Unified in particular, is that we don't have to do much anything to graduate.

 

[Ladewig]

How is getting an amendment repealed not upholding and supporting the Constitution?

I have absolutely no idea at all. I am just trying to figure out what the state senator meant by having high school kids swear to upload and support the Constitution. I want to know what "support" means in this particular context.

I suspect (but have no evidence) that if some Arizonan said, let's repeal the second amendment, then the bill's sponsor would assert that such an effort is in direct conflict with support of the Constitution.

I want to know what the purpose of the proposed oath is.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Cynical douchewads trying to shore up the mexican vote?
Trying to win some black voters?
Appealing to the snowbirds (who do vote, that's when they're in AZ)?