WTF?

Dear People for the American Way:

Please remove me from your mailing lists, your membership lists, and stop sending me email and mail asking for my financial support.  I interned for PFAW while I was law school, but I will never support PFAW again.

I cannot support institutions that support people who do not support the Constitution of the United States.

Cal State isn’t asking Wendy Gonaver to take up arms to support the Constitution. Cal State is not infringing on her religious freedoms.  They didn’t fire her because she is a Quaker or a pacifist. Cal State is asking whether professors support the United States Constitution.  Why can’t she sign that?  They do not have to hire individuals who do not support the United States Constitution.

She should know, being an educated person, that she already has a First Amendment right to her religious beliefs.  Religious objections to military conscription is already guaranteed without People for the American Way rewriting a state university’s statement.  Cal State is a state and tax supported institution.  They have a right to hire faculty that support the United States Constitution.  I don’t really want to support someone who doesn’t want to support the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution protects her right to refuse to fight—Clay v. United States.  That is the Constitution that I freely support and support it without reservation.

Please tell me that your attorneys have read that case.  Please tell me that your attorneys know that Clay v. United States protects everyone’s right to conscientious objector status.  The Constitution protects everyone’s right not to take military action to defend the Constitution.

The law and the Constitution protect her. Why does she need a qualifying statement?  Why does she need to explain her beliefs on an employment contract? Why can’t she support the law, the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that support her rights?  I will not support someone who does not support the Constitution.  I do support people who do not want to fight in wars.  I support religious freedom and free speech.  I do not support people who cannot support the Constitution.

If you like this post, please buy this t-shirt for me http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/products/dwt2AP.html?Category_Code=retr

Comments

[SocraticGadfly]

Boy, are you wrong. From the L.A. Times’ original coverage
(URL, since for whatever reason, you don't allow HTML, is:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oath2-2008may02,0,6280956.story):

>>>The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a Quaker from Pennsylvania and a lifelong pacifist, Gonaver objected to the California oath as an infringement of her rights of free speech and religious freedom. She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job. ...

Some agencies take the oath more seriously than others. Certain school districts and community colleges have been known to let employees change the wording of the oath when they sign or to ignore the requirement altogether. Others, including the University of California, advise employees on how they can register their objections yet still sign the pledge. ...

Now, the University of California advises new employees who balk at signing the pledge that they can submit an addendum, as long as it does not negate the oath.

UC even provides sample declarations, such as: "This is not a promise to take up arms in contravention of my religious beliefs," or "I owe allegiance to Jehovah."

The California State University system takes a firmer approach.

Kearney-Brown, the math instructor fired by Cal State East Bay, said she added the word "nonviolently" just as she had when taking previous jobs as a high school teacher. The university, however, told her she could not alter the pledge.<<<
Given your rhetorical question at the end of the post, I ask you the same thing: Have YOU actually read about the case?

[jaye]

Boy, you are so wrong it makes my head hurt. And of course I am correct because I looked it up. And if you would read some constitutional law you would see how very right I am.

California, of all places, couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of its employees. They aren't out to get the Quakers. They do not have to give employment to people who do not support the Constitution. She doesn't have a right to alter their statement. They ask as simple yes or no question. They did not fire her because she is a Quaker. It is well established that Quakers, like Richard Nixon, do not take up arms. This law is not applied against Quakers. It is applied against people who do not support the Constitution. And if the professor would bother to discuss the Constitution with some law professors, she would discover she is wrong, too.

She does not have an inherently constitutional right to work at a state institution or as a state employee where she will not sign a pledge to defend and support the Constitution. The state has every right to refuse employment to people who do not support the Constitution, especially because Cal State is a state institution--the goal of which is to promote democratic ideas.

Yeah, I have read the case. Clay--Ali was drafted even though he objected as a Muslim to fighting in Vietnam. The opinion upheld objector status and refusing to fight based on religious objections. The Court essentially said they couldn't figure out if Ali's status had even been considered. But his CO status was legit, just as the professor's status, if the government suddenly decided to draft women, which it won't, is legit.

She can't really show a harm based on speech or religion. The state isn't denying her employment based on either. It is denying her employment because she won't sign a statement that says she supports the Constitution--the very document that guarantees her right to religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association yet does not give her the right to employment at a state institution.

Why doesn't she support a document that protects her rights?

Have you read the Constitution? It says that the government will not promote religion nor discriminate based on religious beliefs. She has a claim if she was fired because she is a Quaker or a pacifist. But she wasn't. She was fired because she refused to sign an oath supporting the Constitution.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker. His mother was a Quaker. He represented California in Congress. He ran for governor of California. If the state had problems with Quakers, you can bet your ass Richard Nixon would have fixed California's anti-Quaker problem.

Just what has the Supreme Court decided about loyalty oaths? The Court has recognized that people even have a right to be Communist but they don't have a right to employment. If being a Quaker keeps her from signing the oath, then she can't teach in the California system. But that doesn't mean that the State of California is saying she can't be a Quaker. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/search/display.html?terms=employment&url=/anncon/html/amdt1cfrag2_user.html

I too am a liberal, but I have read the Constitution. As someone who hopes to practice law when I pass the State of Texas' Bar Exam, I had to sign a statement that says I support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Texas. They didn't ask me to fight in a war to defend it, but I would. They didn't ask me under what qualifications I would defend or support the constitutions. I was not given an opportunity to pencil in an objections or exceptions. I happen to know that the First Amendment gives me religious freedom and freedom of speech but it does not give me a right to practice law if I refuse to support the Constitution. If I can't support the Constitution, I can't be an attorney. But I can believe or not believe in the Constitution. And ironically, the Constitution protects that right but it doesn't protect a right to be an attorney if I don't support the Constitution.

I don't ask questions I can't answer. California's oath probably passes constitutional muster. If the professor in question doesn't want to sign the loyalty oath, she doesn't get to teach. She doesn't have a right to employment.

This sort of ridiculous nonsense is exactly why people think liberals are crazy. Why not come out in support of the Constitution, religious liberty and freedom of speech. Hell, why not be in favor of the right of association. It means we have the right to be stupid. But it does not mean that we have a right to be stupid on the state payroll. Support her right to think, believe, act anyway she choses, but why on earth can't we liberals understand that the state has a compelling interest in knowing that the people on the state payroll are supporters of the United States Constitution?

[Anntichrist S. Coulter]

I'm so glad that you're on our side.

As always, you do me proud, especially that last paragraph.

You more than make up for my brain-cell deficit.

Not very loquacious tonight, after being called something along the lines of a "really fucking stupid idiot" at Testosterone Central, and having the IRS lie to me and the USPS blame it all on the fucking IRS. When my truck turns into a 2,000-lb. paperweight, I'm parking it on the IRS's front steps, so help me. With a giant ***GO FUCK YOURSELF, DICK!!!*** banner taped to the windshield.