Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating

[Frozenwolf150]

Let's just save time... is there anything you wouldn't say or that you think you should not be required to say prior to being allowed to graduate?

I thought it was implied, but I won't say anything that threatens to harm or violates the rights of other people. Yes, I agree that the bill is unconstitutional and should never see the light of day, but as far as social issues go, it's pretty low on my list of concerns and will likely get struck down anyway. Even if it passes, these are high school seniors, as I've said, and there's no way they'll take this as a serious legal oath.

If not, we're done here, and you should probably just look forward to being banned in the future.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?

 

[jflower]

Isn't this basically the oath of office? What sense does it make to require students to recite it in order to graduate? I thought conservatives were usually the ones complaining about how public education has become state propaganda indoctrination.

 

[Polaris]

Isn't this basically the oath of office? What sense does it make to require students to recite it in order to graduate? I thought conservatives were usually the ones complaining about how public education has become state propaganda indoctrination.

It's no longer "propaganda" if they agree with the content, you see. But that's not a foible specific to conservatives.

 

[pgwenthold]

Isn't this basically the oath of office? What sense does it make to require students to recite it in order to graduate? I thought conservatives were usually the ones complaining about how public education has become state propaganda indoctrination.

No, it's LIBERAL propaganda that is the problem.

 

[theprestige]

Why would promising to uphold the Constitution be propaganda anyway?

Anyway, I'm in the "'so help me God' is the least of the problems with this bill" camp. But I do understand how some atheists might get all panty-bunched about the phrase. Being an atheist in America is sooo difficult!

 

[cwalner]

Why would promising to uphold the Constitution be propaganda anyway?

Anyway, I'm in the "'so help me God' is the least of the problems with this bill" camp.

Yup, If somebody just posted the text of this bill without referencing the religious aspect, my blood pressure would have been so high by the time I got to the end, I probably would not have even noticed the 'So help me God' at the end.

 

[Chaos]

What I find funny is that saying or drafting such an oath violates the very thing the oath is suposed to protect. American was founded on treason. Quite literally--the governing body of the United States of America declared war on Great Britain, who was at the time their government. The army of the USA took up arms against the army of their rightful government. Then, they went even further and specifically drafted ammendments and laws to protect those who would speak out against the government they created.

The single most patriotic thing an American can do is to stand up and say "I think what the government is doing is wrong." Somehow I doubt the idiots who drafted this pledge would like it if their students started to do that en mass.

Here's a fun article about this sort of thing.

Compared to the insanity of anywhere in the USA requiring a loyalty oath, the mention of God is trivial.

Indeed.

What the *bleep* is wrong with the US?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Indeed.

What the *bleep* is wrong with the US?

The country is going to hell in a handbasket and nothing is a good as it was in the good ole days. God bless 'murica! /s

 

[applecorped]

I'd say anything to get out of High School.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I thought it was implied, but I won't say anything that threatens to harm or violates the rights of other people. Yes, I agree that the bill is unconstitutional and should never see the light of day, but as far as social issues go, it's pretty low on my list of concerns and will likely get struck down anyway. Even if it passes, these are high school seniors, as I've said, and there's no way they'll take this as a serious legal oath.


Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Sure. If there's nothing you wouldn't say, then you have no filter, and thus are likely to say anything on this forum, which would eventually lead to banning.

In any case, regardless of whether it's a lie or not, people shouldn't be required to say that. They should be required to get X number of credit hours as determined by the school system in charge, Y of those X being in certain required fields.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No. The equivalent would be preventing two people of the same sex from marrying if they didn't say they were straight. In other words, they can accomplish the act that they want (marriage to the same sex, or graduation) with a lie that has no consequences.

Your attempted parallel does not provide any means of accomplishing the desired act, so it is clearly not a parallel at all.

The desired act of a homosexual is to marry the same gender. If a homosexual wanted to marry without marrying the opposite gender, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.
The desired act of an atheist would be to graduate without saying this oath. If an atheist wanted to graduate without saying this oath, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.

The only way for a homosexual to marry is to marry the opposite gender*, and the only way for an atheist to graduate is to say this oath including "so help me God."

Seems parallel to me.

*except in certain states

 

[Dorian Gray]

Why would promising to uphold the Constitution be propaganda anyway?

Anyway, I'm in the "'so help me God' is the least of the problems with this bill" camp. But I do understand how some atheists might get all panty-bunched about the phrase. Being an atheist in America is sooo difficult!

I know, right? How hard is it to wage wars on Christmas, and get monuments on government property, and prevent idiots from teaching creationism in schools?



Meanwhile, let's change "God" to "Allah" and see how many Christians suddenly no like that phrase.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

LOL!!! That's the first thing that I thought when I read the oath. How can the oath state that the students are "taking this obligation freely" when they are being coerced into it???

 

[Ziggurat]

The desired act of a homosexual is to marry the same gender. If a homosexual wanted to marry without marrying the opposite gender, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.

EXACTLY! They can't get it even if they make an inconsequential lie.

The desired act of an atheist would be to graduate without saying this oath.

No. You have combined two different goals here: graduation, and not telling an inconsequential lie. While some people might feel that the latter is more important than the former, let's be honest here: that's not most people.

If an atheist wanted to graduate without saying this oath, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.

And under a law where gay couples could marry if they merely claim they're straight (with, again, no consequence for lying), gay couples couldn't marry and not tell a lie. That's not a good situation for them, and I never claimed it's not objectionable (quite the reverse, in fact). But it is absolutely and obviously better for them than the current situation in places where it is categorically prohibited. It's absurd for you to claim that they're equivalent.

Seems parallel to me.

Yes, I know. And that's the problem: you've got zero sense of proportion here.

 

[Puppycow]

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.”

That oath reminds me of the oath I took on enlisting in the military:

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."​

Note, however, that the word "swear" can be replaced with "affirm" and the words "So help me God" can be omitted.

The words "So help me God" may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath.[1]

There would probably be a similar opt-out for this oath.
My main problem with this is that except for the part about obeying the president and officers, it makes civilians swear essentially the same oath that military members swear.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Sure. If there's nothing you wouldn't say, then you have no filter, and thus are likely to say anything on this forum, which would eventually lead to banning.

I don't see how my lack of objection to the word "God" translates into having no filter over what I say. Since I don't believe in any gods, the name of any given deity is a powerless word to me. Saying it evokes nothing because God doesn't exist. An oath like this is among the least of my concerns.

If the oath forced students to state that they would harm people in the name of God, that's a very different story.

 

[Joz]

Atheists can't say the word "god"

 

[Aridas]

Atheists can't say the word "god"

Huh? Feel free to attempt to clarify or justify your statement to mean something reasonable. As it stands, it looks like it's just a blatantly false statement. If you're trying to point towards an argument with it, I suspect that it's failed, utterly, already.

 

[Joz]

Seriously? They're not saying you have to mean it. Just say it, it's only a word

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh? Feel free to attempt to clarify or justify your statement to mean something reasonable. As it stands, it looks like it's just a blatantly false statement. If you're trying to point towards an argument with it, I suspect that it's failed, utterly, already.

No, it's totally true. Seriously, guys, look what happens when they do: