Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists from Graduating

[Willamena]

Even without the religious addition, I wouldn't be a fan of such a requirement.

Agreed. Forced patriotism.

 

[4consideration]

Ironically-they can't be taking this oath freely if they can't get their duly earned diploma without it...

I agree.

A requirement to take an oath to receive an earned diploma (not to mention the inclusion of "So help me God" and an affirmation that is is "freely taken") is what I would call coercion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree.

A requirement to take an oath to receive an earned diploma (not to mention the inclusion of "So help me God" and an affirmation that is is "freely taken") is what I would call coercion.

Exactly.....IMO if freethinking people didn't fight this then I believe this country, left unchecked, would run as a pseudo-theocracy......and IMO this enforcement borderlines on a kind of Sharia Law.....hey I could be wrong but from how I see it that's the way it appears.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have a compromise solution;
"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me God!"

 

[Revoltingest]

It could be modified for our LHP friends too...
"...that I will faithfully discharge these duties. Hail Satan, Lord Of Darkness!"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have a compromise solution;
"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me God!"

Would you rather it be...

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Allah!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Christna!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Zeus!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Satan!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me FSM!"


NO.....The best one is....

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties."

It works for everyone...regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof....Anything is an imposition.

 

[crossfire]

It would have to be given prior to entry into school in order for it not to be coercive--but wait--children between certain ages must be enrolled in some sort of education by law--so it would still be coercive.

 

[Riverwolf]

When I graduated, all I had to do was pass my courses. Hard to believe that a country that was once a pioneer for the concepts of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association would end up requiring universal, militant, authoritarian monotheistic oaths from all its citizens.

I can only imagine the consequences of such a law. "Well, I know your average grade is 95 % but since you're not paranoid about the nation's enemies and don't believe in god, you FAIL and you can't go to university in this country. Sorry! Have fun in Europe or Canada!"

To be fair, they're doing the whole America thing better than America is right now.

 

[Alceste]

Would you rather it be...

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Allah!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Christna!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Zeus!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me Satan!"

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties so help. Me FSM!"


NO.....The best one is....

"...that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties."

It works for everyone...regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof....Anything is an imposition.

I actually care less about the God schtick than the preamble about "defending" a living legal document from "enemies" at home and abroad. What is that all about? It makes no sense, and to the extent that it does make sense, it's sinister and paranoid, implying a lifelong commitment to doing violence to settle philosophical or legal disputes.

 

[arhys]

When I graduated, all I had to do was pass my courses. Hard to believe that a country that was once a pioneer for the concepts of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association would end up requiring universal, militant, authoritarian monotheistic oaths from all its citizens.

Consider the Colonial period. America did not begin in 1776; it merely deviated from certain precedents.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pledges?
I don't say no pledges.
I don't need no pledges.
I don't have to say no stinking pledges!
[youtube]nsdZKCh6RsU[/youtube]
We Dont Need No Stinkin Badges! - YouTube

I don't mind defending the Constitution.
But ain't nobody gonna make me say an oath to do so.

 

[Alceste]

"Defending the constitution against enemies" kind of presents a logical conundrum, doesn't it? The constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of association, a free press, and freedom of religion. The main "enemy of the constitution" in this case is religion, lobbying a they do to force kids to swear an oath to the Christian God in order to graduate. Do you fight them or not fight them? Are they free to practice their theocratic religion or aren't they?

For anyone who is not a Christian, the first part of the oath is logically incompatible with the second.

 

[Falvlun]

"Defending the constitution against enemies" kind of presents a logical conundrum, doesn't it? The constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of association, a free press, and freedom of religion. The main "enemy of the constitution" in this case is religion, lobbying a they do to force kids to swear an oath to the Christian God in order to graduate. Do you fight them or not fight them? Are they free to practice their theocratic religion or aren't they?

For anyone who is not a Christian, the first part of the oath is logically incompatible with the second.

Another great point.

 

[Aamer]

As an Arizonan, I'm ashamed of our politicians. They really are a disgrace and an embarrassment. Hopefully things will change in my lifetime. What's funny the politicians who want to bring "Christian morals"back. Don't they realize this country was never founded on Christian morals? The founding fathers of the United States were predominantly Deist (George Washington included). Not Christian. The constitution was founded on Deist philosophies.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What shocks me is that Christians want to degrade God in such a way in the first place. How can a perfect God, in all his infinite wisdom, possibly have anything to do with a document which is so transparently human and fallible that the sole purpose of one amendment is to repeal a previous amendment?

 

[HonestJoe]

The constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of association, a free press, and freedom of religion.

It can't guarantee them unconditionally, one condition being the necessary compromise where one freedom impacts on another.

Are they free to practice their theocratic religion or aren't they?

They're free to practice their religion, they're not free to impose it upon other people. It's actually a very straight forwards case and I can't begin to imagine how they thought they could get it though. I'm forced to assume something underhanded, though I've no idea what.

 

[tytlyf]

As an Arizonan, I'm ashamed of our politicians. They really are a disgrace and an embarrassment. Hopefully things will change in my lifetime. What's funny the politicians who want to bring "Christian morals"back. Don't they realize this country was never founded on Christian morals? The founding fathers of the United States were predominantly Deist (George Washington included). Not Christian. The constitution was founded on Deist philosophies.

Far too many Americans don't understand the history of our founders. Here's a video from a recent FFRF convention and this speaker does a fine job displaying how America is not a christian nation.

[youtube]z943vG7FT7g[/youtube]

 

[Alceste]

It can't guarantee them unconditionally, one condition being the necessary compromise where one freedom impacts on another.

They're free to practice their religion, they're not free to impose it upon other people. It's actually a very straight forwards case and I can't begin to imagine how they thought they could get it though. I'm forced to assume something underhanded, though I've no idea what.

They will do it, I'm sure, the way they always do it. Pass it in a Republican majority state government and enforce it until someone challenges it and the Supreme Court overturns it. It puts the ball in the ACLU's court, basically.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're free to practice their religion, they're not free to impose it upon other people. It's actually a very straight forwards case and I can't begin to imagine how they thought they could get it though. I'm forced to assume something underhanded, though I've no idea what.

According to the linked piece in the OP, it's just a bill proposed by less than 10 reps.
It hasn't even been voted on yet, & could die a quick death.