America, Not Keith Ellison What Book A Congressman Takes His Oath On (Dennis Prager Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 11/28/2006 | Dennis Prager

[Melas]

Either see it our way or don't run for office.

Here's the problem with your thinkging: You falsely believe that those people who comprised the OUR in your post above are in some kind of agreement. Worse, you complete ignore the fact that this guy passed the test and was VOTED IN BY HIS CONSTITUENTS. Congressmen represent districts, not the U.S.A. as a whole. If this guy's district is all about the Koran, then like it or not, those are the values that he's supposed to take to Washington.

[Melas]

Bull! I was an atheist most of my life and I never once worked against the United States Constitution.

[Dick Bachert]

Great idea -- a beautiful PIGSKIN COVER.

[Dick Bachert]

Political Correctness:

”A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

By spreading this definition around, perhaps we can employ one of the more effective methods of deflating and defeating the fools who practice and promote it: RIDICULE.

Unless stopped – and soon – PC will DESTROY Western Civilization -- if it hasn’t already.

PASS IT ON!!

[Dick Bachert]

Toward the end of the epic movie “Lawrence of Arabia,” Lawrence meets with Lord Allenby and King Feisal. At one point, Allenby declares to Lawrence “You’re an extraordinary liar.”

Feisal starts to exit the room, turns and offers “He should be. He’s almost an Arab.”

[-=SoylentSquirrel=-]

"...The logical extension of your position is that only Christians should be elected to office. I don't buy that..."

I DO buy that. I want folks with my values representing me in Congress. I also want folks with my values representing people NOT like me, in Congress also. It's the only way to keep our American culture intact. We owe these foreign running dogs nothing. Nothing, I say!

Seriously, we already have a "Black Congressional Caucus" overtly working against the values, goals and norms of Caucasians, and this is just one more nail in the coffin that is our nation.

[CottShop]

no sir Melas- last I checked this is still the U.S.A and as such whether it's a district or not- they STILL represent the U.S.A. The problem with your thinking is that you seem to be saying it's alright to enstate sub nations within a nation- France is right now having to deal with subnations that refuse to obey their laws- Shariia law now trumps French law in france and the authorities are powerless to do anyhting abotu it because of mob mentality. EVERY district has basics in which they must adhere to & one of those is following the greater law of the land and our laws state that people agree to swear before God while taking an oath. As I previously stated and which I stand behind is the fact that a person need not beleive in God, but they must agree to swear before God as being in a Christian nation the majority take very seriously the responsibilities of office & beleive that a person should stand before God and swear oath to both state and country.

While a governor does represent his district as you correctly state, his district does NOT trump national laws or national values- IF it did, there would be NO way to ensure the United in the term United States of America. Again- if a candidate can't agree to that then they have no business running for office in the UNITED States of America

[CottShop]

just a heads up here- seems there's a little circle jerk going on over at http://forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=1867

Nothing's cuter than people banding together to tee hee and slap each other on the back

[conservative in nyc]

As I previously stated and which I stand behind is the fact that a person need not beleive in God, but they must agree to swear before God as being in a Christian nation the majority take very seriously the responsibilities of office & beleive that a person should stand before God and swear oath to both state and country.

As explained numerous times on this thread, the Constitution doesn't require any Congressman to swear anything before God. All it requires is that he takes an oath (to whom is unspecified) OR affirmation (which has nothing to do with God) that they will support the Constitution. In fact, Article VI specifically says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

And as I noted in Post 51, Congressmen are sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the House Floor, and in 2005, most appear to have just raised their right hand while being sworn in. I didn't see any Bibles in C-SPAN's shot of the House Floor during the swearing in ceremony.

