By the way, I did submit a complaint to the ACLU regarding my experience, and no, they did not respond or seem to care too much.

I worked as a student for CSULB, grading physics papers for a menial sum of money for my professor. I too was fired from my job after a few months because I was unwilling to sign the oath in its unchanged format. This too was an action I have consistently taken regarding oaths because of the Quaker beliefs I have adopted into my life. It is a shame more fuss isn't made about it, and a change might come about. This was 3 or 4 years ago for me, so past my time of fight---I fought it as much as I could for a student who needed to maintain my good standing in order to get into grad school. I dropped it after I saw no one cared or thought I might have the right to change contracts I sign.

peaceman,

"Wow! I'm glad I returned to this article. KEM gets my endorsement on this one. All of us liberals disagree from time to time on approaches to problem solving but are aware of the Neo-Con infiltrators and their real intent."

Hi Peaceman,

I don't know how thoroughly you want to endorse Kempatrick. He insists that I am a neocon troll (Even though I loathe Bush and all he stands for) because I had the gall to to tell him that physics does not support his assertion that one nano-particle of DU has as much radioctive dose as ten thousand chest x-rays. He quoted it as being Einstein yet will provide no citation.

I don't dislike Kem, I simply believe that arguments are best based on facts not "phacts". A number of the links he posts to are from opinionated non-scientists and psuedo-scientists. The only peer reviewed work is published in non-industry journals and amounts to the choir preaching to the choir.

Thanks, skippyagogo41 and PhysicsTeacherGuy, for your very informative answers with respect to the question of requiring teachers to take an oath.

It's still not clear to me whether kids in school in Canada are required to make a pledge to the maple leaf flag and sing "O, Canada!", or anything like that.

Actually, skippyagogo, as a teacher in Canada and as a member of the public service, we do require an oath or affirmation. It can be a source of some friction and can be used to discriminate, but only under rare occasions. My experience has been that the only time it's lead to friction was when I altered an affirmation about secrecy to match my religious beliefs. As a Quaker, I insisted that I could not insist on secrecy over public good and safety. (Had I discovered nuclear smuggling or torture, for example, I was up front in telling them that I would neither ignore it nor keep quiet about it indefinitely.) The judge's decision was that I could not directly be discriminated against, and would keep my position (they couldn't fire me or insist that my job would now require jobs I couldn't do for this reason), but that if I maintained my views they could deny me secret and top secret clearance, and would have to find someone else to perform tasks needing that clearance. I wasn't thrilled but it did seem reasonable.

When testifying in court, or taking public office, we can also take an affirmation that we are telling the truth (no reference to "so help me God") instead of an oath, and here there has been no trouble.

Craig

wise guy,

Thanks for writing back.
It's all good.

This "loyalty oath" is a remnant of the McCarthy era when such oaths were seen as a tool to weed out evil communists. They should not even be legally acceptable. Last time I looked, teachers were not part of our armed services nor were they elected to powerful positions of leadership.

wise guy;
Yep, and a few of us have posted already on the issue from our point of view. I'll expand the experience from Canada, years ago - ages really - when the British Empire was still running our students had those patriotic spectacles. We'd swear allegence to the King and Empire, learn how we were a happy Imperial family, take pride in the unbeatable might of the Royal Navy... Then WWI happened, people started to realise that the lower classes were the first to fight, first to die. By WWII there was still a good deal of love for the Empire - even if the empire had all but died at that point (without WWII it might have survived and recovered). After losing way too many people for the idea of King and Empire, we dropped the oathtaking in school. We still swear oaths, when testifying in court, when serving in the military, when elected to office. But for a job? Not gonna happen. Blind loyalty has gone out of favour, too many die when that is practiced. Let's hope you don't have to learn that lesson the way we did.

Nope, it's the Hungarian ceramic flute players who are next.

What the hell does teaching math have to do with defending the constitution?

If she were to actually live up to her oath, she would have to defend it against Bush and Cheney

I hear that the Amish computer teachers are next

pinhead bureacrats with no understanding truth or the law
and most likely educated well beyond their intelligence.

NRA Freedom:

Thanks for your response about Mexico and its school flag salute and national anthem.

Aren't there any people in this discussion in or from Canada or Europe or elsewhere? I still believe it would be interesting to know what goes on in other nations in this regard.

imfedup:

I apologize for my remarks the other evening. I shouldn't hit the button too late at night or after a couple of glasses of wine. I am involved in another discussion group, one exclusively for persons committed to the abolition of capital punishment, as opposed to being a forum for debate on whether to abolish it (abolitionists having enough differences of opinions among ourselves on strategies, etc.). Of course CommonDreams, by contrast, is *not* limited to progressives, but open to all ranges of opinion. I believe that I had the two situations blurred together in the back of my mind.

everyone:

This story has now appeared also in the San Jose Mercury News and in USA Today online:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/calif-teacher-f.html

A few comments have been posted on the story at the URL above.

According to the article, part of the oath is:

"...that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion..."

but if you can be fired for refusing to sign it without modification, that pretty much guarantees that some people will sign it without taking the obligation freely. Therefore, the policy of enforcing the loyalty oath is inherently self-contradictory. To enforce it is to guarantee its violation.

It should be noted that folks in the Quaker tradition, as in the tradition of the Anabaptist peace churches (e.g. Mennonites and Church of the Brethren) tend to take the question of truth-telling very seriously, so while someone else might say, "oh just sign the thing, it doesn't matter," it's not surprising that someone in the Quaker tradition would balk at this.

