andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker

Date: 2018-12-18 11:34 am (UTC)
andlosers: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andlosers
I just saw the Peter Jackson film tonight. Some of the modernization is not quite perfect, but the faces are striking. Really emotionally affecting, and worth seeking out if you can.

Date: 2018-12-18 02:18 pm (UTC)
cmcmck: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cmcmck
Being asked to sign an oath is intriguing and disturbing.

As a Quaker, I do not swear or sign oaths as they suggest a double standard of truth. Courts and such get round this in England and Scotland by allowing us to affirm.

Such a sacking would be illegal here as you'll be aware (asking people to swear such an oath would be illegal in the first place).

Date: 2018-12-18 03:27 pm (UTC)
andlosers: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andlosers
It’ll never get through the Supreme Court here. It’s nakedly unconsitutional. One of the problems with a federated system is this kind of thing; it’ll eventually be resolved with federal case law and then won’t happen again.

Date: 2018-12-18 08:22 pm (UTC)
cmcmck: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cmcmck
Quakers have been a licensed oddity here since the mid 19th century so I hope your 'they' catch up soon!

Date: 2018-12-19 12:37 am (UTC)
adrian_turtle: (Default)
From: [personal profile] adrian_turtle
Almost all US courts and official promises say "solemnly swear or affirm." Then everybody refers to "oath of enlistment" or "swearing in the witness," even though Quakers and fundamentalists and atheists (and a few other groups) don't actually swear oaths.

The University of California requires all employees to sign a loyalty oath, if they are US citizens. There was a court case where a Quaker professor refused to sign...she was a pacifist, and would not "defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" if that required taking up arms. Every article about it, every single one I saw, referred to the thing as a "loyalty oath." It's only when I saw a scan of it that I knew it said "I, __________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will...." The whole disagreement was about what they are making people promise, not the form of the promise.

One problem here that Texas is making their employees promise something about a foreign country. That's a huge overreach. Another problem is the idea of promising "not to take any action that is intended to inflict economic harm." Untangling the negatives there has scary implications. Are people required to support Israel economically? It's one thing for the state government of Texas to do business with Israeli corporations, as a political or economic matter; it's different for them to require private citizens to do so. Most people who work for the state are private citizens when they go home from work.

Date: 2018-12-19 01:20 pm (UTC)
cmcmck: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cmcmck
Affirmation in the UK is an entirely separate legal thing to swearing an oath.

As a pacifist, there are things I would not even affirm.
Edited Date: 2018-12-19 01:20 pm (UTC)

Date: 2018-12-18 03:27 pm (UTC)
andlosers: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andlosers
I went to see if I could help with the Hull story and was pleased to see this:

April 2019

 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 21st, 2019 12:23 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios