On conscience, Quakers, and swearing oaths

[deborahjross]

From Quaker oaths:

In 2007, Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker math teacher, got fired from her job at a university in California because every time she was asked to sign an oath of allegiance, she would cross out “swear” and put in “affirm.” She would also insert “nonviolently” before a clause “to support and defend the US and California constitutions against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” She was fired for insisting on the insertions. She brought the case to court and eventually a compromise was made, with the university issuing an apology and declaring, in writing, that “Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence.” Kearney-Brown was rehired.

Comments

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

That's one of the most insidious aspects of the requirement of such oaths -- that it generates immense social pressure to conform and equally immense suspicion of those who object. "Of course, you will sign -- if you don't, it means you are a traitor." Shiver.

[janni.livejournal.com]

Or alternately and just as dangerously, pressure to not take the words you're reading and agreeing to all that seriously. Both because others may take them seriously--else why would they ask?--and because not taking one's words seriously is not a good habit to get into.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Taking the words seriously and considering carefully whether you can make that commitment are indeed aspects of personal integrity.