The Man, "Your comment is awaiting moderation."

A few of us had the same problem and I haven't a clue what it's about. I've had that moderation thing about 5 or 6 times and only once my blog wasn't published. The other times it was some sort of delayed reaction and my post was added to the Comments section 15 or 20 minutes later.???

KEM, 2;19am-well said. There is an interesting website dealing with health issues and those unfamiliar with it, it is www.mercola.com and Dr. Mercola presents his viewpoint on another's topic and then the readers can comment. Before it is posted, the content is evaluated for foul language and derogatory remarks and if it doesn't qualify the computer says so. As KEM mentioned yesterday, other sites with similar guidelines do the same thing. Using foul language isn't necessary for venting frustration at "the system." The dictionary is abundant with expletives without having to fall back on the 'F' word.

PAX

TheMan, perhaps I need to moderate my tone. My intent was to show irritation, not to shame. Thanks for your perspective.

Never heard of that on this forum ~The Man~. I understand some sites delay posting a comment, to insure there is no foul language etc and then there is a computer program to contend with also.

I appreciate your posts ~THE MAN~. Obviously you have much to offer, and that is how we learn from one another. If you have been reading here for some time, you may be aware of a blogger named ~Namaste~. He is a very fine person and an intellectual. He also displays a high degree of honesty and good common sense. This is what he had to say on another thread about the ~Lizard~.

"When someone's agenda goes so far as to actually thwart an open discussion and just add sand to the gears, those people are BEYOND minor irritation and RIGHTFULLY labeled as saboteurs and trolls.

It's all about another's beliefs and respecting and TRUSTING in people's common desire, to share openly and HONESTLY. __ When one violates those norms, there are NATURAL consequences: Anger, shunning and combative attitudes".....

What does:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Mean?

Actually I've come to this site for quite a while I only just started writing. It seems to me that for every foul mouthed thread lizard writes, instead of responding with insults you could respond with a polite disagreement. However, even without lizard there is a lot of insulting and condescending behavior from people who disagree. The other people I mentioned are not trying to cause trouble like lizard, but they still use insults to silence those they disagree with.

They are new ~Peaceman~, they don't know us "longer timers" yet. Lizard is new also and an obvious disruptive person. All of his comments are readily available, to any who wish to check his name in the archives. Thank you for the assistance ~Peaceman~. Keep your eyes out for the new trolls. I have never seen so many here in such a short period of time.

Wow! I'm glad I returned to this article. KEM gets my endorsement on this one. All of us liberals disagree from time to time on approaches to problem solving but are aware of the Neo-Con infiltrators and their real intent.

Lodowick_Muggleton and The Man mean well and maybe are new to Common Dreams. If you are you'll understand KEM PATRICK's concern for the integrity of this section of the website.

And as you so very well pointed out ~THE MAN~ "when police use infiltrators to disrupt left wing organizations" etc. That is exactly what Lizard and several others are attempting here at Common Dreams. Lizard and others, ~Tirebiter~, ~PDF~, ~Ascott~, ~Mr. Obvious~ etc. Some have been banned from other progressive threads and now have invaded this site. Common Dreams does not ban anyone.

Check it out. See what several others said about Lizard on last Saturday's thread which is now readily available in the archives. It's titled, ___ "GM Exec Says Global Warming is A Crock Of Shit."___ The lizard agreed with him. His posts were incredible.

Now I can shut up and ignore him and the others who are like him. They'll take it over however, if we don't attempt to point them out, or shut them off. Is that what you would wish? I do believe you are a newcomer here and don't want to see it destroyed by Neo-Con infiltrators. ___ Do you?

"And, no, this did not start with the evil Calderon. They have been doing it from day one."

And which day one would that happen to be?

The oath of alligience is as outdated as the fundamentalists bible.
Both need to be rewritten to come into the 21st century!

Sorry THE MAN, but this is how it is.

The Lizard posted 75 comment on one thread, says he's a practicing MD. He may post for over eight hours a day during week days, denying global warming and other progressive issues is an issue. A practicin gMD who can sit and write blogs here daily fr hours at a time? He was blasted by at least ten others on that important subject thread for his disruptive comments, some of which were often rude to many others.

He had posted 29 before I chided him and asked him to debate the issue sensibly. He refused. If I ignore him, or if you ignore him, he stays on and hits thread after thread. He and at least a dozen others like him, have recently invaded this forum. They offer little, they cause friction amongst us, such as the comments you made here about me.

They are neo-con trolls and should be pointed out. So don't criticize me please, I enjoy learning here and don't wish to see it taken over by neo-cons who only wish to corrupt this fine site fo rth ebenefit of the Bushies.

"it's gettin shitier in every city"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8Zrtah1AQ

I'm beginning to believe that the government doesn't love us anymore.

"Based on the advice of counsel, we cannot permit attachments or addenda that are incompatible and inconsistent with the oath," the campus' human resources manager, JoAnne Hill, wrote to Kearney-Brown."

To me, the changes do not alter the intention of the oath.

As a Quaker, I would not be comfortable signing an oath - at least not for that job - maybe if I was being sworn in as President, since it is integral to that job. Violence is against our beliefs. The point about conscientious objectors being given non-combat jobs is, I think, relevant. Teaching is not a combat job as it is generally conceived.

We are allowed to affirm, rather than swear, in court - always, no problem. The idea is that by swearing one implies that on this ocassion one will tell the truth, implying that one does not always tell the truth. Our belief is to always tell the truth. Therefore we merely affirm.

