This story is from last week, but it’s pretty nuts so I’ll link to it. A teacher at Cal State was fired because she refused to sign the loyalty oath required, by the state constitution, of all state employees. The oath states that the signatory promises to “defend” the state and US constitutions against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The oath has been in place since 1952, when it was passed because of the Red Scare. This article in the LA Times focuses on one particular woman, a Quaker, who refused to sign the oath because it conflicts with her pacifist beliefs, but it also cites several other examples of people being fired for refusing to sign it.
If I’m not mistaken, not only would an oath to protect your state against enemies conflict with Quaker views on pacifism, but Quakers, as a rule, do not sign oaths or swear in court. So I think it’s not just the particular content of this oath that would be a problem for Quakers, but the requirement of a loyalty oath itself.
I don’t have anything super-illuminating to say about this, I just think it’s disturbing. In my view, the wide-spread hysteria around communism in the sixties is viewed as a dark time for civil liberties in this country, so its pretty shocking that this archaic law is a) still in place and b) still being strictly enforced. Sad.
Do you mean Quakers don’t get “sworn in” in court? I am picturing a Quaker going “fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccc….” in court and really feeling bad about it.
Quakers do not swear an oath in court they affirm to tell the Truth. As I have done this on several occasions I can so affirm.