Shamelessly stolen from Ted:
Certainly there cannot be a method devised at once more ineffectual and iniquitous than a federal oath. What is the language that in strictness of interpretation belongs to the act of the legislature imposing this oath? To one party it says, â€˜We know very well that you are our friends; the oath as it relates to you we acknowledge to be altogether superfluous; nevertheless you must take it, as a cover to our indirect purposes in imposing it upon persons whose views are less unequivocal than yours.â€™ To the other party it says, â€˜It is vehemently suspected that you are inimical to the cause in which we are engaged: this suspicion is either true or false; if false, we ought not to suspect you, and much less ought we to put you to this invidious and nugatory purgation; if true, you will either candidly confess your difference, or dishonestly prevaricate: be candid, and we will indignantly banish you; be dishonest and we will receive you as bosom friends.â€™
If the Government is keen to revive ideas from the late seventeenth century as part of its “citizenship agenda”, how about a new Triennial Act, which would be a great improvement on what we have at present, rather than a Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade, which wouldn’t?