# An atheist claiming a religious exemption to the California Oath of Office? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 31, 2018, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561 "2018-08-31T09:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/41 "2018-09-02T19:04:48Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think the OP is being far too restrictive in his definitions. Let’s say that I believe a person should have to be 21 years old to vote. Am I failing to support the U.S. Constitution against its enemies? You’re free to believe that the voting age should be twenty-one. But you’re required to uphold the law; you can’t turn away a voter who is eighteen. > [@UltraVires](#): > > What about all of the failed proposed amendments in Congress? Are those Congresspeople in violation of their oaths since obviously they disagree with part of the Constitution? Let’s say you’re a member of Congress. You’re free, legally and morally, to introduce a proposed amendment to repeal the 26th Amendment. The Constitution includes procedures for amending it. But you have to continue to uphold the 26th Amendment up to the day your repeal is enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2018, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/42 "2018-09-02T19:25:46Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > The OP asks if secular humanism is considered a religion. The answer is yes. [A federal judge](https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secular_humanism_not_a_religion) in Oregon ruled in _American Humanist Association_ v. _United States of America_ that secular humanism is a religion. A judge’s opinion doesn’t redefine [language usage:](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+religion&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS762US762&oq=define%3A+religion&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.3472j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) > [@](#): > > Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. That means that secular humanism, like atheism, is NOT a religion, any more than not collecting stamps can be called a hobby. > [@Reply](#): > > This job is an absolutely menial position. I’m won’t even be a clerk, just a part-time aide with no policymaking or discretionary powers whatsoever, not even really any advisory stuff. My day-to-day is just helping around the office and occasionally interacting with tourists, handing out brochures and the such (it’s an entry-level student job). The oath is just a formality, and will have pretty much zero impact on my duties. But who knows? In 5-10 years time? I may end up working in some other, more significant role. So right now, you have no problem with defending any constitution. If, in 5 years’ time, things change, and you are feeling forced to defend something you don’t believe in, resign. It was a good ride while it lasted. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/43 "2018-09-02T20:02:51Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > No. They didn’t care. It’s just meaningless paperwork they wanted to get over with. My written statement was just what I said in the previous post, with no further specification or elaboration. Probably no one will ever see it again. _shrug_ Stupid oath, stupid process. I cannot square that you believe this is a non-issue after saying how important I wasto you to be honest about your views on the oath; but whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/44 "2018-09-02T20:21:53Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Of course I don’t think that California is a theocracy, but having lived in rural towns, believe me… religion is still a significant sociopolitical force. I categorically object to religious corruption in public life, and there is plenty of that to go around, even in California. It’s a huge part of the Republican base, so even the virtue-signaling/dog-whistling language that seems innocent to you has the nefarious purpose of normalizing religion in state affairs. Do you think that removing religious language from the state Constitution would change the impact of religion in small towns? I would suspect that there is plenty of language in the Constitution to help fight religious incursions at the local level - in the sense of the religious trying to force their beliefs on us. In any case the religious will mask this in secular terms, like they did for Prop. 8. So, even if you get what you want it wouldn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/45 "2018-09-02T21:09:56Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > …My gripe isn’t with the Constitution(s) per se, but the “I take this obligation freely, without **any mental reservation** or purpose of evasion” part of the oath. As above, I have reservations. I’m fine with probably 90% of the documents, and I can abide by the remaining 10% even if I don’t like it, but I cannot say I support these documents _without reservation_. The oath isn’t, “I shall abide by the Constitutions of the California and the United States despite my reservations,” which is something I would be fine with. It is that “I will support and defend them […] and have no reservations in doing so.”