Posted on 01/30/2019 10:46:51 AM PST by Kaslin
The Democrat-controlled House Committee on Natural Resources may soon strike the reference to God in the oath given to witnesses testifying before the panel, according to a draft, Fox News reports.
Rather than including “so help you God,” at the end of the oath, it would instead read: "Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?">
The rules proposal places the words "so help you God" in red brackets, indicating they are slated to be cut. The words "under penalty of law" are in red text, indicating that Democrats propose to add that phrasing to the oath.
The draft rules also remove the phrase "his or her" throughout the document, changing those two pronouns to "their." The rules additionally modify all references to the committee's "Chairman" to instead refer only to the committee's "Chair."
Other rules changes relate to expanding the committee's authority over natural gas in Alaska and fossil-fuel resources.
While many federal oaths include the phrase "so help me God," some -- most notably the presidential oath of office -- do not. (FoxNews.com)
A vote will be taken on the new language by the committee this week and will take effect immediately if approved.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., told Fox News she's not surprised by the move.
"They really have become the party of Karl Marx," she said.
Notably, the Democratic Party also attempted to remove reference to God in their party platform in 2012, only for it to be reinserted after backlash.
They think if they can take away God , Guns and Freedom they’ll win
It’ll be replaced with “Allah,” eventually.
Soon the Rats will demand that all such oaths end with “so help me,Saul Alinsky”.
What trash. I may try a DC recreational activity.
Actually, I’ve seen some pretty devout Christians who refused to swear to God in this situation because of the biblical prohibitions against oaths. (Matthew 5.33-35)
Every Muslim, Wetback, and India punk will LOSE.
While realizing things change etc, I do not really have a problem with this BUT, what will be next?
Drop Under Penalty of Law?
Drop the Raise right hand?
Drop Do You Swear?
Of course a true, committed liar doesn’t care about an oath anyway, he/she will react to as how the ‘wind is blowing’.
I have often said that I probably wouldn’t get all that ‘upset’ if ‘Under God’ was removed from the Pledge of Allegiance since I learned it without ‘Under God’.
BUT the way things are headed we may have the same words as in the ‘Pledge’ BUT I can see ‘them’ removing the title as ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ has to have many (well more than a few BUT that is what seems to count anymore) people getting their panties in an uproar.
First it was the Lord’s Prayer. Then the Pledge, then the 10 Commandments. They booed Him at their convention. The strangest part is they reject the Lord over abortion and where they want to stick their willie. Those seem to be the main focus of Democrats. Next is skin color. You know, the important stuff.
God, in His Mercy, gives each one of us a lifetime to repent (ie admit Christ is the only way to heaven, and accept HIS sacrifice for our sins, and stop trying to ‘be holy’ ourselves, ie work our way to heaven where God will be obliged to acknowledge our efforts and allow us in)
He gives us a lifetime to accept His mercy, Yet if we die in sin, We spend eternity in hell- Some accuse God of employing a ‘too harsh’ punishment- claiming that the punishment exceeds the sins committed while on earth (eternity of punishment)
Well folks- God in His mercy gave us a lifetime to accept Him, but if we die in sin, We WILL spend eternity in hell absolutely seething in our hatred of God, being nearly demoniacally blasphemous towards Him, because we no longer have the restrainer (The Holy Ghost) to temper our hatred- and God’s wrath will be poured out on us for ever because our hatred of Him will be forever, and will be ‘all consuming’ we will seethe with hatred towards Him, and we will do so willingly- going to hell willingly- to steep in unrelenting hatred-
So no- the punishment will not exceed the sin because the sins will be multiplied many times over when we reach a hell where there is absolutely no Godly influence (ie the Restrainer, The Holy Spirit) any longer- Our true hateful, unGodly sinful nature will be released fully- and God’s righteous judgment will come to fruition against us if we die in our sin and rebellion against Him- We’ve been given a lifetime of chance to accept His gracious salvation- We have only ourselves to blame if we reject that
Looks like the democrat party is set to reject is- Folks, don’t follow in their footsteps- Hell is not going to be a place of parties and reveling- It’s going to be hell- If you can’t stand getting a minor burn here on earth- you sure won’t be able to stand the constant all over, non consuming burning in hell-fire- that burns deep into the bones- not just surface- You do NOT want to be there- Seek God while He can be found- before your heart becomes so hardened it is no longer possible to find Him!
I’m sure I’ll get flamed here, but not only are there the biblical prohibitions against oaths, (Matthew 5.33-35), but also there is the requirement that there be a “Separation of church and state.”
First of all, we need to ask ourselves, which “God” is the Pledge of Allegiance referring to? Is it a Christian God? Is it American Indian Gods (god of the wind, gods of the sun, etc. - pantheism)? Is it Buddha?
Of course, most people (including myself) think this phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance was originally intended implicitly for the Christian God because this is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.
But if so, then the Pledge of Allegiance is, in fact, endorsing a particular religion, which defies the notion of “Separation of Church and State.”
Furthermore, on the other hand, if one says, “Oh no, we are not referring to a Christian God,” then Muslims might think the word, “God” means Allah in the pledge of allegiance.
The foregoing presents a logical argument for making the Pledge of Allegiance neutral because to say otherwise means you don’t believe in the separation of church and state.
Go ahead and flame me, folks, but I’m interested in a logical discussion on this subject. Maybe I’m missing something?
When was the last time someone was actually found guilty of violating the oath he took? The whole idea is pointless, when the Left does not believe that there is a Hereafter and Judgement.
That I can at least understand (what you said)
[ Notably, the Democratic Party also attempted to remove reference to God in their party platform in 2012, ]
I’m not joking when I say Democrats are of the spirit of antichrist and may already be under the beginnings of the Strong Delusion.
Barack, whatever he is, does an excellent impression of the coming Antichrist, IMHO, in a lot of ways. He lies like the Devil and they love him for it.
Again, to reiterate, I believe the coming Beast arises from Europe.
These people are secular humanists. They not only do not believe in God, they do not want any higher power over them. Because the existence of such a power would naturally require an admission that objective transcendent precepts do exist, which would result in the end of their ideology - an ideology based on relativism and, like shifting sand, having no solid foundation.
These individuals cannot be empowered if the people, and the government created by the people, are beholden to laws that are based in a transcendent moral code.
Objective truths and ontological reality are their mortal enemy.
“But if so, then the Pledge of Allegiance is, in fact, endorsing a particular religion, which defies the notion of “Separation of Church and State.”
Then “under God” should be removed-——I grew up without that phrase ,as did The Greatest Generation———no big deal removing it.
.
[Seek God while He can be found]
FWIW I changed my FR homepage about a year ago. DO’s page motivated me to do it. I hope it is of service to whomever.
Those who utter such folly have no understanding - or else rely on a superficial knowledge of scripture, where everything is an abstract construct. Scriptural citations must always be taken in context of the whole, not in stand-alone pieces. In this example. given from Matthew 5 ...
“Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king:” [Matthew 5:33-35]
Reasoned understanding, based in a contextual reading of the scriptures, reveals the proper application of the prohibition on taking oaths:
“Not to swear at all”: It is not forbid to swear in truth, justice and judgment; to the honor of God, or our own or neighbor’s just defense: but only to swear rashly, or profanely, in common discourse, and without necessity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.