[CottShop]

since when is an oath before God a 'religious test'? As I said, the person need not even beleive in God to make the oath, as long as he is in agreement with upholding hte will of the poeple that he swear before God. And as stated before, the person may not beleive in God, but will still be held accountable by God regardless of His beleifs, which we in America take seriously & feel should be required for swearing oath. you're on shaky ground claiming that swearing oath is a 'religious test' an oath isn't in any way a test of one's beleif, but a requirement of office- it doesn't force anyone to believe anything

[CottShop]

“Invocation of a supernatural or holy being called to verify the veracity of a statement… An oath was a special appeal, an expression of sincerity backed up by the threat of divine retribution should the uttering prove false–hence the term ‘oath-breaker’. An oathbreaker was assumed to have committed a crime against God or of some divine entity, which would lead to damnation or another form of severe penalty.”

you are swearing an oath TO the constitution BEFORE God- that's the difference here.

An oath is no small matter- it was originally meant ot be given and upheld even unto death- Yes, people are no longer taken at their word- however, that still does not mean oaths have lost their meaning or importance. Here's an interesting link http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/wp-print.php?p=236

[CottShop]

This pretty much sums up the seriousness of the oath, but there would be one small change I'd make which I'll note at the end

[Although it would certainly help if the Members of Congress did have a conscience and did take seriously the sacredness of their oath, that’s in no way necessary for the success of the “You Swore on the Bible” strategy.

The strategy of “You Swore on the Bible” is not one of a private communication, in which an appeal to conscience is made. It is an entirely public statement, intended to apply pressure on the Members of Congress by affecting how they are perceived –and thus also how they are regarded– by their constituents.

These people get elected to Congress by persuading the public that they are upright, patriotic, God-fearing people. How can you be God-fearing if you break a promise made before God –if you can commit “a crime against God”– and think nothing of it? How can you be a patriot if –by violating your oath of office– you indifferently commit a treasonous act? How can you be upright if your promises mean nothing?]

the last paragraph Should probably read "These people get elected to Congress by persuading the public that they are upright, patriotic, and that they agree to honor the people's wishes by making their oath before God regardless of whether they beleive in God or not." Although the original would be preferable.

[onedoug]

Prager bump.

[conservative in nyc]

Article VI doesn't even require that a Congressman swear an oath to support the Constitution. He or she can make an affirmation that he will support the Constitution instead. And nothing in the Constitution even states that the oath must be sworn with his or her hand on the Bible.

Try telling a religious Quaker or Jehovah's Witness that swearing an oath isn't a religious test. The Framers allowed Congressmen and other office holders to make an affirmation to support the Constitution instead of swearing an oath precisely because religious Quakers would not take oaths. The Quakers fled England in part because they would be sent to jail under the Quaker Act for failing to take an oath.

[CottShop]

mmm yes conservative- we in this country jail people who refuse to take oaths in the presence of God- While there is nothing 'in writing' stating that the oath need be made 'on the bible' doing so on a koran is to state that you do not agree to swear before the Christian God-

An affirmation is STILL confirming that you agree, under penalty of God's judgement, that you will uphold the constitution.[In law, an affirmation can be: A solemn promise or assertion made under the penalties of perjury that has exactly the same legal effect as an oath.]

There is an attempt to trivialize oaths in this country that is unconscionable in the minds of the majority- the office of leadership is a serious undertaking.

Raising the right hand and swearing before the Christian God was meant as a way to 'affirm' that you agree to be held accountable under penalty of both God's judgement, and secondly, under our judicial judgement should you break that oath. Swearing on the Koran or any other book for that matter is an act that clearly shows you do not agree to swear before the Christian God, or even affirm before the Christian God.

You mentioned you didn't see a bible present in the mass swearing in- #1 I'm will to bet there was one- #2 If not- who is to say that they were right in so doing? I'm not real clear on this- but perhaps it is allowable to not use the bible but mearely to pledge an oath or confirmation before God simply by raising the right hand- however, when you introduce 'other books' such as the koran, that is taking a whole different line, and stating that 'I pledge under the God of my home country, and not the God of this country', and it comes down to the people's right to know that their elected officials agree with this country, and not soem other country- showing a pledge of oath to our constitution, instituted and controlled by the God of this country, and not to a god of another country.

