I dont think it hurts. I said it too, but it didnt make me particularly patriotic, ,it was just something I had to say. But atheists were scared that saying 'under God' might influence their children, as far as I remember. And such mandates were removed.

So, in todays world, its not 'fair' to require children to state such things, and I Can understand it in terms of making it a mandate for graduating to a potentially more secure life.

Although people have done much worse and accepted much worse for the sake of having 'jobs' in this country,, but thats a different subject.

Exactly.

you got that right soldier


we are soooo looking forward to overtaxing the social security system

rock on we numerous ones

t'would be illegal as well

TS, you need to go back and re-read the webpage that you linked to in your OP. The webpage has an update, and one of the authors of that proposed bill wants to amend it so that the religious element is taken out of it.

There IS a BIG problem with this because if students spend all those years in school and are then forced to take this oath - then they are forced to lie because the oath itself makes them state: "..that I take this obligation freely,"

Which is a lie. No, they don't "take if freely" if they are REQUIRED to take the oath in order to graduate.

The bill is absurd and I am astounded that there are still such ignorant people in government introducing such stupid crap.

I've lost all respect for politicians and government.


The oath:

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.

Making it a requirement for graduation is just silly.

with that said..as in the pledge of allegiance, any pledge, any oath would be just as good or just as useless, depending on ones opinion..for whatever its purpose and maybe even better (more inclusive) without the reference to god. Would this make the requirement more palatable to TS?

another part I have trouble with is:
'defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'
Who gets to be the judge as to who or what is an enemy to the constitution, so that I may know when to defend..do I get to make that call based on my point of view? if so by what means do I defend? by whatever means I see fit?..or am I being indoctrinated and all I have to do is wait for 'you'to tell me who the enemies are and how I am to defend. Hmmm...sounds less & less like our constitution, which I am being asked to defend..the more I mull it over.

an additional thought:As great as our country is...we are still quite divided in many ways and the ugliness of it has been shining bright, possibly leaving the younger generation, who wants to be more united...feeling quite disconnected and unrepresented...forcing them to take this oath wont change what they may be feeling inside and may feel all too much like the hypocrisy they are seeing and feeling frustrated with. all IMHO

Those are very good points.
What does an oath to "defend the constitution" actually mean and how should we go about defending it? With guns? Or does it mean we are taking an oath to join the military and follow orders?

Who decides who the enemies of the constitution are?

Will requiring everyone to take an oath render the taking of oaths meaningless or will it obligate them to pick up a gun and go to war?

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse for anyone, it is deemed that the people protected by a constitution are not ignorant of the law and are themselves the ones best suited to determine who the enemies of the constitution might be and they are therefore authorized to take whatever reasonably lawful action that might be necessary to defend it.

An enemy of the constitution might be anyone who would infringe on the rights of the citizenry to one or more of life, liberty, property, etc. An enemy of the constitution could be anything from a foreign invading army to a government which breaks its own supreme law, its constitution.

In the case of the second amendment, the people are guaranteed the right to bear whatever arms that might be considered necessary for a militia to competently oppose any armed force that could be brought against it. Consequently, unconstitutional legislation has already been passed by the American government on numerous occasions without even a significant protest from the American people (shame on you!) The currently proposed "assault" rife ban, if passed, will be as unconstitutional as it was when it was passed before. This alnoe has made and could make your own government an enemy of the constitution which you as American citizens have a duty to depose by any lawful means.

On the subject of oaths: Oaths are binding promises and are NEVER to be taken lightly. The unfortunate thing about a prescribed oath is that the one making it may not be fully cognizant that he is bound by law to his sacred promise. IMO "required" prescribed oaths are an insult to one's honour in that there is a presumption that a man's word is not to be trusted without the fear of the consequences of breaking an oath. Apparently many such men exist, and I can name some heads of government who not only broke their oaths of office, but actively smashed them into little pieces.

right to bear whatever arms that might be considered necessary for a militia to competently oppose any armed force that could be brought against

NOT specifically in the constitution

no mention of purpose or ARMED forces,,,just

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

which suggests, to me, that the purpose is attached to the 'people' and state militias

which we no longer have, since we have military branches instead, but arguably, if we did, would also be expected to be 'well regulated',, and not boundariless

,but alas, because of the ambiguous wording the founding fathers uses, much like the bible, the intentions and meanings will always be debated,,,

Shame on Americans?

It seems to me that Americans are about the last remaining country in the evil empire that has not yet caved in to the demand to turn in their guns and bow down to the queen. Look at Britain and Australia.

9-11 and Sandy Hook and other incidents have been and are being used to pass laws destroying our constitution and politicians are being intimidated behind the backs of the American public to pass such laws while the major media fails to report what is really happening.

The Internet has become the only real source of information and enemy factions within the government are working hard trying to pass bills that will give them the power to shut down any website they don't like.

People like Aaron Swartz and Anonymous hackers who are on the front lines in the battle to protect our first amendment rights on the Internet are being maliciously prosecuted and/or mysteriously disappear or die.

There is a battle waging right now, and it is about to heat up even more as rumors of another bogus "terrorist attack" hits a major newspaper and Internet circles, already claiming "Al Qaeda" is planning to hit us hard again. (Al Qaeda is a fake terrorist organization created by the CIA)

The rumor names the new target as the Superbowel Superdome (formerly Louisiana Superdome) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Date and Time rumored for the Illuminati sponsored attack is Feb 3, after half time. Let's hope like hell its just another "crazy conspiracy theory."

The federal government has pretty much trampled all over the idea of State Militias and considers them (and paints them out to be) a bunch of crazies with guns.

Any civilian group that attempts to organize are treated like potential domestic terrorists. Any armed group that is not under the control of the federal government is frowned upon and watched as an "enemy" of the STATE. (the STATE being the federal government.)

That looks like a war brewing to me.