We do not pledge allegiance to the flag because our allegiance is to God, not to a flag or country/government.

Other 'Peace Churches' are the Mennonites and the Brethern, both of which are very active in the peace movement. But, we dress as other people, so you would not know just seeing.

Realdim, sounds like a good blend buddy. Here's an answer to your query. From one tiny corner of this Universe; specifically Nothern California; land of the mighty & fragile Redwoods. My evermost hope, every day, is that the Military/ Industrial complex; the war profiteers, the cabal of doom led by traitors to the USA -and all they do in Her name. My hope is that they dont succeed. That they are stopped in their tracks. Perhaps extra-renditioned all the way tho the Hague, where International Law, morals , standards will prevail. Hey, thanks for asking. Cheers.

I laughed so hard at the Jesus does Multiplication joke. Thanks 4theFuture.

I think that the quaker queries and advices (they dont have rules, just questions to wrestle with)offer an insight into the choices of Kearney-Brown

Query number 38 asks:
"If pressure is brought upon you to lower your standard of integrity, are you prepared to resist it? Our responsibilities to God and our neighbour may involve us in taking unpopular stands. Should you let the desire to be sociable, or the fear of seeming peculiar, determine your decisions?".

a bit of a leading question to be sure, a gentle directive almost, but it speaks to her circumstances and I think she began answering it each day she affirmed her decision to listen clearly to her conscience.

perhaps Endarchy is a better term than Anarchy for quakers- "rule from within" rather than An-Archon (greek roots for "without rulers" or Anarchy)

It is so hard when we are in a discussion to listen tenderly to eachother and our needs our loyalties and our hopes laid out with such conviction. It is difficult to hear someones view which conflicts with our own and still be respectful of it, to hold it for searching and seeking understanding of it without having to adopt it as our own.

How do we respect that of goodness in everyone's diverse opinions though it may be expressed in unfamiliar ways or be difficult to discern? Each of us has a particular experience of life and each must find the way to be true to it.

We are all learning, we are all struggling in every moment to try to make sense of our realities. When words are strange or disturbing to us, can we try to sense where others are coming from and what has nourished their lives? I find it so hard to listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for me.

I steady myself with remembering what comes of failing to avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language. Sometimes this can be a helpful way to slow down which does not as easily allow the strength of my gut reaction convictions to betray me into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue.

I have to always think it possible that I may be mistaken and that i might learn something and be enriched by another's insights if i listen care- fully.

I am my best as a sharer of what I value when I open myself in listening.

So here is my question for any interested to answer it;
What do you most hope for in this time of struggle and uncertainty in America? What are you personally wrestling with in your corner of the country?

Hey the Quaker teacher should be counting her lucky stars this happened in Amerika and not China. She may have been jailed as a political, religious dissident and had her organs harvested.

Sounds like, California State University East Bay is now run by a subsidiary of The Chinese Govt. or just people that are more comfortable with that level of political supression. Heil Mao. Or as more eloquently put, " Modifying the oath "is very clearly not permissible," the university's attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. "It's an unfortunate situation. If she'd just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing.."

Late note to 4thefuture,
Great sense of humor! Your last comment gave me a good chuckle.
Cheers

Listen to The Man!
Well spoken sir.

I must agree with lodowick_muggleton when she says:

"I think the Fascists are winning if the discussion on this article is so far mired in insults and character assassination and taunts...
It is important that we all listen to each other and let the ideas we all bring season for a bit before shooting back at a non enemy."

Often I feel that these forums get too personal and insulting, but this one is becoming especially so. We have to be able to state our opinions and agree to disagree. Perhaps we may occasionally turn to sarcasm, but disrespecting one another is not only hurtful, but counter productive. It's the kind of thing that drives progressives apart, and stops us from getting things done. When the police use infiltrators in left wing groups they often use such shaming and extremist tactics to break up organizations (I am not implying anyone here is an infiltrator). When we talk to people outside our community, who we are trying to reach out to, such divisive attitudes only drive them away. We sound like the religious right: only WE know what is RIGHT.

For instance realdim compared the oath to other more intrusive actions we are expected to take like selective service and drug tests, and then said:

"And now you're in a pother because some math teacher has been axed for refusing to sign an oath of loyalty to your constitution - not because it's a patently absurd condition of her employment, but because she has RELIGIOUS objections to what doing so might entail?"

More sarcastic than necessary, but not insulting, and a valid opinion whether or not you agree with it. Then serious professor said:

"Supporting one basis for objection does not automatically negate all other bases.
You may also want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "academic freedom" before you further embarrass yourself by the use of minimizing language."

A valid opinion but personally shaming. To his credit realdim's response was less sarcastic and not personally insulting to serious professor.

imfedup and curmudgeon99 were having a debate. They were in disagreement but a healthy disagreement. Then wise guy chimed in with:

"Obviously, you'd like her to sign a Hypocritical Oath.
Are you really fed-up or just full-of-it?
By the way, there's no apostrophe in "its" (possessive), and it's "religious" and not "religous".
What are you doing on this forum?"

This is a personal put down and needless insult. To his credit imfedup did not return the insult. Despite his opinion he took the more 'Quaker' path.

Worst of all is the pointless and derogatory insult contest between KEM PATRICK and lizard. This is enough to cause anyone who is curious about progressive thought to run away and never look back. What is all this macho posturing supposed to achieve?

