Atheist recalled over Pledge of Allegiance

[Richardols]

Fiat:

I’m an officer of the court as well, and I have no idea how you’re making a distinction between an oath of office and a loyalty oath.

You are obviously aware than a citizen of another country may practice law in this country, a unique privilege, offered by few if any other countries. They take an oath of office as did you and I, not a loyalty oath.

And consider what the President of the United States takes as an oath: “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.”

The oath of office makes no reference to loyalty, though it may be presumed that the gentleman is indeed loyal to his country.

That’s the distinction I intended between an oath of office and a loyalty oath.

 

[Richardols]

ByzCath:

The witchhunt here is the media and you attacking those of us with traditional values.

Where did “traditional values” come up in this thread? Where did I attack you for whatever values you have?

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

You are obviously aware than a citizen of another country may practice law in this country, a unique privilege, offered by few if any other countries. They take an oath of office as did you and I, not a loyalty oath.

And consider what the President of the United States takes as an oath: “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.”

The oath of office makes no reference to loyalty, though it may be presumed that the gentleman is indeed loyal to his country.

That’s the distinction I intended between an oath of office and a loyalty oath.

It’s an absurd distinction. The whole point of an oath is that it asks for one’s loyalty to SOMETHING: whether it’s loyalty to a faithful execution or to an ideology or to a person, etc.

Also, could you please explain to us how one makes a “faithful execution” without loyalty?

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

It’s an absurd distinction. The whole point of an oath is that it asks for one’s loyalty to SOMETHING: whether it’s loyalty to a faithful execution or to an ideology or to a person, etc.

I don’t agree. An oath of office binds you to fulfill the obligations of that office “to the best of my ability” or some such. It does not demand that a policeman pledge his loyalty to his town or that an attorney pledge his loyalty to his state. They swear only that they will fulfill their offices.

Perhaps a difference without a distinction to you, but I see the two as not the same.

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

I don’t agree. An oath of office binds you to fulfill the obligations of that office “to the best of my ability” or some such. It does not demand that a policeman pledge his loyalty to his town or that an attorney pledge his loyalty to his state. They swear only that they will fulfill their offices.

Perhaps a difference without a distinction to you, but I see the two as not the same.

You’re correct: I don’t see the difference you are making. I will just have to accept the fact that you are aware of how a person can DISLOYALLY bind himself to an office by DISLOYALLY giving the best of his ability.

Neat trick.

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

Also, could you please explain to us how one makes a “faithful execution” without loyalty?

As I see it, it means executing the office with full concentration on the requirements of that office.

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

As I see it, it means executing the office with full concentration on the requirements of that office.

So how does one do that disloyally?

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

You’re correct: I don’t see the difference you are making. I will just have to accept the fact that you are aware of how a person can DISLOYALLY bind himself to an office by DISLOYALLY giving the best of his ability.

Very well then. I see a difference between fulfilling the requirements of an office and pledging one’s loyalty to the entity requiring one to affirm that one will fulfill the requirements of the office. You don’t.

We differ in our interpretations. But, that’s what we do for a living, isn’t it?

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

Very well then. I see a difference between fulfilling the requirements of an office and pledging one’s loyalty to the entity requiring one to affirm that one will fulfill the requirements of the office. You don’t.

We differ in our interpretations. But, that’s what we do for a living, isn’t it?

Well, counsel, we can differ in opinions, but I don’t think we can differ on reality. However, as long as you think it’s possible to faithfully execute something disloyally, I’ll nod my head and grin.

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

Well, counsel, we can differ in opinions, but I don’t think we can differ on reality.

To be sure, but don’t assume that your opinion necessarily coincides with reality.

However, as long as you think it’s possible to faithfully execute something disloyally, I’ll nod my head and grin.

I made no such assertion.

Once again: IMO, faithfully executing is fulfilling the requirements of an office to the best of one’s ability

Loyalty has to do with pledging one’s self to the entity asking one to fulfill the requirements of the office.

We require foreigners who wish to practice law here to swear to fulfill the requirements of the attorney’s position faithfully, we don’t demand that they take an oath of loyalty to the United States. Perhaps that makes it clearer.

 

[jimmy]

Richardols:

Shades of the 1950s! Let the witchhunts be resumed! Since when was there a state-requirement to say the Pledge?

The people have the right to recall there leaders if they feal they do not support the views of the people. The government is by the people and for the people.

 

[tuopaolo]

Prescinding from the pledge issue, I don’t think atheists should be in public office to begin with. Ditto for Satanists, witches, etc.

 

[Genesis315]

I think this guy should have been ousted for a very common sense reason: an American government official’s allegiance should be to America. If he refuses to pledge his allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, it follows that he probably has allegience to some other entity.

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

To be sure, but don’t assume that your opinion necessarily coincides with reality.

I made no such assertion.

Once again: IMO, faithfully executing is fulfilling the requirements of an office to the best of one’s ability

Loyalty has to do with pledging one’s self to the entity asking one to fulfill the requirements of the office.

We require foreigners who wish to practice law here to swear to fulfill the requirements of the attorney’s position faithfully, we don’t demand that they take an oath of loyalty to the United States. Perhaps that makes it clearer.

The point is that loyalty is involved whenever one takes an oath, whether that loyalty is simply to a faithful execution or whether that loyalty is directed toward an entity is inconsequential. The point is that loyalty is involved. You insist that loyalty has no place in oath-taking. Frankly, I have no idea how this is possible. The whole purpose of making an oath is pledging one’s loyalty.

I see now that you are back-stepping and trying to make a distinction between loyalty directed toward an entity or a doctrine vs. loyalty toward one’s own faithful execution.

 

[Lance]

The oath/no oath thing has nothing to do with this. The voters elected him and they have a right to recall him if they don’t like the way he is doing his job.

 

[Brendan]

Lance:

The voters elected him and they have a right to recall him if they don’t like the way he is doing his job.

Exactly!

No one is denying Mr. Habecker his right Not to say the Pledge. Just as no one should deny the voters of that community their right to vote as they please on this issue.

No person has a RIGHT to elected office if the voters say otherwise.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Brendan:

Exactly!

No one is denying Mr. Habecker his right Not to say the Pledge. Just as no one should deny the voters of that community their right to vote as they please on this issue.

No person has a RIGHT to elected office if the voters say otherwise.

Serving in public office is a privaledge bestowed by the electorate which can be revoked if and when the electorate does not feel adequately served. Elected public office is not a right, but a responsibility.

 

[Brendan]

Scott_Lafrance:

. Elected public office is not a right, but a responsibility.

What I meant by my statement is that the winner of an election has the right to occupy that particular office. It is a right and a responsibility.

That person loses the right of office when their term expires, or they are recalled.