Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:31-52|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist in Arizona? No diploma for you!

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:43:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:47:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

This only points to the fact that you have to say only the oath. It does not state anything about what you can add onto the oath, or what you can precede the oath with, as long as you strictly mention that oath. Legally speaking, it's perfectly possible to add "God is a big poopy-head" at the end of the oath and still fulfill the legal requirements. Or you can just say that you don't mean it at the end.

Yes. That's correct. And it's probably true that most giving out the oaths might not care less. However, it's also probably true that there will some people who do care about stuff like this, and this law will give their bigotry weight and an avenue in which they can discriminate against the irreligious.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:52:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:43:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:47:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

This only points to the fact that you have to say only the oath. It does not state anything about what you can add onto the oath, or what you can precede the oath with, as long as you strictly mention that oath. Legally speaking, it's perfectly possible to add "God is a big poopy-head" at the end of the oath and still fulfill the legal requirements. Or you can just say that you don't mean it at the end.

Yes. That's correct. And it's probably true that most giving out the oaths might not care less. However, it's also probably true that there will some people who do care about stuff like this, and this law will give their bigotry weight and an avenue in which they can discriminate against the irreligious.

Through what mechanism would they discriminate with this law, since it has so many apparent loopholes?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:56:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:52:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:43:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:47:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

This only points to the fact that you have to say only the oath. It does not state anything about what you can add onto the oath, or what you can precede the oath with, as long as you strictly mention that oath. Legally speaking, it's perfectly possible to add "God is a big poopy-head" at the end of the oath and still fulfill the legal requirements. Or you can just say that you don't mean it at the end.

Yes. That's correct. And it's probably true that most giving out the oaths might not care less. However, it's also probably true that there will some people who do care about stuff like this, and this law will give their bigotry weight and an avenue in which they can discriminate against the irreligious.

Through what mechanism would they discriminate with this law, since it has so many apparent loopholes?

By refusing to verify that the student recited the oath.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:01:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/27/2013 7:01:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 11:47:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The outrage is over the words "please help me God." They aren't mad about the compulsory part.

Yes, they are. They're mad that they are being compelled to take a religious oath.

Thats odd. It looked like an Oath to the Constitution to me.

If it's a religious oath, name the religion.

If it didn't say "help me God," nobody would say "gasp, they had to take a compulsory oath to the Constitution!"

Pantheists call the Universe, God. Atheists believe in the Universe.

But not that the universe is god.

"Pantheism is sexed up Atheism."
-- Richard Dawkins

Do.You.Understand.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:16:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 7:01:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 11:47:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The outrage is over the words "please help me God." They aren't mad about the compulsory part.

Yes, they are. They're mad that they are being compelled to take a religious oath.

Thats odd. It looked like an Oath to the Constitution to me.

If it's a religious oath, name the religion.

Yes, you're correct. I change my statement to say: "theistic oath."


If it didn't say "help me God," nobody would say "gasp, they had to take a compulsory oath to the Constitution!"

I disagree. Forcing children to make an oath to the government seems a bit overly authoritarian.


Pantheists call the Universe, God. Atheists believe in the Universe.

But not that the universe is god.

"Pantheism is sexed up Atheism."
-- Richard Dawkins

Do.You.Understand.

Yes, I understand that Richard Dawkins said that. I don't believe he meant his statement to be taken literally. As a literal statement, I disagree with it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:31:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:56:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:52:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:43:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:47:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

This only points to the fact that you have to say only the oath. It does not state anything about what you can add onto the oath, or what you can precede the oath with, as long as you strictly mention that oath. Legally speaking, it's perfectly possible to add "God is a big poopy-head" at the end of the oath and still fulfill the legal requirements. Or you can just say that you don't mean it at the end.

Yes. That's correct. And it's probably true that most giving out the oaths might not care less. However, it's also probably true that there will some people who do care about stuff like this, and this law will give their bigotry weight and an avenue in which they can discriminate against the irreligious.