… I think you are misreading the oath. First, I don’t think you have any cause to claim a religious exemption, because it already allows you to “affirm” rather than “swear”. Second, I don’t think you are affirming that you have no reservations about the constitution, I think you are affirming that you have no reservations > [@](#): > > that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely Supporting and defending the constitution doesn’t mean you agree with every word it says. I will support and defend my brother, even though he’s sometimes a pain in the ass. I don’t agree with him completely, but I’ll defend him. Your job might potentially involve supporting some aspect of the constitution. If that comes up, you need to be willing to do that. Otherwise, you shouldn’t accept the job. The preamble doesn’t act as a “law” in any real way. You aren’t going to be asked to defend the reasons the constitution was signed, you are (potentially) going to be asked to defend the regulations, etc., encoded in the constitution. So you can’t discriminate against the religious, for example. Or if you can marry people, you can’t refuse to marry a same-sex couple. That’s the sort of thing you need to defend. Not the precise wording of the preamble. Similarly, bearing true faith and allegiance doesn’t mean you agree with every word, just that you will support it, even the parts you disagree with. And unless someone is holding a gun to your head, you have the free choice to affirm this or to find some other job. So I see no problem with that at all. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/46 "2018-09-04T00:49:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re free to believe that the voting age should be twenty-one. But you’re required to uphold the law; you can’t turn away a voter who is eighteen. > > Let’s say you’re a member of Congress. You’re free, legally and morally, to introduce a proposed amendment to repeal the 26th Amendment. The Constitution includes procedures for amending it. > > But you have to continue to uphold the 26th Amendment up to the day your repeal is enacted. What does “uphold” mean? I’m a Congressperson. If a 19 year old tries to vote and is turned away at the polls, how do I uphold the 26th amendment? If I refuse to vote for a “Sense of the House” resolution condemning the poll worker, am I in violation? If I disagree with Roe v. Wade, am I in violation? If two years from now, SCOTUS overrules Roe v. Wade, am I in compliance and everyone else in violation? I think not either way. That’s why I say the OP is overstating the issue. He can swear to support the Constitution even if he believes that the GOP has usurped it and passed laws wiping away what he believes are essential parts of it. He supports the “Constitution” not what Trump (or Obama or Paul Ryan or even a rogue Supreme Court) says it is. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/47 "2018-09-04T17:11:54Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > No. They didn’t care. It’s just meaningless paperwork they wanted to get over with. My written statement was just what I said in the previous post, with no further specification or elaboration. Probably no one will ever see it again. _shrug_ Stupid oath, stupid process. …until you run for public office, and the opposition researchers dig up this paperwork for your first public service job. Then you can explain yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/48 "2018-09-04T17:27:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What does “uphold” mean? I’m a Congressperson. If a 19 year old tries to vote and is turned away at the polls, how do I uphold the 26th amendment? If I refuse to vote for a “Sense of the House” resolution condemning the poll worker, am I in violation? > > If I disagree with Roe v. Wade, am I in violation? If two years from now, SCOTUS overrules Roe v. Wade, am I in compliance and everyone else in violation? I think not either way. > > That’s why I say the OP is overstating the issue. He can swear to support the Constitution even if he believes that the GOP has usurped it and passed laws wiping away what he believes are essential parts of it. He supports the “Constitution” not what Trump (or Obama or Paul Ryan or even a rogue Supreme Court) says it is. FWIW, I think the intent of the oath is to protect our laws from extrajudicial assaults, as opposed to requiring that every law be treated as an infallible utterance from the Almighty, for which dissent is considered heresy. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/49 "2018-09-04T21:30:44Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > A judge’s opinion doesn’t redefine language usage. That means that secular humanism, like atheism, is NOT a religion, any more than not collecting stamps can be called a hobby. English is a living language with no real arbitrator of meaning. English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, lagging behind popular culture. [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) says “4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. At the end of the day, no 10,000 people will ever agree on what precisely “religion” means. Is Buddhism a religion? It doesn’t matter what you believe unless someone wants to use force to enforce their definition on you. In this case, it’s the state using its monopoly on violence to coerce behavior, as moderated (in theory) by judges’ interpretations. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I cannot square that you believe this is a non-issue after saying how important I wasto you to be honest about your views on the oath; but whatever. I’m not sure I follow. I didn’t elaborate because I don’t believe my employer cares one way or the other, not because I don’t. I would gladly explain it to them if they asked, the same way I explained here. As far as I could tell, they just wanted to get the paperwork over with so I could start my job asap – which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with matters of Constitutional law. > [@Voyager](#): > > Do you think that removing religious language from the state Constitution would change the impact of religion in small towns? > I would suspect that there is plenty of language in the Constitution to help fight religious incursions at the local level - in the sense of the religious trying to force their beliefs on us. In any case the religious will mask this in secular terms, like they did for Prop. 8. So, even if you get what you want it wouldn’t help. It’s a step in the right direction, sure. If it were up to me, public policy would be strictly evidence-based and require sound science instead of populist religiosity. Things like