29th Feb 2008
“This Post Has No Title”
My husband is a Quaker at heart. His family roots in Quakerism extend back many centuries. While we do not attend Quaker services, we both know that when (or if) we have children, they will be raised in the Quaker faith. That is why this article caught my eye.
One of the tenets of Quakerism is that they do not swear oaths. They believe that the truth should be told at all times, thus swearing an oath implies a different standard under that oath. They are also non-violent; many conscientious objectors are from The Society of Friends, and they won the Nobel Prize in 1947.
Given that, I am actually kind of amused that a teacher at CSU East Bay was fired for altering a state-mandated oath to state her non-violent beliefs, and for circling that she “affirmed” rather than “swore” this oath (affirming is allowed in Quaker beliefs.)
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
This woman had made similar alterations to two previous oaths she had signed. Yet, the CSU declared her changes “unacceptable.” Well, I personally find religious discrimination “unacceptable.”
My husband is a Quaker at heart. His family roots in Quakerism extend back many centuries. While we do not attend Quaker services, we both know that when (or if) we have children, they will be raised in the Quaker faith. That is why this article caught my eye.
One of the tenets of Quakerism is that they do not swear oaths. They believe that the truth should be told at all times, thus swearing an oath implies a different standard under that oath. They are also non-violent; many conscientious objectors are from The Society of Friends, and they won the Nobel Prize in 1947.
Given that, I am actually kind of amused that a teacher at CSU East Bay was fired for altering a state-mandated oath to state her non-violent beliefs, and for circling that she “affirmed” rather than “swore” this oath (affirming is allowed in Quaker beliefs.)
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
This woman had made similar alterations to two previous oaths she had signed. Yet, the CSU declared her changes “unacceptable.” Well, I personally find religious discrimination “unacceptable.”
Posted in religion | 6 Comments »