Through what mechanism would they discriminate with this law, since it has so many apparent loopholes?

By refusing to verify that the student recited the oath.

Then threaten to sue them. They have no case against you.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:47:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:31:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:56:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:52:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:43:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:47:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

This only points to the fact that you have to say only the oath. It does not state anything about what you can add onto the oath, or what you can precede the oath with, as long as you strictly mention that oath. Legally speaking, it's perfectly possible to add "God is a big poopy-head" at the end of the oath and still fulfill the legal requirements. Or you can just say that you don't mean it at the end.

Yes. That's correct. And it's probably true that most giving out the oaths might not care less. However, it's also probably true that there will some people who do care about stuff like this, and this law will give their bigotry weight and an avenue in which they can discriminate against the irreligious.

Through what mechanism would they discriminate with this law, since it has so many apparent loopholes?

By refusing to verify that the student recited the oath.

Then threaten to sue them. They have no case against you.

Reality is hardly so simple. We're talking about young people in the fact of authority. By this logic we could conclude that workplace discrimination never happens anymore because they can "threaten to sue."
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:36:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 7:01:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 11:47:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The outrage is over the words "please help me God." They aren't mad about the compulsory part.

Yes, they are. They're mad that they are being compelled to take a religious oath.

Thats odd. It looked like an Oath to the Constitution to me.

If it's a religious oath, name the religion.

If it didn't say "help me God," nobody would say "gasp, they had to take a compulsory oath to the Constitution!"

Pantheists call the Universe, God. Atheists believe in the Universe.

But not that the universe is god.

"Pantheism is sexed up Atheism."
-- Richard Dawkins

Do.You.Understand.

Trying to claim that God has nothing to do with Religion is like claiming that cars have nothing to do with rally driving.
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:25:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Teaching about God will have to be their first mission then. As far as I know, public schools do not teach religion nowadays. So, how can they ask someone to believe in God, if they have teach him/her about religion?
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:28:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Teaching about God will have to be their first mission then. As far as I know, public schools do not teach religion nowadays. So, how can they ask someone to believe in God, if they have NOT taught him/her about religion?
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 9:30:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Actually, I was mistaken. I did some research and learnt that over a year ago the governor signed into law a bill that will allow the teaching of the Bible, ONLY THE BIBLE, in a positive way at schools.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 11:22:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
State-worship has evidently advanced to the point that one who fancies himself a rational soul can get all the way to the "so help me God" part before finding anything objectionable in a pledge that literally demands "faith" in government.
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 12:30:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
From the Huffingtonpost.com