A person swearing is making an oath that to break that oath is a sin before our God- it's no small matter & one that should be agreed to should a person desire to lead this country or a state or municipality even if a person doesn't believe in it.

[CottShop]

alos note- that link I gave about the darwin forum was not about this thread but the coin/God thread here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1744680/posts?page=242 my mistake

[conservative in nyc]

mmm yes conservative- we in this country jail people who refuse to take oaths in the presence of God-

No we don't. We allow them to make affirmations under penalties of perjury instead. This isn't 1660s England or 1660s Massachusetts.

While there is nothing 'in writing' stating that the oath need be made 'on the bible' doing so on a koran is to state that you do not agree to swear before the Christian God

Would you really want a Muslim swearing to tell the truth to a God he doesn't believe in on a Bible he has little regard for? Most states will allow Muslims to swear an oath on the Koran. All will allow Muslims to give an affirmation instead of an oath.

An affirmation is STILL confirming that you agree, under penalty of God's judgement, that you will uphold the constitution.[In law, an affirmation can be: A solemn promise or assertion made under the penalties of perjury that has exactly the same legal effect as an oath.]

An affirmation has nothing to do with God. It is a statement given under penalties of perjury - you may go to jail for perjury, but you've made no direct promise to God about anything.

You mentioned you didn't see a bible present in the mass swearing in- #1 I'm will to bet there was one- #2 If not- who is to say that they were right in so doing?

No, I said that I didn't see most Congressmen swearing their oath of office on the Bible. Most merely raised their right hand, placing their left hand down. There may or may not have been a Bible present somewhere in the House Chamber. As a practical matter, the House floor only seats about 448, and if all Congressmen are present, there's not much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold a bible. Watch the video for yourself. The swearing in ceremony starts at about 2:13:30.

[CottShop]

no sir- an affirmation of an oath in this Christian nation DOES have implications of swearing before God. Would I want a Muslim swearing before God if he didn't beleive? Absolutely. A man swearing before God whether he beleives in God or not is a testament that he swears His word is solid, and agrees that if it is not, then even though he doesn't beleive in Christina God, that he will be judged by God for the sin of lying. Thati s somethign we as a Christian nation take seriously.

[Most states will allow Muslims to swear an oath on the Koran. All will allow Muslims to give an affirmation instead of an oath.]

Really? News to me- Last I looked, we abide by oaths of office outlined by the original oaths- and we've already been over the affirmation part- a person affirms that an oath delcares that they shall be bound by God to uphold the law. If not, then the people shall be the judges and convict. They would not only be lying to the people but to God as well. While sidestepping the direct oath to God, an affirmation is still an oath bindment under God- the person agreeing that they shall be bound regardless of their beleif in God.

[CottShop]

after looking into this further it would appear that other books can be used, however, the premise is whether you swear an oath or swear an affirmation- you DO agree to make a religiously (Christian religion) agreed upon promise under penalty of BOTH human judgement AND Godly Judgement. The book doesn't matter apparently, but the solenm oath or affirmation to before God does matter- a great deal infact. Whether the person beleives in God or not isn't the issue, the issue is that they agree to be bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the laws, and agree that should they break those laws, they will be subjected to both judgements regardless of whether they beleive or not. They might not htink they shall be judged by God should they break the law, but in the end they shall be unbeknownst to them.

However, I WILL point out that I personally don't think someone SHOULD be making an oath to someone they don't even beleive in as their hearts intent can't be judged as a result. As one judge correctly noted before a trial of an athiest when he refused to swear oath the fella automatically discreditted his word right at the start (it was morei nvovled and better explained judicially than that- just paraphrasing)

[sneakers]

"how about the Constitution itself?"

That was my first thought. If not the Bible, then the Constitution. He doesn't believe what is in the Bible, but he had BETTER believe in what is in the Constitution.