Late Night: No God? Then No Diploma, if AZ Politicians Get Their Way

What the hell is wrong with Arizona politicians? Do the relentless desert days of beating sun and the sudden summer thunderstorms repeatedly bake, then wash away all sense from elected officials? Have they been smoking desert toad venom?

A group of Arizona Republicans are eager to pass House Bill 2467 which would require all public high school graduates to recite the following oath in order to graduate:

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.

But what if you don’t believe in God? Too bad. Either ask something you don’t believe in to help you so you can graduate, or you lie. Which is creepy and wrong.

Think Progress reports that the bill may be amended to remove the God part, reporting that tea partier Bob Thorp who introduced the bill wrote in an email to the Arizona Republic:

In that we had a tight deadline for dropping our bills, I was not able to update the language. Even though I want to encourage all of our students to understand and respect our Constitution and constitutional form of government, I do not want to create a requirement that students or parents may feel uncomfortable with.

 

29 Responses to "Late Night: No God? Then No Diploma, if AZ Politicians Get Their Way"
EvilDrPuma | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:11 pm 1

This is wrong on so many levels that you’d have to pay a geologist to interpret the stratigraphy. Fortunately, it also appears to be blatantly unconstitutional (under both the Arizona and federal constitutions, according to an acquaintance in AZ).

But I am glad to learn that Arizona has resolved every real issue in the state and that the legislature has nothing better to do than entertain Tea Party loyalty-oath fantasies.


DrDick | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:14 pm 2

Arizona is trying its hardest to replace Texas as the National Laboratory for Bad Government.


EvilDrPuma | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:18 pm 3

I like the bit about “take this obligation freely.” Apparently it hasn’t occurred to the geniuses in the AZ Rethuglican Party that you can’t take an obligation freely if you’re being coerced into it on pain of not receiving a diploma you’ve bloody well earned.


kimsarah | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:19 pm 4

I say we let Arizona and Texas secede, then annex Mexico and put up a border fence to protect Mexico from Arizona and Texas.


DrDick | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:20 pm 5
In response to EvilDrPuma @ 3

Coercion and absolute fealty to der Faderland is central to the Republican worldview.


EvilDrPuma | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:21 pm 6

I think Mexico would be grateful for the fence. They need the protection from roaming bands of gun-toting nativist idiots.


EvilDrPuma | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:22 pm 7

Except, of course, when it isn’t (for example, when a black man is sitting in the Oval Office).


wynota skunk | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:37 pm 8

If you take the oath and then refuse to defend the U.S.& Ariz. border against Mexico have you set yourself up for detention without fair and speedy trial, right to an atty. and trial by jury, etc? (snark) Or, if you don’t, are you denied a driver’s license or in-state college aid? With these nuts there’s got to be a hook. ( Who does God swear an oath to, anyway? ) Maybe your voting rights are taken away. Yikes, here comes the new segregation and separate but equal laws.


bluewombat | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:49 pm 9
In response to kimsarah @ 4

This is astute political analysis.


bluewombat | Tuesday January 29, 2013 08:50 pm 10

Perhaps Arizona should be re-named Limbaughstan.


Synoia | Tuesday January 29, 2013 09:12 pm 11
In response to kimsarah @ 4

The Mexican would strongly resist this, They believe the US is too corrupt and could damage their rule of law.


greenwarrior | Tuesday January 29, 2013 09:23 pm 12
In response to EvilDrPuma @ 3

That’s also my favorite part.


tammanytiger | Tuesday January 29, 2013 09:33 pm 13

I graduated from law school in 1976. Bad ideas that wouldn’t have passed the laugh test with my classmates after four pitchers of beer on a Saturday night are now being signed into law.


richmx2 | Tuesday January 29, 2013 09:53 pm 14

What about Quakers and others who have a religious objection to taking oaths?


Margaret | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:03 pm 15
In response to kimsarah @ 4

Regional bigotry is still bigotry. What about Progressives in Texas?


wynota skunk | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:03 pm 16
In response to richmx2 @ 14

Yeah, well if the Arizona God had wanted them to be Quakers he wouldn’t of made up such a silly thing as ” religious objection ” and swearing on his name and special diary, got it ?


old man yells at cloud | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:40 pm 17

I’m not sure, but aren’t you President after pledging that oath?


nixonclinbushbama | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:52 pm 18

Yep. President of the United Theocratic States of America, in violation of the First Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States of America. does not include the words “so help me God.”