"An Arizona bill that creates a high school course for public and charter school students that teaches the Bible and its role in Western culture is now law.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation Tuesday that requires the state Board of Education to design a high school elective course titled "The Bible and its influence on Western Culture," which would include lessons on the history, literature and influence of the Old and New testaments on laws, government and culture, among other aspects of society.
The state Senate approved House Bill 2563 last Thursday with a vote of 21-9. It was approved by the House in February.
Arizona becomes the sixth state to allow districts to offer a high school elective Bible course. Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina are currently the only ones with laws permitting these courses. Other states like Kentucky have introduced similar proposals, but the bills have failed to become law.
The Arizona course must follow state and federal laws in maintaining religious neutrality, and credits from the course would count toward student graduation. Students are also not to be required to use a specific version of the Bible. Republican state Rep. Terri Proud, who sponsored the bill, said the proposals are written in a way that make it clear that teachers can teach the Bible "in a very restricted way."
Proud says students would benefit from learning about the Bible as foundational, basic knowledge. Arizona state law doesn't ban the use of the Bible or other religious texts in the classroom as long as it is being used for academic purposes without intent on religious indoctrination.
"It is everywhere around us, and to say that I don't want my child exposed to that, then we might as well not have air and breathe because it is implemented into our society," Proud previously told MyFox Phoenix.
Critics were troubled by the curriculum, arguing that teaching religion and the Bible is tricky -- and teachers are often not sufficiently or properly trained to teach the subject effectively.
The curriculum also excludes other denominational materials like the Book of Mormon, Jewish and Hindu texts and the Quran. But Proud told the Arizona Daily Star in January that those additions aren't necessary.
"The Quran hasn't influenced Western culture the way the Bible has," she said, adding that students already learn about ancient religions like Greek and Roman gods in their coursework.
HB 2563 is one of two coursework-related proposals by Proud. HB 2473, which is still in the House, would allow high schools to offer an elective course on the "critical evaluation and examination of the Bible as a literary work" beginning June 30, 2013.
Brewer's move on Tuesday comes nearly two years after she signed a separate measure that axed a Tucson school district's ethnic studies program, which offered special courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies that focus on the history, literature and influence of those ethnic groups.
The measure was pushed forward by then-schools chief Tom Horne, who at the time said that the Mexican-American studies program taught Latino students that whites are their historic oppressors, adding that public schools should not encourage students to resent a particular race.
The ban in what protestors have called "ethnic cleansing" has drawn ire from the community and criticism from across the country. Despite widespread protests, the Tucson Unified School District voted last week not to renew the contract of Sean Arce, director of the district's now dismantled Mexican-American studies program."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:26:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 11:22:28 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
State-worship has evidently advanced to the point that one who fancies himself a rational soul can get all the way to the "so help me God" part before finding anything objectionable in a pledge that literally demands "faith" in government.

Good point.

Why should you have to pledge anything anyway just to graduate highschool?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:32:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:09:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:57:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

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.
http://legiscan.com...

I don't see why atheists are getting so upset. Why would they have a problem swearing to something that doesn't exist? Atheists should be able to make this pledge easily, as there is no compelling force to stop them from breaking their word, except themselves. So, the issue isn't "So help me God", it is the pledge itself, as the atheist can easily lie with no perceived reprecussuions.

My problem is that one is forced to be in school, and this is an allegience pledge, so a public school should not be coercing a pledge of this kind.

The only good outcome this can have is an attempt to weaken the public school system with an increase in demand for private schools.

Because atheists shouldn't have to lie about being atheists in order to advance in society. It's the same reason "Don't ask, Don't tell" was such an absurd policy.

Why the hell would you need to lie? I highly doubt they will care if an atheist signs it.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:37:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:32:00 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/26/2013 5:09:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:57:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

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.
http://legiscan.com...

I don't see why atheists are getting so upset. Why would they have a problem swearing to something that doesn't exist? Atheists should be able to make this pledge easily, as there is no compelling force to stop them from breaking their word, except themselves. So, the issue isn't "So help me God", it is the pledge itself, as the atheist can easily lie with no perceived reprecussuions.

My problem is that one is forced to be in school, and this is an allegience pledge, so a public school should not be coercing a pledge of this kind.

The only good outcome this can have is an attempt to weaken the public school system with an increase in demand for private schools.

Because atheists shouldn't have to lie about being atheists in order to advance in society. It's the same reason "Don't ask, Don't tell" was such an absurd policy.

Why the hell would you need to lie? I highly doubt they will care if an atheist signs it.

Soliciting help implies that you believe in that which you are soliciting help from. Agreeing to that as an atheist is a deceit. And obviously someone cares, otherwise why is it being proposed as a law?
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:43:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:37:04 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:32:00 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/26/2013 5:09:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:57:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

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.
http://legiscan.com...

I don't see why atheists are getting so upset. Why would they have a problem swearing to something that doesn't exist? Atheists should be able to make this pledge easily, as there is no compelling force to stop them from breaking their word, except themselves. So, the issue isn't "So help me God", it is the pledge itself, as the atheist can easily lie with no perceived reprecussuions.