Being a progressive means having respect for others opinions and treating people with respect. None of us are perfect, and sometimes we get a little insensitive, but personal attacks are just unacceptable. I come here expecting a mostly safe and inclusive atmosphere. If this is how we treat one another then no wonder we loose every political battle. If you need to take your aggression out on someone then go to an ultra right wing website. Who wants to belong to a movement whose members spew such hatred at one another? I don't mean to demonize anyone here; I just don't like this unnecessary nastiness. Don't we get enough of this from the institutions we are trying to change?

Any who wish to check that thread out can do so "DOCTOR", "scienitst" PHD Lizard, and see how you distort the facts and the truth and that you are a neo-con troll. I admire education and those who have earned it. I don't admire obvious liars. BTW I seldom spout my education, or the fact that I was once a history teacher at the Air Force Academy when it was still at lowery Field in Denver.

Is that a fact ~Lizard~? Well if you go to the archives here and click on last Saturdays ariticle, ( GM exec says global warming is a crock of shit ), there are over 400 comments, over 60 were yours. Others believe you are a bald faced liar also and a troll and only three of the over 70 bloggers agreed with you on the issue and the rest agreed with me. Piss off troll, your type deserve no civiltry or respect here, as Namaste so well posted.

re: realdim
"Academic freedom doesn't mean much when qualified teachers must submit to an absurd patriot test..."

Exactly.

Someone who opposes the stupid oath on religious grounds may not be using my preferred argument, but he or she is still an ally.

serious professor wrote: "You may also want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "academic freedom" before you further embarrass yourself by the use of minimizing language."

Academic freedom doesn't mean much when qualified teachers must submit to an absurd patriot test ("bear true faith and allegiance" - according to whom?) to get it, and to compromise their intellectual integrity by swearing that they have done so "freely" when their livelihood's on the line.

Maybe a Quaker can win an exemption to this ridiculous condition of public employment in California, and maybe that will embolden a Jew or Wiccan to follow suit. But they'll have to argue that their religious beliefs are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the State of California, and that they're "real" Quakers or Jews or Wiccans.

Article VI, section 3: " ... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Religious exemptions are just indulgences by another name. Scrap the stupid oath.

They always insisted that "It Can't Happen Here"...but look!....it already has. America has no room for free-thinkers.

----------------------------------------

"I will not kiss your f***ing flag
there is some sh*t I will not eat"

-- e. e. cummings [ "i sing of Olaf glad and big" ]

OldBadgertoo, 3;13pm

What happened to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan will undoubtedly happen to Fascist America.

The sub-prime loan debacle will be the least of our worries.

All this confirms is what the rest of the world already knows: the US is a violent power determined to assert its interests by any means it chooses.

Lodowick Muggleton:
Thank YOU for your excellent post.Your cogent remarks should be a 'text-book' for any of the posters who do not have a clue about who and what the Quakers comprise.

You have NOT WRITTEN TOO MUCH RE THIS SUBJECT.YOU HAVE TOUCHED THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG when it comes to the Quakers of this world.
the Graypanther

P.S. Send a copy of your concise monograph to E. Chan,please.Perhaps it will illuminate the tunnel vision of her litigator's mind.

I think the Fascists are winning if the discussion on this article is so far mired in insults and character assassination and taunts. If we cant have plain language discussion on an issue without these distractions then we will no get anywhere on untangling them. How do we manage our most small interactions- that is a microcosm of our community our province (state), nation and world.

It is important that we all listen to eachother and let the ideas we all bring season for a bit before shooting back at a non enemy.

We only have about 1200 quakers in Canada but they have a big effect here. Ursula Franklin is our Kenneth Boulding( a US Quaker Economist and Parent of Modern Systems Theory).

As for the stockades and Shunning etc... Kendpotter commented on : a question of clarity . Are you referring to how Mary Dyer and other early Quakers on these shores were greeted? or is it in reference to some error of the Quakers themselves which I am not aware of? I know they have used shunning in their distant past.

It is only natural that a legalist state-ist person is going to be upset by free thinking quaker modifications of their oaths. Quakers have made many significant changes in history and that can be a frightening thing, change means temporary disequilibrium. And if you are currently in control (or controlled by power's demands but thinking you are actually in control) losing this burden can be frightening.

In the UK they were banned from attending state and church universities, so had to content themselves with inventing modern atomic theory at their home rolled colleges in manchester (john Dalton) they also started frightening changes like the move towards juries in courts, penitentiaries rather than dungeons (though they are working to eliminate punitive jail systems and replacing them with restorative and transformative justice systems.

They are not ashamed of saying that they are Faith driven Anarchists, they tried to eliminate slavery (still working on that one), regard all people as equals, ignored rank and hierarchy, refuse to particpate in killing, and run the QUNO office across the street from the UN so that when the UN negotiations hit an impasse nations can privately meet with a skilled mediator to resolve their problems.

They were instrumental in forming the UN (league of nations) won a Nobel peace prize, and they are a frighteningly weird bunch of people to a traditional thinker.

Quaker people meddling in and just plain being out of step have included- Parker Palmer (courage to Teach Author- Fabulous Educator), Willaim Penn (Pennsylvania), Betsy Ross, Thomas Paine, Dolly Madison, Susan B Anthony, Jane Addams(invented social work), Elizabeth fry(mental Health and Prison Reformer, Female newspaper reformer) , Mary Calderone (pioneered sex ed in schools).