climate change denialism wouldn’t be a thing if it weren’t for the GOP dog-whistling to conservative Christians. I would be quite stoked to see all references to God/s removed from all US public documents, maybe with a lengthy pre-amble reminding future generations of the damage they once did. If it were up to me, I would also remove religious freedom from (or at least greatly temper) the 1st Amendment and regulate the hell out of religions, everything from Mormon child rape to Catholic molestation to Christian anti-abortionism to Muslim anti-feminism. Good thing it’s not up to me, huh? > [@puzzlegal](#): > > Similarly, bearing true faith and allegiance doesn’t mean you agree with every word, just that you will support it, even the parts you disagree with. > > And unless someone is holding a gun to your head, you have the free choice to affirm this or to find some other job. So I see no problem with that at all. I also, thankfully, have the choice of _not_ taking the oath by claiming a religious exemption, which I have done, so thank you Quakers. I see it the equivalent of [Satanists putting up goat head statues](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639726472/satanic-temple-protests-ten-commandments-monument-with-goat-headed-statue) in front of courts (which I highly approve of). > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > …until you run for public office, and the opposition researchers dig up this paperwork for your first public service job. Then you can explain yourself. Good. Let them read it. I stand by my words. Besides, don’t worry, I’m too disorganized to ever run, and too flawed a character to ever win even if I did 🙂 I’ve said much worse, and I stand by those words, too. Our nation is antiquated, extremely flawed, unjust, and far from great. Everything from the Constitution to electoral systems to campaign financing to executive immunity to a lack of direct federal democracy all need to be updated for the modern age. > [@Ravenman](#): > > FWIW, I think the intent of the oath is to protect our laws from extrajudicial assaults, as opposed to requiring that every law be treated as an infallible utterance from the Almighty, for which dissent is considered heresy. It’s really a mix of wanting to instill a sense of loyalty to institutions and also because politicians from the Civil War onwards wanted to use them to get rid of people they didn’t like. > **[Oath of office](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#History_of_the_Oath)** > > An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before assuming the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or organization. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremon... > **[Loyalty oaths fail the test of democracy](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-oe-stone11-story.html)** > > Such requirements are an anachronism from the McCarthy era. > **[The long history of 'loyalty oaths'](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-kness2apr02-story.html)** > > Oaths aren't mere McCarthy-era tools of oppression -- they've been around for centuries. ---
**Author:** ![blob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blob/32/489_2.png) [@blob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blob)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/50 "2018-09-04T23:00:30Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Good. Let them read it. I stand by my words. 😃 I hope you are never called on to try to justify or “explain” what you’ve done. Of course your employer isn’t too concerned, they aren’t the one who’ve made a statement to the effect of what you have. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/51 "2018-09-04T23:03:24Z")
> [@blob](#): > > 😃 I hope you are never called on to try to justify or “explain” what you’ve done. Of course your employer isn’t too concerned, they aren’t the one who’ve made a statement to the effect of what you have. 😃 Haven’t I already? I laid it all out in the first post and I stuck to it. I’m not sure where this imaginary secrecy comes from. ---
**Author:** ![blob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blob/32/489_2.png) [@blob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blob)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/52 "2018-09-04T23:31:48Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Haven’t I already? I laid it all out in the first post and I stuck to it. I’m not sure where this imaginary secrecy comes from. What “imaginary secrecy”? You seem to invent scenarios and issues where none exists. It’s like this. YOU have declared the existence of a "religious objection’ to the oath, “supported” by some ill-conceived objections to something-or-other. YOU may be called on to explain and to try to justify what you have declared. If it’s irrational nonsense, you aren’t going to be able to do that. It probably won’t happen, you’ll work there for a couple of months and after you’ve left the whole thing will just be something the HR department trots out at Christmas parties for a laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/53 "2018-09-05T00:13:31Z")
Shrug. I’m fine with that happening. I find it less insane than a country forcing women to become sex slaves because zombie Jesus’s mom told them to, or something or other, and then celebrating his birthday by buying useless shit for each other under a fake plastic tree. Quite rational, that. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561/54 "2018-10-16T15:02:47Z")
“…if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.” - Sen. John F. Kennedy, Houston, Sept. 12, 1960 > **[Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600)** > > On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to a group of Protestant ministers in Houston on the issue of his Catholic faith. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-atheist-claiming-a-religious-exemption-to-the-california-oath-of-office/820561.md?page=2)