Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Many ABB-ers REFUSE to Take Loyalty Oaths?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:40 PM
Original message
Poll question: How Many ABB-ers REFUSE to Take Loyalty Oaths?
Please vote just this once just to make the oath-taking ABBers feel more secure & maybe do loyalty-oath threads & polls less often or at least they'll know that that many more people agree with them even though they don't all post and/or vote. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. What loyalty oath?
I wasn't aware there was a loyalty oath required to be ABB... the only time I've seen "loyalty oaths" ever mentioned were when a few anti-ABBers were ranting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. ABB affirmation threads/polls?
haven't seen 'em?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yeah, I've seen a few of those
But that's hardly a "loyalty oath." There's no pledge or promise associated with it. When you say "loyalty oath," I think something like the following:

"I, ____________, solemnly swear before ________________ that I will vote for the Democratic Nominee, because they are all excellent candidates, and the Democratic Nominee has a far greater chance of defeating Bush in November than any third-party candidate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I personally haven't seen ONE of those you describe...
But I have seen ABBers desperately pleading the case for ousting Bush to people who think Nader is a viable alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. You are a sneaky one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who the hell is asking that you take a loyalty oath?!
Besides all the Anti-ABBers, anyways, with their terms and contrracts and stipulations....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't have a problem with loyalty oaths.
I'm loyal, so where's the umbrage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piperay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Me too
I'm loyal and glad to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. GREAT poll!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Quaker here. Don't do oaths. None of that hand-raising,
bible palming, swear-to-tell-the-truth stuff. Doesn't seem to keep the Iran Contra mob from lying, did it, and they took all kinds of oaths, didn't they? Aren't Quakers sensible to call oaths a load of horse manure? (sorry, not supposed to mention religion, eh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Do not swear great oaths
Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no. - Jesus

Which is why the Constitution allows you to 'affirm' the oath of office if you wish, instead of swear... and the phrase 'so help me God' is not in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Exactly - but some of us, myself included, are cantankerous enough
Edited on Thu Feb-26-04 05:44 PM by Snow
that we don't even affirm oaths. Dunno what I'll do when I'm elected president. It'll be an interesting scene. "President-elect Snow refuses to swear of affirm the Oath of Office."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You don't?
I thought they added the 'affirm' thing because the Quakers wouldn't swear...
I always thought it would be neat to be the first President to 'affirm' vice swear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. It may have been for the Quakers, but I think it's for another bunch as
well - I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses, although I couldn't swear to that (sorry!). Some Quakers are okay with the 'affirm' thing; there's a fair number who aren't, and there's a fair number who say, hey, we're Quakers - we don't have any rules!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. JW's weren't around when the Constitution was written...
And Quakers were very active in politics back then. The Quakers and the Baptists were the ones who got us the first amendment prohibition on government support of religion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. True - and you're welcome.....
but I still don't know when the 'affirm' thing came up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. Looks like you had the right of it, Hawker - the Quakers were to
blame for the whole thing. Check this out:
from
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
- snip -
During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:
Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."
Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."
- snip -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. What'd Nixon do?
Quaker, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Since Quakers believe in being honest and truthful in all things
Since Nixon never lied and was always truthful, I imagine that as a good Quaker he affirmed the oath instead of swearing it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Nixon gave Quakers a bad name in a sense, but be careful because Nixon
Edited on Fri Feb-27-04 01:44 PM by mzmolly
is not like any quaker I've met.

There are two main branches of Quakerism.

Nixon, to my understanding, was of a branch that is less traditional and tends to be more conservative politically. In fact, when I explored Quakerism they denounced him basically as someone who didn't practice. ;)

*Friends* Quakers are some of the most activist/progressive voices for liberal causes in this country and beyond.

See here for more information. I demonstrated against the war with several Quaker friends, which is what gained my respect/interest in the organization initially.

http://fcnl.org/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. *chuckle* As did Herbert Hoover, I expect -eom-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Here's the oaths of office - this is interesting -
look at the part about help from god...
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1929/usconoth.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. A note about the enlisted man's oath...
something I've affirmed or sworn (depending on my mood) 5 times...
"So Help Me God" is optional. 3 of the 5 times I've requested that it be left off. The two times I left it on, the first was done in a group and I didn't know I had a choice, and I forgot to tell the enlisting officer the 3rd time, so rather than remain silent and embarass her, I said it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. NO party or candidate has a Right to DEMAND my vote or support
I get to decide.

No ABB for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. ABBer who is too lazy to take a loyalty oath...
Somebody convince me why I should take an oath and I will. Otherwise I will just sit on my ass and support the democratic nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lams712 Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. I WILL NEVER TAKE A LOYALTY OATH FOR ANYTHING!!!!
What is this, McCarthyesque 1950's Cold War hysteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kathleen04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
15. After the first 50
it became a little tiresome..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
20. I refuse to take a loyalty oath and have never required it of anyone
else.

I have tried to persuade people NOT to vote third party but calling that a requirement to take a loyalty oath is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adjoran Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
21. Loyalty oaths are pretty meaningless
especially on a message board, where almost everyone is anonymous. Even in my home county, where we had such oaths for years, no one followed you into the voting booth to see if you told the truth or not.

If ABB isn't enough for some, I have to wonder just what they do want, and what they think they will have accomplished if they get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
25. *The primaries are no time for oaths* After the nominee is chosen, I will
revisit the oath issue. :P

I did take and encourage so called ABB oaths before the primaries heated up but again, the primaries are no time for such oaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
26. i refuse to take a loyalty oath
Edited on Fri Feb-27-04 01:33 PM by buddhamama
i'm still a thinking being. there are no known determined outcomes.
in a world of uncertainties loyalty oaths are dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
28. ABB, but voting Green for Prez.
And, I don't mind taking the loyalty oaths with that disclaimer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. I refuse to comment n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC