|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 11, 2013 4:44:59 GMT -6
And then you politicians get to work to abolish the oath. Why do we have to swear an oath become citizens? INDEED. |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 11, 2013 7:45:41 GMT -6
Note:
I had been sampling some of the domestic brews of adult beverages when I wrote my comment about precedence.
Mea Culpa ?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 11, 2013 8:01:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 8:22:19 GMT -6
You can't actually unswear an oath. It just isn't how oaths work.
If you go to court and swear and oath, testify before a jury and the whole nine yards, you can't walk back tweet minutes later and say "by the way, I recant that oath." Otherwise people charged with perjury (lying under oath) would just retroactively revoke their oath.
Oaths are not ongoing things that can be terminated at any time. They are a specific statement at a specific point in time. The only way to undo an oath is to go back in time and never take the oath in the first place.
That differs greatly from protesting an oath (or the contents thereof). You can make a statement that says "this is what I believe, and how my views have changed since taking the oath" but nothing can ever undo an oath. Oaths are designed that way on purpose so as to convey a sense of seriousness and to bind the oath taker to whatever they are attesting to.
While the SoS has precedent that renouncing an oath is akin to renouncing citizenship, it could be argued from a legal standpoint that renouncing an oath while clearly indicating a desire to remain a citizen is more in line with a lawful (and peaceful) protest. In other words, it is more like burning your draft card than defecting to the USSR. But since no such case has been decided by the UC, there exists no clear binding precedent either way.
A Magistracy ruling by yours rely once held that almost any wording can be construed as a renunciation of citizenship where there is clear evidence that the citizen no longer desires to affiliate with Talossa or consider him or herself a citizen. But since the protestor in this instance has clearly indicated a desire to remain a Talossan citizen but objects to portions of the oath of citizenship as a matter of conscience, it could be argued that such as action is protected under the third covenant:
Third Covenant. The government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or conscience in worship or conduct....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 11, 2013 8:35:46 GMT -6
You can't actually unswear an oath. It just isn't how oaths work. I think you are in error here. You can break or renounce an oath of allegiance. An oath of allegiance is like a contract, it shouldn't be confused with swearing an oath on something, as when giving witness. Even both are called oaths, they are not the same thing. |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 11, 2013 8:43:22 GMT -6
You can't actually unswear an oath. It just isn't how oaths work. I think you are in error here. You can break or renounce an oath of allegiance. An oath of allegiance is like a contract, it shouldn't be confused with swearing an oath on something, as when giving witness. Even both are called oaths, they are not the same thing. This is how Wikipedia describes an Oath: "An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath, to make a solemn vow. Those who conscientiously object to making an oath will often make an affirmation instead."(And yes, I do know the perils of citing Wikipedia as a source ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OathEdit: added emphasis to "binding" |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 8:47:29 GMT -6
You can't actually unswear an oath. It just isn't how oaths work. I think you are in error here. You can break or renounce an oath of allegiance. An oath of allegiance is like a contract, it shouldn't be confused with swearing an oath on something, as when giving witness. Even both are called oaths, they are not the same thing. Breaking an oath is not "undoing" an oath. And yes, they are the same thing. Please see Mick's definition. I once took vows of poverty,chastity and obedience. Well, I left the order against the wishes of my superior. I got married and I own stuff. Even if I receive a dispensation to leave and a "release" from those vows, it still doesn't change the fact that the vow was taken. S:reu Lowry did not ask if he can break his oath, he said he wants to "undo" his oath which is not possible in any legal system. |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 11, 2013 8:59:54 GMT -6
I think you are in error here. You can break or renounce an oath of allegiance. An oath of allegiance is like a contract, it shouldn't be confused with swearing an oath on something, as when giving witness. Even both are called oaths, they are not the same thing. Breaking an oath is not "undoing" an oath. And yes, they are the same thing. Please see Mick's definition. Fair enough, I concede the point. But surely you must be able to be released by the one you swore allegiance to? |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 11, 2013 9:04:25 GMT -6
If you are released from your Oath, does that make the agreement for why you made the Oath invalid?
If part of joining a group requires depends on you to make a statement or complete a task - if you renege on the Oath, does that invalidate the agreement that depended on that Oath?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 9:18:16 GMT -6
Breaking an oath is not "undoing" an oath. And yes, they are the same thing. Please see Mick's definition. Fair enough, I concede the point. But surely you must be able to be released by the one you swore allegiance to? Of course, with consequences. Let's say I had walked up to my provincial superior and said "I'm getting married." Or even "I just got married." The consequence would be that, unless I gave up my new wife and threw out a few meA culpas, I would have to leave the order. I took an oath to do certain things that now I am violating. If I swear an oath to tell the truth, I can then lie. The penalty is a charge of perjury. In the case of an oath of citizenship, you either renounce it or you don't. You either follow it or you don't. You can't say "by the way, that part about the King? Well when I said that it was Opposite Day, so really I don't pledge any allegiance to the king." You already did it. You can make statements clarifying your position. You can pursue legal or legislative means to try to abolish the monarchy, but you cannot undo having made the oath in the first place. So, any new oath would really just be a statement clarifying your current beliefs and practices. And that might form the basis of your life and thoughts going forward, but it doesn't undo, annul or even replace the original oath, it just sort of amends it. And that's OK. People change their minds, but that doesn't mean we have to forget and distance ourselves from the way we felt in the past (unless you were a serial killer in the past and saw the light). Conversely, if you RENOUNCE the oath you took, you have to renounce the whole thing. You can't pick pieces out of it. I didn't have the option of saying "I'm going to get married, but I'll totally remain an obedient cleric and give everything I own to the order so I can still participate in the life of the order." Some guys tried that after the second Vatican council, it didnt work out and they were expelled from the priesthood. If you renounce an oath n the past, you are saying you never intended to take it seriously. You're saying "please backdate my current views to this date." Which, if done, means that you regret having taken the oath of citizenship ever and if you DID have a do over, would not take the oath. That, in most cases would have resulted in you ever becoming a citizen. To be "fully released" from the oath of citizenship has the consequence of denying your very citizenship because one disagrees with a portion of the oath they already took. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Like it or not, at present, Talossa is a constitutional monarchy. If you go to another constitutional monarchy (like Canada) you will find that the government has a vice regal representative like our Cunstuval, their government is referred to in correspondence as "the Crown" and oaths of citizenships require one to pledge allegiance to the Queen of Canada. Maybe one day, Canada will get rid of the royal everything and be a strict republic. But right now, they are a monarchy. So, if you want to become a Canadian citizen, your oath is going to name the Queen. If in the future that changes, that has no bearing on the oath or the takers thereof present and past. |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 11, 2013 9:36:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 9:43:46 GMT -6
That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing! |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 11, 2013 10:21:20 GMT -6
The one thing - re Cresti's excellent post - that strikes me is not to do with Andy; it's to do with Flip. He continues to bear arms granted by the King's personal, royal authority, whilst having explicitly stated his (partial) rejection of the oath he swore that permits him to be in a situation to bear those arms - specifically, he rejects that part of the oath that recognizes the King's ah...royal authority.
Even if it's not illegal, it seems a little like a lack of integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 12:02:25 GMT -6
The one thing - re Cresti's excellent post - that strikes me is not to do with Andy; it's to do with Flip. He continues to bear arms granted by the King's personal, royal authority, whilst having explicitly stated his (partial) rejection of the oath he swore that permits him to be in a situation to bear those arms - specifically, he rejects that part of the oath that recognizes the King's ah...royal authority. Even if it's not illegal, it seems a little like a lack of integrity. I'm going to pipe in an argument in favor of Flip's arms, just to keep things interesting. I have noted numerous times that "making a statement" through word or action is the sort of free speech and activity that is the cornerstone of any good and just society. I have also noted that, after making the oath, like any number of other oaths that people make (like wedding vows) folks have the basic right to change their mind on a matter. It doesn't annul the original, but we reserve the right to say "hey, I once pledged allegiance to the King, but now I don't think kings are a very good idea." That seems to be the case with S:reu Lowry and S:reu Molinar. But there exist plenty of people in England and Canada who feel the same way about their shared monarch, right? Yet, they may have, in he past, served in the Queen's military or delivered the Royal Mail. Does that mean that, if they now choose to support abolition of the monarchy that they must also surrender every medal they earned or refuse to ever again wear their uniform? I would say not. I have a colleague who is an Eagle Scout. Most recently, he joined a small contingent of Eagle Scouts who protested the BSA's ban on gays from participation in the organization (he was also protesting the exclusion of atheists). He wrote a letter expressing how he could not, in good conscience, continue to affiliate with a body that so blatantly discriminates. So, he returned his Eagle Scout badge, his certificate, and whatever else one gets upon becoming an Eagle Scout, to BSA HQ. he also took it off of his resume. But if you go to his house, he has a small shadow box in his office that contains his favorite (or most important, i dont know crap about boy scout awards and badges) merit badges, an award or two, and the cloth badge that he wore on his uniform when he was a scout. He didnt surrender those because they didnt represent the political turmoil that led to HS departure. They were reminders only of his initial pride at earning the badge in the first place. Granted, that is different from publicly displaying the badge you said you didn't want which was awarded by an authority you now reject. It is a private display. But if a fellow US veteran told me he believed that the US should have a King, I wouldn't insist that he return all of the medals he received by the authority of the US President. We throw around terms like "hypocrite" and we sometimes see political motivation in everything. Sometimes we do what we do out of emotion rather than reason. That's not necessarily a bad thing (despite my signature). To those who criticize Flip's displaying arms, I direct you to look at my own. You will note that they bear a rather distinct cross. It was a request from a young cleric who had just become Talossan and who, not terribly long afterward, would reject much of what that symbol means in favor of converting to Judaism. The idea of returning my arms crossed my mind. I could also stop displaying them. But to me, they represent a very happy time before things with my order went south, before a crisis of faith, and just about the time I made new friends here who have remained with me despite how different I have become from my initial citizenship application. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 11, 2013 12:04:34 GMT -6
As for Andy's wish to "undo" his oath, let's assume that he didn't breach it, then let him alter his oath and let's be done with it.
Btw., for those who want to see what's possible, here's what I replied to the post which asked for the oath:
"I pledge myself to loyality to Talossa." Apparently it was accepted.
And as now there are better ways to find out if applicants for the Talossan Citizensship are still willing to join Talossa after two weeks, let's get rid of the compulsory swearing. It's imposing too much of a burden on their shoulders, especially if they nodded far too quickly just because they desperately wanted to join Talossa instantly.
For instance, under German law people under the age of 16 can't be sworn in. Follwing this, quite some Talossan cititzens would have been sworn in illegally, and their oath is worth nothing at all.
|
|
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."
