Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative in nyc

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


70 posted on 11/28/2006 10:36:59 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


“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


71 posted on 11/28/2006 10:44:54 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: CottShop
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.
74 posted on 11/28/2006 11:00:32 AM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson