Interpreting that oath as requiring taking up arms is what’s silly–especially for a college professor who’s supposed to be college educated.

Does however the State really need to have every single employee willing to take up arms to defend its constitution? Is there not some interest in the State having employees that are effective at doing their job, first and foremost? And perhaps, in the case of an educational institute, exposing students to instructors with a variety of philosophical ideas?

This is separate from rights, it’s about what’s sensible. The State of California may have a right to impose such an oath, but they don’t have an obligation to be silly.

Anyone who has gone through the public school system knows that the stories that hit the news are the tip of the iceberg. As long as that’s true, why should we care when the shoe is on the other foot?

BTW - This is yet another example of how public school advocates get excited about teacher rights and benefits but not student achievement.

Or it would, if I didn’t add “making such statements is de facto evidence of being an idiot.”

I’m not convinced either is true. Can we move on now?

I’m curious about this: what exact part of the oath does this pacifist Quaker find revolting (pardon the pun)? The “support and defend the constitution” part? Does she *really* interpret that part, did the legislature contemplate, requiring weaponry and combat? That seems a far stretch.

Asking people to be loyal to a government before accepting that government’s payment doesn’t strike me as excessively burdensome. As I wrote on my own blog, I didn’t see President Washington offer command of the army to Benedict Arnold–or to Cornwallis, for that matter.

Defending the loyalty oath is de facto evidence of being anti-American.

“Liberalism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group while demanding that the group force someone else to pay for him - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”

Now can we get back to the topic at hand?

I think loyalty oaths for teachers are kind of silly but I also don’t see the harm in them. While I can appreciate a Quaker’s devotion to pacifism, its not like the state of California is going to be issuing M-16s to teachers and shipping them off to fight in a war. This isn’t a new development. This oath has been around since the 50s. Perhaps pursuing a job with an employer who requires you to do something you find objectionable as a condition of employment isn’t the wisest career move.

I’m in my late 20’s, have been filing my own taxes for less than 10 years, and yet even I know that you must pay taxes in every state where you make a significant income.

Every citizen is responsible for paying the necessary taxes to the federal and state governments. In the end Franken failed to fulfill that responsibility, no matter who actually does the paperwork.

I’m cutting and pasting from wikipedia here: “There are two types of status for conscientious objectors. If a person only objects to combat but not to service in the military, then the person is given noncombatant service in the military without training of weapons. If he objects to all military service, then he is given “alternative service” with a job “deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest”, see Alternative Service Program.”

It would seem that if the objection is based on implied willingness for military service or combat service, this could be addressed by the oath’s including, “withing current limitation for conscientious objectors” someplace in the oath.

Please.

I’m not an Al Franken fan, but …

Al Franken paid all the taxes he was supposed to. And he paid at the time he earned the money.

The problem was that the tax code is/was so complicated that he paid some of the money to the wrong states. Now those states want (and are going to get) their tax money plus penalties.

Al had/has an accountant who is/was supposed to get this correct. The accountant blew it.

Expecting Al to be up on tax laws to the point where he can catch this sort of a mistake is unreasonable.

What is amusing is that I don’t expect Al to be trying to simplify the tax laws if he does get elected. There has to be a word to describe this. Irony isn’t it. Neither is Karma. But there has to be a word …

-Mark Roulo

Note that there are plenty of “rich” Democrats too, and they pay the same taxes. Wealth has little to do with political affiliation. It’s not like once you make over $200,000 you automatically become a Republican.

Oh, and given the recent headlines regarding Wesley Snipes and Al Franken, you have two “rich” Democrats right there who have failed to perform their civic duties.

I’d bet that you’d find that more non-wealthy individuals don’t pay their taxes also. Not only that, but the reasons that we were forced to send too few soldiers, too little equipment, and cannot afford to support them after their sacrifice has more to do with money going towards benefits for those who pay no taxes at all.

And, if “talk” is so cheap, then what’s the problem with a so-called pacifist giving a loyalty oath? It means nothing anyway to you.

The only statement that you made that is anywhere near correct was that those who made the biggest deals about loyalty oaths were those who fail to pay taxes. In this case, though, the ones who “make a big deal about loyalty oaths” are those who refuse to give them because they are too selfish to look past themselves.