But, as messed up as this country is, only if a President tried to leave out those words would there be a public outcry. Putting them in is simply accepted, though we are not to have a national religion of any kind.

Theism and Deism are religions.


PCM | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:53 pm 19

Wait, wait! I’ve got a better one:

I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to offer unconditional obedience to the Governor of the State of Arizona and of its people, Jan Brewer, the commander-in-chief of the Arizona National Guard, and be prepared as a brave high-school graduate to risk my life for this oath at any time.

Or how about this one:

I vow to Jan Brewer imperturbable loyalty. I vow to her, and to the leaders she appoints for me, absolute allegiance. Jan Brewer: Hail victory!

Okay, I admit that I kind of borrowed them another time and place, but since that’s where Arizona seems to be heading, why not skip the intermediate versions and cut right to the chase?


nixonclinbushbama | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:55 pm 20

The Constitution says oath (or affirmation). Not being versed in the Quaker religion, I don’t know if affirmation works for them. “A rose by another name” and all. Still, sometimes a loophole works in religious doctrine.


PCM | Tuesday January 29, 2013 10:59 pm 21

Well … that was interesting. Let’s give it another go, but this time without italics:

Wait, wait! I’ve got a better one:

I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to offer unconditional obedience to the Governor of the State of Arizona and of its people, Jan Brewer, the commander-in-chief of the Arizona National Guard, and be prepared as a brave high-school graduate to risk my life for this oath at any time.

Or how about this one:

I vow to Jan Brewer imperturbable loyalty. I vow to her, and to the leaders she appoints for me, absolute allegiance. Jan Brewer: Hail victory!

Okay, I admit that I kind of borrowed them another time and place, but since that’s where Arizona seems to be heading, why not skip the intermediate versions and cut right to the chase?


nixonclinbushbama | Tuesday January 29, 2013 11:03 pm 22
In response to DrDick @ 5

Not only Republicans.


nixonclinbushbama | Tuesday January 29, 2013 11:11 pm 23

FYI: This is the Constitutional wording of the Presidential oath or affirmation:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

(Sigh. “He.” Because John Adams would not listen to his wife. Or maybe, because he picked his battles and had slavery to try to deal with. Either way, sigh.)


mywag | Wednesday January 30, 2013 05:15 am 24

From the article:
A group of Arizona Republicans are eager to pass House Bill 2467 which would require all public high school graduates to recite the following oath in order to graduate:

in order to graduate….and I take this oath freely have a conflict

These are lawmakers???


ChePasa | Wednesday January 30, 2013 05:58 am 25

What’s odd about this is not the god language; it’s that Arizona high school graduates would be made to swear the Federal Oath of Office, and I would think the Teahadists and other radical ravers would be up in arms about that.


Knut | Wednesday January 30, 2013 06:22 am 26

Nice to see the Loyalty Oath coming back. I kind of missed it. It was part of our daily lives in the 1950s. Joe McCarthy must be happy to see someone is carrying on the good work.


jaango | Wednesday January 30, 2013 07:38 am 27

Being from Arizona, I have a differing interpretation. Take, for example, HB 2281, was the companion piece to SB 1070-, and this legislation is just another political vestige that animates the notion that any Arizona advocating for a “foreign language” be taught in our public school system is equivalent to “treason.” And yes, Treason, and thusly one can be arrested, incarcerated and prosecuted for attempting to “over throw the Constitution.” Of course, HB 2281 doesn’t suggest which Constitution, municipal, county, state or federal, but then, “any” Constitution will suffice.

However, up front and center, did anyone notice that Senator Kerry, in his Senate hearing of this week for the Secretary of State Office, he was never asked or questioned as to when the Great War on Terror will end? As such, the Authority or Authority to Use Military Force, remains in place, and until both the House and Senate pass a Congressional Resolution that rescinds this Authority, this typical legislation will continue to perpetuate what I have written, such as, “The Laboratory for Democracy is now the Laboratory for Lobotomies.”

Therefore, I find it difficult to be overly Kind to those with whom I disagree when I find them across the aisle. But then, my politics is personal, not only to me and my family, but for my friends and neighbors, given that we’re all perceived to be Brown here in Arizona by the political elites.

Jaango


hektor6766 | Wednesday January 30, 2013 08:21 am 28

Considering they’re being coerced with penalty of failure to graduate, the oath holds more than one lie in it.


Bobster33 | Wednesday January 30, 2013 11:13 am 29

How is the oath any different from the pledge of allegiance? Which the Supreme Court has ruled that one is not required to repeat.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close