Even their actors and musicians ore unable to be anything other than oddballs and rebels: James Dean, Judi Dench, Ben KIngsley, Tom Robinson(Gave the Clash and Ska a help up when they were startng, Gay Rights Activist), Bonnie Raitt, Joan BAez, David Rovics, Dave Matthews, David Byrne (talking Heads Singer), Edward R. Murrow, Walt Whitman, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Piers Anthony.

Despite the Cereal/oats sterotypes they are not the Amish, they have contributed to science Joseph Lister And Joseph Lister Sr. - (LIsterine and compound microscope), James Logan (inventer of Conestoga Wagon-think Oregon Trail), Ezra Cornell and Johns Hopkins(university Founders, and Cornell a national Telegraph system founder),and I cant think of his name but the locomotive was invented by a british Quaker.

George Cadbury, Joseph Rowntree and Edward Fry's Cocoa (the quaker quirky Chocolate barons who Willy Wonka was modelled after- Inventors of Fair Trade Movement over 100 years ago), John W. Seybold (computerized typesetting inventor), Thomas Lurtig (Non-violent capturor Barbary Pirates) and tons more.

Darby was a quaker and he invented and ran cast iron foundries, Gerard Winstanly invented Communism, Emil Fuchs (christian Socialist Theologian- german and anti-Nazi activist), Svetlana Sotiroff MacDonald (Same Sex Marriage Activist), Al RAe- Canadian Comedian, Robert Barclay (quaker theologian whose works inspire the wesley brother to start Methodism).

They were instrumental in founding AFSC, the Womens international League for Peace and Freedom, Oxfam, Peace Action, Peace Brigades, Christaian Peacemaker Teams, Friends Ambulance Teams, Genocide Intervention network, and other subversive groups.

I know why they are being spied on by your government in America, and kept out of jobs- They are crazy mystics guided by the whims of "The Spirit" and their consciences so they are like herding cats to lord over, in other words a nightmare for linear thinking authoritarians.

They regard Democracy as a least of evils, Consensus as not consultative enough, and they run their organizations with no leaders, clergy hierarchy. Their witnesses for Peace, equality, integrity and Simplicity if practiced nation wide would surely destroy your economy as you know it.They actually want to turn the world upside down like the bilble says.

If you want to disrupt a fascist state drop a thousand quakers in over their border and let them work for the government there. I fully understand why they are kept out of teaching young minds. Students of Quakers have done very scary things like set up the Mayo Clinic, joined suffragette movements, freed their slaves, and dumped their stockpiled weapons into the ocean.

They punch above their weight (is that an innappropriate way to say that they have a disproportionately big influence on the world given their small numbers?) and a quaker gone bad is a scary thing (Richard Nixon is to Quakers what Darth Vader is to the Jedi).

I think I have written too much, I will read other's comments now. In short They really throw things for a loop with their out of step ways.

Lodowick Muggleton

This case is a perfect example of small-minded lower level bureaucrats who don't understand the rules they are enforcing. That includes the state attorney who cited an off point and irrelevant appellate case, which ruled against "a gratuitous injection of the applicant's religious beliefs into the governmental process." Gratuitous means "uncalled for", and in this case it implies "irrelevant." But the insertion of the single word "nonviolent" in this case is clearly not irrelevant, especially to the teacher. She takes the oath seriously and wants it to be perfectly clear that signing it does not mean she is required to use violence contrary to her. Her alteration in no way undermines or evades the essence of the oath. On the other hand, it's clear that both sides of this case are taking things far, far too literally, reminding of the old philosophical nitpicking debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Tom Edgar, and shakker,

Very good posts.

It clearly violates a principle of the Quaker belief to threaten violence and make oaths over trivial matters. There is no punishment for those who do not follow this oath or even a program to verify compliance, so the oath is trivial. I believe a Quaker can take an oath in court on serious matters - trials etc.

Where are the people who believe in LIBERTY and freedom of religion in this country? George Washington made an effort to accommodate all the soldiers' religions as well as agnostics and atheists as general of the Continental army. Ben Franklin probably a deist of no particular group donated to all the churches where he lived because he felt they helped people socialize and help the unfortunate.

Now we have people who believe their religion (including the biggest religion money and power) or atheism give them the right to interfere with every private and public aspect of everyone's life. Most just argue why they should get to pick all the morals.

People who have read my postings before know I oppose abortion for birth control - the most common use -, but they always miss the part where rather than just outlawing it, I want education, social thought change, safe sex, adoption options and the social safety net to make it unnecessary in as many cases as possible.

Tom Edgar said "May I respectfully point out that Jesus Christ himself would decline to take the "Oath". Presumably wouldn't qualify for a teaching position either."
I'm not sure Jesus would be qualified to teach math. As I recall, he had some issues with multiplication which got way out of hand.

Lodowick_Muggleton,

Excellent comments.

By the way, the highest form of democracy is anarchism. Mention that word to a million people and maybe only a thousand understand the true concept. Communalism sounds better as in "one for all and all for one."

The black magicians have taken over this planet for many a millenium and perfected the art of deceit and manipulation of the masses. We The People, not only in the United States, but in EVERY country and principality on this globe need a renewal of free thought and to question everything as the Master Teacher instructed and "To hold fast that which is good."

I have the greatest respect for the Quakers. They haven't been fooled.

re: realdim
"And now … now you're in a pother because some math teacher has been axed for refusing to sign an oath of loyalty to your constitution (which is just so much bumwad these days anyhow) - not because it's a patently absurd condition of her employment, but because she has RELIGIOUS objections to what doing so might entail?"