My problem is that one is forced to be in school, and this is an allegience pledge, so a public school should not be coercing a pledge of this kind.

The only good outcome this can have is an attempt to weaken the public school system with an increase in demand for private schools.

Because atheists shouldn't have to lie about being atheists in order to advance in society. It's the same reason "Don't ask, Don't tell" was such an absurd policy.

Why the hell would you need to lie? I highly doubt they will care if an atheist signs it.

Soliciting help implies that you believe in that which you are soliciting help from. Agreeing to that as an atheist is a deceit. And obviously someone cares, otherwise why is it being proposed as a law?

Bull. 99% of the Oath is about the constitution, the "So help me God" is merely a formality to end it off. The constitution part is why it is a law.

Also, if you don't think god exists, why do you care about signing it. If I had to ask help from Zeus at the end of that oath I'd do it. Nothing says I need to acknowledge Zeus' existence to sign, it's merely a religious way of saying "good luck after college."
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This oath is about the constitution. "So help me god" under this context is a figure of speech, and refers more to the beliefs and interests of legislators and other authoritarians, rather than those of whom is reciting the oath. It is merely meant to denote greater seriousness. It is literally along the same lines as "I swear to god" or "goddammit." It's not like a required baptism.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:56:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:43:23 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:37:04 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:32:00 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/26/2013 5:09:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:57:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:03:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

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.
http://legiscan.com...

I don't see why atheists are getting so upset. Why would they have a problem swearing to something that doesn't exist? Atheists should be able to make this pledge easily, as there is no compelling force to stop them from breaking their word, except themselves. So, the issue isn't "So help me God", it is the pledge itself, as the atheist can easily lie with no perceived reprecussuions.

My problem is that one is forced to be in school, and this is an allegience pledge, so a public school should not be coercing a pledge of this kind.

The only good outcome this can have is an attempt to weaken the public school system with an increase in demand for private schools.

Because atheists shouldn't have to lie about being atheists in order to advance in society. It's the same reason "Don't ask, Don't tell" was such an absurd policy.

Why the hell would you need to lie? I highly doubt they will care if an atheist signs it.

Soliciting help implies that you believe in that which you are soliciting help from. Agreeing to that as an atheist is a deceit. And obviously someone cares, otherwise why is it being proposed as a law?

Bull. 99% of the Oath is about the constitution, the "So help me God" is merely a formality to end it off. The constitution part is why it is a law.

Then why have the "God" part, then? And it's status as a formality depends on who is verifying it. If you get someone who hates atheists, do you really think they're not going to strictly enforce this? Why give people like that the ability or power?


Also, if you don't think god exists, why do you care about signing it.

Because I shouldn't have to lie about being an atheist to get a diploma.

If I had to ask help from Zeus at the end of that oath I'd do it. Nothing says I need to acknowledge Zeus' existence to sign, it's merely a religious way of saying "good luck after college."

Except we don't live in a society that ostracizes people who disbelieve in Zeus.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:57:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:50:31 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This oath is about the constitution. "So help me god" under this context is a figure of speech, and refers more to the beliefs and interests of legislators and other authoritarians, rather than those of whom is reciting the oath. It is merely meant to denote greater seriousness. It is literally along the same lines as "I swear to god" or "goddammit." It's not like a required baptism.

The law would make it required.
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:59:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with the previous post that it is only a formality and that there is no pressure to acknowledge any God in specific. It should be more appropriate if they get rid of the last part, though. Just to avoid people with other religions or no religions getting discriminated, though.

By only teaching the Bible, the state sends the message that it only approves of only one religion without taking into account that there are a lot of mormons, and muslims in Arizona.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 1:13:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If it didn't say "help me God," nobody would say "gasp, they had to take a compulsory oath to the Constitution!"

*raises hand* I would. Because I view the Constitution as outdated rather than being some untouchable sacred cow that dictates morality and wisdom two hundred years after it was written.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.