By snoadmin
One would think that a country built on freedom of speech and the right to practice the religion of one’s choosing would at least pretend to respect the First Amendment. Or at least until we serve in government office.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on the firing of a math teacher for her amending an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution. Marianne Kearney-Brown’s employment as a remedial math teacher at California State University, East Bay was terminated after she added the words “nonviolently” and “affirm” to the state-mandated oath.
She drew an asterisk next to the word “defend” and added in, “As long as it doesn’t require violence,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.
Kearney-Brown is a Quaker whose faith system prefers affirmations to oaths and convictions that don’t necessarily align to the prevailing American culture of consumer excess. Instead, Quakers advocate peace and simplicity.
Now wait. Before all the intolerant fanatics of blind nationalism start jamming away on keyboards about our liberal, leftist views, hear us out.
Why do we still pretend, as a nation, to have freedom of religion when this seems to clearly not be the case?
If we really believe that such doctrines protecting freedom of religion and speech are so important, why is Barack Obama’s middle name constantly brought into political debate? Don’t tell us it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault.
We know you are just about to slam down your laptop and write an e-mail espousing the U.S.’s “tolerance” of religions, but stay with us. Unlike other countries that have applied genocide and xenophobia in an attempt to create homogenous, single-minded groups of people, we use word force and allegiance oaths.
We have, unfortunately, stumbled into an era when we are deemed unpatriotic and a threat to our country’s Christian values if we don’t blindly follow our government’s path.
Exiled immigrants and religiously persecuted humans built this country. We came here to progress and we would still be a colony if it weren’t for questioning authority.
Instead, American citizens are scolded for not wearing American flag pins on their lapels, or fired for having convictions and beliefs that make them balk at signing an oath to take up arms. Kearney-Brown merely wanted to defend the Constitution “nonviolently.” It’s as if the CSU thinks the system couldn’t survive if some form of pacifism infected its campuses.
To think that something like practicing one’s humanitarian paradigm might get one called on the carpet by a human resources bureaucracy smells a bit “oxy-moronic.”
As a country, we have had some moments – OK, centuries – of wrongfully suppressing other humans. Accepting or demonizing one’s religion over another is a step backward.
Swearing on a Bible is mandatory for one’s service in Congress. This has not come without controversy. In 2006, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, was sworn in on a Qur’an. This only spurred fire and distasteful comments about his religious affiliation, including a well-known talk show host.
This does not set a very good example for the rest of the world.
So why shouldn’t we have the right to pledge a nonviolent defense of our Constitution if we abhor violence? If our First Amendment rights guarantee protected speech and expression, shouldn’t refusal to sign an oath one sees as innocuous and contradictory be shielded speech, too?
Much as with Kearney-Brown and Ellison, it appears we’re damned if we do and we’re fired if we don’t.