Incorrect.
Supporting one basis for objection does not automatically negate all other bases.
You may also want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "academic freedom" before you further embarrass yourself by the use of minimizing language.

Speaking of oaths...The Girl Scout organization, being far more progressive than the homophobic Boy Scouts, states in the girls' handbook that it's perfectly acceptable to change the part of the Girl Scout pledge, "...to serve God..." by substituting any word or deity that is most consistent with the girl's own beliefs. The first time my good secular humanist daughter said, "...to serve humanity..." she received a nasty look from the leader, who afterwards had a hard time masking her hostility towards a girl she perceived as an anti-Christian smart ass. I guess she hadn't read the handbook. We found a new troop.

Hey PATRICK: You are so impressed by degrees that I conclude you wanted one, and it bothers you that I have a bunch. Maybe you tried and failed, or maybe you didn't have the chance and wonder about lost opportunities. Be at peace, you wouldn't have managed to get through a Ph.D. anyway, you are a shallow thinker. Maybe that's why you are on the wrong side of almost any issue.

What's the problem here? As George the Second is reputed to have said, "it's just a goddamn piece of paper". But maybe adding her own signing statement constitutes an act of lese-majestie in today's America.

If teachers start acting ethically, where will it all end?

I don't get it: Americans have been registering for the draft as a precondition to going to college and submitting to piss tests as a precondition to working at Wal-Mart for decades already. And now ... now you're in a pother because some math teacher has been axed for refusing to sign an oath of loyalty to your constitution (which is just so much bumwad these days anyhow) - not because it's a patently absurd condition of her employment, but because she has RELIGIOUS objections to what doing so might entail? Talk about conceding the agenda.

I stand in solidarity with Ms. Kearney-Brown and offer
her any assistance that will be helpful.

Cindy@CindyforCongress.org

Love & Peace
Cindy

Off topic, but on my mind...

Approximately 25% of Seattle voters recently altered or refused to sign an oath to a political party during our primary election. The signer was swearing to not participate in any other campaigns or caucus events other than those for their avowed candidate and that they were officially declaring one of "The Big Two" as their party.

Those votes did not count.

Luckily, we are a VERY blue-green state.

On topic and in agreement with most everyone, Marianne Kearney-Brown is wonderful. How refreshing to see anyone actually read, understand, and take responsibility for the things they sign.

May I respectfully point out that Jesus Christ himself would decline to take the "Oath". Presumably wouldn't qualify for a teaching position either.

According to his word, and I can think of no other more highly placed, everybody who has ever sworn an oath for whatever reason, has disobeyed Jesus Christ's injunction in "The sermon on the mount." "SWEAR YE NOT OATHS. LET YOUR YEA BE YEA AND YOUR NAY BE NAY." Sure would muck up a lot of legal procedures and Politician's speeches.

Tom Edgar

tomedgar@halenet.com.au

What's funnier than requiring msierably-salaried employees to sign unalterable oaths of fidelity to a state which allows corporations to repudiate obligations to retired employees & flouts international agreements & ignores borders or any humane protocols whenever its untouchable officials happen to feel like it?

What a turgid dismal place the United States of Arseholes has become.

I would bet that the administrator who fired Marianne Kearney-Brown was once a coach. Jocks think this way, not academics. Kearney-Brown learned a lesson that will be repeated many times in her life. Truth and courage are unwelcome in America and will cost you dearly.

I'm not trying to criticize the Quaker teacher, and if she can get her fellow teachers to strike for her reinstatement I think that would be great. The big thing I'm saying is that I don't think this happened because of the continuing move toward totalitarianism. I think it happened because our authoritarian system invites sporadic abuse from employers. The other Quaker teacher in the article changes her loyalty oath every year. She is able to do this because she has a different boss. We've all had jobs where one boss made a big deal out of petty rules and other bosses only cared if we did our jobs, or where one day your boss is screaming at you for petty stuff and the next he/she is complimenting you for the doing the same job the same way. I think this is ultimately what happened to this teacher; she got the wrong boss. I admire her for her convictions, and I'm sorry if people thought I was puting her down. What I was trying to say is that I think this particular event was the result of a petty bureaucrat more than McCarthyism.

I understand and respect why a loyalty oath would be important to a Quaker. I respect the Quaker phylosophy of nonviolence; my father had a Quaker teacher who became a Quaker after being part of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. That story has always stuck with me. For me, the Loyalty Oath wouldn't mean much. I have a lot of functional problems due to mental illness that made work very difficult for me, and I made some compromises because getting a job at all was very hard for me. I don't think a teacher should be made to sign an Oath at all.

I made an email account with the name George W. Bush on my domain http://IraqiAgony.Org

Then I sent this email to Mo.Qayoumi@csueastbay.edu .

Subject: I would like to personally thank you...

I would like to personally thank you for your participation and complicity in ensuring this troublesome nonviolent teacher be showed the door for her exhibiting these, by the state, unacceptable views.

That she had gotten away with this, oath ammendment, twice in the past, tells me there needs to be some stirring up in the ranks of the educational establishment. We can't have people teaching children who are not wholly dedicated and willing to brutalize people to protect the constitution if that's what the constitution protecting calls for.

