Loyalty Oath in Arizona to Graduate High School?

[natepro]

being required to say "i like to lick monkey nuts" is a little different than pledging your allegiance to a country that has provided you with the condition, education, safety, security, and the freedom to pursuit whatever your heart desire. i'm all for religious tolerance but as all freedoms, the line gotta be drawn somewhere. if your religion forbids you from pledging your allegiance to your country, maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and stop taking advantage of all the things this country provides you. i suggest you take your religion to a place currently experiencing anarchy (Sudan maybe) where you can keep your conscious clean.

Wait, seriously? You're supporting this?

So freedom, to you, is being required to take an oath to "defend the Constitution... so help me God"?

Why should they be compelled to pledge their allegiance to anything or anyone? What good is served by this that outweighs the harm to their religious freedom?

[dbroncos78087]

being required to say "i like to lick monkey nuts" is a little different than pledging your allegiance to a country that has provided you with the condition, education, safety, security, and the freedom to pursuit whatever your heart desire. i'm all for religious tolerance but as all freedoms, the line gotta be drawn somewhere. if your religion forbids you from pledging your allegiance to your country, maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and stop taking advantage of all the things this country provides you. i suggest you take your religion to a place currently experiencing anarchy (Sudan maybe) where you can keep your conscious clean.

Our tax dollars provide the country the money to educate our children. That money doesn't come out of nowhere. If there is a line to be drawn on freedom it certainly isn't at this point. There is no reason for this oath (or the oath that Pats mentioned in Vermont). I don't even care if I agree with the content of the oath 100%, they don't have the right to require you to say it to receive your diploma. They have the right to make you do the schoolwork to receive the diploma.

There is no benefit to this oath other than an attempt to create a nationalist sentiment that serves to ingratiate our leaders. For any law/regulation there must be a real benefit or our government is pushing us in the wrong direction. This law pushes Arizona in the wrong direction.

[FOBolous]

Wait, seriously? You're supporting this?

So freedom, to you, is being required to take an oath to "defend the Constitution... so help me God"?

Why should they be compelled to pledge their allegiance to anything or anyone? What good is served by this that outweighs the harm to their religious freedom?

i'd leave out the "so help me God" part but yeeea...i don't see anything wrong with this.

Our tax dollars provide the country the money to educate our children. That money doesn't come out of nowhere. If there is a line to be drawn on freedom it certainly isn't at this point. There is no reason for this oath (or the oath that Pats mentioned in Vermont). I don't even care if I agree with the content of the oath 100%, they don't have the right to require you to say it to receive your diploma. They have the right to make you do the schoolwork to receive the diploma.

There is no benefit to this oath other than an attempt to create a nationalist sentiment that serves to ingratiate our leaders. For any law/regulation there must be a real benefit or our government is pushing us in the wrong direction. This law pushes Arizona in the wrong direction.

it's paid by everyone's collective money. and there's more to providing education than just funding. is it wrong for the government, in the interest of the people, the make sure that whoever is voting or receives our education has our best interest in mind? i mean...it's a little counter productive to provide to provide someone who does not have our country's best interest at heart with the ability to vote, the conditions to succeed in, education, safety, and security...don't you think?

[dbroncos78087]

i'd leave out the "so help me God" part but yeeea...i don't see anything wrong with this.



it's paid by everyone's collective money. and there's more to providing education than just funding. is it wrong for the government, in the interest of the people, the make sure that whoever is voting or receives our education has our best interest in mind? i mean...it's a little counter productive to provide to provide someone who does not have our country's best interest at heart with the ability to vote, the conditions to succeed in, education, safety, and security...don't you think?

Can you tell me what benefit the government (or anyone) gets from this oath? Other than making them recite an oath that quite frankly an 18-year-old doesn't give a damn about, there is no benefit to anyone from this.

I don't care what the interest the high school graduates have in mind when they graduate. They earned their degree by completing the assigned coursework to level deemed satisfactory by their teachers and that is what matters for education.

If you want a real life experience of how these oaths don't mean a thing go to a middle school that recites the Pledge of Allegiance and tell me that they don't say it lethargically and in a manner that they clearly don't give a damn what it means and are all waiting in unison for it to be over.

[FOBolous]

Can you tell me what benefit the government (or anyone) gets from this oath? Other than making them recite an oath that quite frankly an 18-year-old doesn't give a damn about, there is no benefit to anyone from this.

I don't care what the interest the high school graduates have in mind when they graduate. They earned their degree by completing the assigned coursework to level deemed satisfactory by their teachers and that is what matters for education.

If you want a real life experience of how these oaths don't mean a thing go to a middle school that recites the Pledge of Allegiance and tell me that they don't say it lethargically and in a manner that they clearly don't give a damn what it means and are all waiting in unison for it to be over.

it's a symbolic thing. and it works cause people are squirmish about it and have problems with it. and i care about what interest they have in mind if the interest isn't what's best for our country.

[Ezekial]

it's a symbolic thing. and it works cause people are squirmish about it and have problems with it. and i care about what interest they have in mind if the interest isn't what's best for our country.

So you agree it has no use or place, it's just "not that big of a deal they're just saying an oath."

You just proved right there that you are just "supporting" this because "what's the big deal they just have to pledge to something or someone they may or may not believe in"(I know you said leave the god part out). If it serves no purpose other than the stir stupid **** up, what's the point.

[Patsfan56]

I guess you can keep acting like these are the same thing, but I don't know why you would. It's pointless. They're clearly not.

For the record, despite my disagreement with you on the correlation between the two, I think they are both insulting.

[Patsfan56]

Completely different ends of the spectrum. That isn't some political drivel bringing up religion, god and fighting against "enemies" ie illegals. If that oath said something benign as "I will be the best student I can be blah blah" that would be another story.

I see the differences between the two as being completely insignificant when compared to requireing people to take an oat or affirmation to support anything they don't believe in. Its none of our governments business what anyone believes or doesn't believe. Its insulting, uneccessary, and asinine.

[AmsterNat]

i'd leave out the "so help me God" part but yeeea...i don't see anything wrong with this.

it's paid by everyone's collective money. and there's more to providing education than just funding. is it wrong for the government, in the interest of the people, the make sure that whoever is voting or receives our education has our best interest in mind? i mean...it's a little counter productive to provide to provide someone who does not have our country's best interest at heart with the ability to vote, the conditions to succeed in, education, safety, and security...don't you think?

So, you don't think that any state or country should provide ELHI education to its children as a natural right, without any precondition or qualification? You really think another oath will make any difference to anything? Yet another crackpot 'only in America' idea, like arming teachers. As if there isn't already more than enough in the way of unhealthy, jingoistic, uber-patriotism going on.

[Patsfan56]

Stateism, wherever it is (and there are plenty of historical examples from nearly every continent), needs to be kept in distinct healthy moderation. I don't see anythign wrong with having some pruide in what your country is supposed to stand for, but that government must not be held above reproach when it fails to live up to those standards. I know I've been guilty of not questioning my government at critical points, and I ended up in some very interesting places over the last 10 years as a result.

[steelcityroller]

You have to take an oath just to vote in the state of Vermont... anyone getting up in arms (forgive the sarcastic pun) over that?? No? Okay then.

Completely different....

[stephkyle7]

It really is an empty gesture,and ANY requirement to recite something is a little heavy handed, why dont they just do it,without making it a requirement and any one who wants to abstain can stand with their hand over their heart without speaking? On a personal note I appreciate the idea,every military memeber takes that oath when they inproccess MEPS,every citizen SHOULD feel that way, but FORCING people to do anything is counter productive to freedom.
BTW, please dont bring The ACA up in response to my position, it is a completely different circumstance, and those people who feel that being forced into the health care market is unjust or Illegal should then be tagged on their ID cards as FFT participants(freedom from tyrrany) so that if and when they get sick or in an accident we can leave em bleeding on the sidewalk when they are the ones in trouble.

[dbroncos78087]

it's a symbolic thing. and it works cause people are squirmish about it and have problems with it. and i care about what interest they have in mind if the interest isn't what's best for our country.

What kind of logic is that? It's symbolic and works because some people are squirmish about it?

I'm sorry FOB but you're making absolutely no sense here.

[Patsfan56]

Completely different....

No, its not different at all. Its government requiring an oath to be a "good" citizen or student. Its completely ****ed up, and we know better. Government doesn't have the right to even suggest requiring me to swear, affirm, or say anything I don't want to.

[dbroncos78087]

No, its not different at all. Its government requiring an oath to be a "good" citizen or student. Its completely ****ed up, and we know better. Government doesn't have the right to even suggest requiring me to swear, affirm, or say anything I don't want to.

This is how I feel. Even if the government makes me swear to do things that I think are good it has no right to enforce it or make me swear it. I think that donating my time and money is a good thing to do and I try to do so when I can but the government has no business making me take an oath to do so.

Specific to this instance, the government has no right to make me take an oath to uphold the Constitution unless I am seeking a job in public service. Even if upholding the Constitution is the right thing to do, to withhold a high school decree because one is not willing to take that oath (or any oath) is asinine.