For a long time I’ve had a soft spot for Quakers. I even did my undergrad history thesis on Quakers and Puritans fighting it out in Boston during the 1650s and 1660s. By the way, its a pretty interesting story and I suppose wikipedia would work as a beginning introduction for those who want to know.
Anyways, thats all to say, I like the Quakers, especially when they get fired for not signing loyalty oaths unamended. Ms. Kearney-Brown chose, again for the third time according to the news article, to amend the loyalty oath required of her to work in the state school system:
Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
However, this time the end result is Ms. Kearney-Brown getting fired and California State University East Bay losing what sounds like is a good teacher:
“I was kind of stunned,” said Kearney-Brown, who is pursuing her master’s degree in math to earn the credentials to do exactly the job she is being fired from.
“I was born to do this,” she said. “I teach developmental math, the lowest level. The kids who are conditionally accepted to the university. Give me the kids who hate math – that’s what I want.”
On a related subject, since when were loyalty oaths required? Doesn’t this strike one as reminiscent of some totalitarian regime, or is it time Christians woke up and smelled the compromise?