For your being so sweetly in service to this massive machinery of state, I am going to personally see to your disintegration as being swift and painless. If you get in peak physical condition, figure out how to clean up your fungal mess of manhood and anus AND learn to mean it when you moan, I just might even give you the pleasure of Georgie once or twice before you're disposed of. So if you're at all fleshly motivated, I urge you to hit the gym and be sure to do plenty of toe touch stretching.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush

Quakers believe in telling the truth, hence they do not believe in swearing to tell the truth, but affirm that they are telling the truth, a semantic thing, but one which is well known in legal circles and should have raised no flags. This is an unnecessary tempest in a teapot. They should apologize to her and rehire her, if she would still be willing to work for these fools.

I think this is an acceptable compromise. I mean it's ridiculous that the administration even cared, but that's what authorities do; they indiscriminately pick on employees for minor infractions mattering on their mood. Keeping this in mind the separate note compromise seems fine. We all know the oath doesn't mean anything anyway.

***

You're not a Quaker, I take it.

With all due respect, signing or saying out loud something that is or that amounts to an oath goes directly against Quaker beliefs. You would not, I hope, demand that a catholic remove the cross from around her neck, or that a Jew remove his yarmulke, or that a Muslim remove her hijab, in order to teach.

This is discrimination. I hope the ACLU is listening.

wise guy

Thanks for the spelling corrections. Even I miss a few every now and then. As for being on this website?
Oh I'm full of it all right and practicing one those constitutional rights that I swore to defend... you know.. free speech. Is that okay with you? Or are you one of those "you're either with us or against us"
personalities?
Have a nice night sir.

imfedup:

You wrote in response to curmudgeon99: "What you said makes no sense at all… Defending the constitution does not compromise one's religous beliefs. If she were a doctor would you have her not sign the Hippocratic Oath?"

Obviously, you'd like her to sign a Hypocritical Oath.

Are you really fed-up or just full-of-it?

By the way, there's no apostrophe in "its" (possessive), and it's "religious" and not "religous".

What are you doing on this forum?

on the Web page of the president of East Bay:

"Together let us shape the future of CSUEB by imagining entirely new possibilities - and new heights - for our university."

yepper

Bay Area progressives, please step up.

I think Jerry Brown, Barbara Lee, Matthew Gonzalas, Cindy Sheehan are true progressives. These four and many others will not let this injustice stand.

We'll see . . .

I was greatly encouraged to note that she was only fired from her job and not imprisoned along with the 1% of the american population that is incarcerated. However she should have known better than to pull a stunt like that.

If you think about it, what she did was and is perfectly legitimate in the current political climate. After all, President Bush issues signing statements when he signs legal documents. That is essentially what Marianne Kearney-Brown did.

Litigators are contentious by nature. Chan needs a complete mind-set over- haul.She is flexing her litigator muscles at the expense of a member of a very peaceable sect.She will find that discriminating against such a sect foolhardy,most especially when there are those in Washington flouting the Rule of Law every day in every way,while all this lady is doing is living by a creed we would do well to heed and respect.
E.Chan you are not in the arena of a court room.You are now having your 15 minutes of infamy.See to it that the Quaker math teacher is rehired,and stop your discrimination against Quaker tenets.Do a quick attitude adjustment or my group will forever label you a racist.

curmudgeon99
To be forced to sign the oath as originally written is denial of her religious belief. It is compulsion to require her to do so in violation of her beliefs.

what don't you understand about that?

What you said makes no sense at all... Defending the constitution does not compromise one's religous beliefs.
If she were a doctor would you have her not sign the Hippocratic Oath?

Do you also realize that teachers in California don't really get their social security back? Many teachers don't pay it while they are teaching but they paid it before they taught. It is called "double dipping". The govt says that because teachers have a pension they can't have their social security too. If they want the SS monty it is deducted from their pension. Now, considering the low pay most teachers have earned most of their career and then having ANYTHING deducted from it is pretty bad.Why do we pretend we really care about teachers or even kids. We don't. If we did they would be a priority and they are not. Lip service is all they get. Our society does not value children or those who work with them.

Sieg Heil, CSUEB. You don't deserve a teacher this conscientious.

Lincoln was no hero ~Lizard~? He is not revered for being a hero Canuke. Lincoln saved the Union. He wasn't a perfect person,___ who Is?

You on the other hand, CLAIM to be a practicing MD, and a scientist of some type, with a PHD in geology and you often post comments here for several hours a day, more than 80 last Monday alone, denying Global Warming is an issue and agreeing with the president of GM, who states that global warming is a crock of shit. What type of medical practice do you have Lizard? ___ Get off of Lincoln Lizzy.

I____ do solemnly swear that I will violently support and defend the constitution of the United States and State of California against all enemies, foreign (control by international oil corporations) and domestic (including the anti constitutional Bush Administration).

Get lost, no one defends the constitution, least of all, those in power. They should make this teacher president, as she is incapable of lying.

To Marianne...

Another 'troublemaker' once spoke about those who strive to follow the letter of the law and not it's spirit.

He believed in nonviolence too.

To all of us...

This article brought to mind what is the definition of freedom?

It also brought to mind just how fearful we are becoming of freedom. How many would dare stand so firmly as did Marianne? It's so much easier just to sign. She did not disavow the oath nor refuse to support the constitution.

Even the military recognizes conscientious objectors ... it took a fight in court but sometimes freedom does. As of yet the right to nonviolence is not recognized legally for civilians. Perhaps Marianne's case should be fought in the courts to establish that right (one that is recognized elsewhere).

