Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School
A group of Arizona politicians all Republicans, of course have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students 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.
To quote Comedy Centrals Ilya Gerner: Nothing says I take this obligation freely quite like a state law that withholds your diploma unless you swear an oath.
Kevin Bondelli adds:
graduating high school is not the same thing as voluntarily accepting the responsibility of a public office or admission to the legal bar. A high school diploma is, with extremely few exceptions, required to have a chance to live above the poverty level. It is the culmination of an education that up until that point was compulsory.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)And people wonder why so many call the GOP the stupid party!
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)and lawyers in the state will be jumping for joy. Think of all the money they will earn litigating this foolishness.
love_katz
(2,847 posts)please bury this stupid shit ASAP. Thank you!
A travesty such as this oath can't be seen as being taken freely if someone's high school graduation is being held hostage to it.
Knightraven
(268 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Bad enough that those that do not believe in any higher power must, in my opinion, "testify" to something thing they do not believe in. Yet it seems that those that follow other paths must also swear to a deity they do not follow. Doesn't that make this whole thing against the first amendment?