Moreover by what legal standing does the employer take upon themselves the right to define themselves as arbiters of compliance over another citizen? Their only right was to take her to court and let it be decided there.

To paraphrase and oft quoted line >>> the only fear we need fear is the fear of our own freedom.

Of course many will say Marianne is just another troublemaker.

When it comes to nonviolence... it's been said before.

Loyalty Oath? You already sing to the flag, and prance around like the USA is perfect and couldn't possibly be in need of oversight or amendment. Dump nationalism guys. It's the 'racism' most favoured by the fascists wanting to enslave you.

It's a given that if a foreign military force is coming down my street shooting my neighbors, I would fight... So would you regardless of the country you live in. Loyalty oath? What absolute twaddle and an embarrassment for any nation that stands up and claims that they are the "home of the brave and land of the free" - more like the "land of the scared shit-less." It's not a good look.

My suspicions have been confirmed. America is crumbling before
our eyes. An "Institution of Higher Learning" is requiring an
oath supporting killing while Bush has destroyed the constitution. What about Bush's signing statements??

Teachers do not teach what would help the constitution, such as the fact that Lincoln was no hero. Clearly, the teachers don't understand their oath. The same is true for all soldiers except Watada. Are teachers teaching their students what violations of the constitution are taking place right now? I don't think so. They are in violation of their oath.

So a teacher is fired for not properly signing an oath of allegiance..........and what of all those who have signed this oath yet haven't taken a stand for the Constitution? Isn't this Rep. Pelosi's state......you know 'Impeachment is off the table Nancy'? What are the students to learn from this? Say whatever or just outright lie to keep your job?

It seems to be getting worse folks.......how many of you feel like I do that we don't have a legally
sitting government? Yes, they are sitting in the offices, but by what right, certainly not the Constitution. Maybe, might makes right....we've got the power and the money and the guns so who needs the Constitution according to George it's just an old piece of paper anyway. Seems strange they come for the teacher who refuses to lie as they have. But, maybe, if we had really been paying attention it wouldn't seem so strange just the further progression of what upon awaking will be the nightmare of what was once America land of the free and home of the brave no more.

Yeah I know some thngs ~Kendpotter~. For example your're a big mouth nuker fan with no sense of humor and one who thinks DU is not a problem. But I do like to joke around sometimes and not get to serious about everything. So, I don't take your usual barbs and snide comments against me seriously.

FASCISM

COULD IT BE ANY MORE OBVIOUS?

If all the employees of California State University East Bay sign the oath then it seems quite clear that the person who terminated Ms Kearney-Brown's employment broke their own oath by failing to apply the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I guess there is no freedom of religion at CSU East Bay and Ms Kearney-Brown should easily win a suit for wrongful dismissal due to abrogation of her Constitutional rights.

imfedup,

To be forced to sign the oath as originally written is denial of her religious belief. It is compulsion to require her to do so in violation of her beliefs.

what don't you understand about that?

The sad thing about this is that it occurred, not at Halliburton or KBR, but at a university. I hope the teacher hires a good lawyer and gives the school a civics lesson.

Does anyone know whether other nations require their school children to worship their national flag and whether they require loyalty oaths of their teachers and / or other employees?

I would be surprised if such practices are not mainly found in countries with repressive governments--those that torture prisoners, hold prisoners indefinitly without charge, commit capital punishment, stifle freedom of expression and assembly, hold fake elections, etc.

If children, regardless of their religious or non religious beliefs, are forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, a teacher should be forced to sign a loyalty oath. It is only fair. I remember the few Jehovah Witness kids in my school sitting in the back of the room in silence when the rest of us pledged. I still squirm when I think about how we badgered those kids. I am ashamed, but at 15 I didn't have the courage to stand up to peer pressure. I am thankful for all the Quakers who do.

curmudgeon99,

I'm sorry, but I don't see where she was asked to deny or compromise her faith.

I just called the president's office and was immediately switched immediately with no comment to Public relations who spouted the 'official line and hung up on me.

I sent e-mail. let's see what happens.

in Islam there is a hadith that states ' there shall be no compulsion in religion'.

Somehow forcing someone to deny her faith for a job seems to fall in that category of compulsion.

Loyal Americans don't need to learn math anyway, right? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Here is a profile from www.calstate.edu on the attorney, Eunice Chan, who, according to the Chronicle article said that modifying the oath "is very clearly not permissible". It contains contact information:

EUNICE C. CHAN

Profile:

Eunice Chan joined the Office of General Counsel in February of 2007. Previously, she worked as a Deputy City Attorney for the San Diego City Attorney's Office and focused her practice in the areas of municipal and public agency law and redevelopment. From 2001 to 2005, Ms. Chan worked as a litigation associate at Epport, Richman & Robbins LLP. She has responsibility for the Cal Poly Pomona and California State University, East Bay campuses and is on the Business and Finance Team.

Education:

B.A., Pomona College (1998)

J.D., University of Southern California (2001)

Office:

Telephone No. (562) 951-4500

Fax No. (562) 951-4956

E-mail Address: echan@calstate.edu

You are assuming that when they ask you to "support" and "defend" that they are asking you
to take up a rifle and shoot whomever the authorities command. "Defend = Physical Violence". Please.
"That group of people are challenging the constitution! Shoot them!"
Defense of the constitution for most people involves
intellectual and verbal skills in the public venues not brute physical force in the classroom.
For most citizens (non-military), swearing to defend the constitution means non-violent action.
I don't see any problem with the form she was asked to sign.