Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Fox news seems to worry about the strangest things. This time they huff and they puff that a House committee will remove the words: "So help me god" from an oath. Amazing, when there are actual important things to discuss in today's world, they get on a rant for this?
That question could easily be turned around and asked why are they removing that part of the oath?
What is their motivation behind doing so?
Seems a bit unnecessary to modify something in such a way in the name of political correctness, unless you have an agenda.
Motivation is easy? No one should be beholden to any god, spirit, sky daddy, demon or any other supernatural critter and have to utter nonsensical incantations when affirming that they will tell the truth in testifying, or in the way they will perform their job.
Affirming statements of truth do not need, nor should they have, any requirement to chant a rote statement to someone else's ideology.
The motivation is to take any color of prejudice towards any religion or philosophy by taking away any suggestion in affirming that the truth will be told is dependent of nattering some nonsense of adherence to that religion or philosophy.
I assume you would concur there is no problem with that, right?
If you don't believe in God, then saying the words is as innocuous as asking where the restroom is.
So if you don't believe in Allah or Vishnu, you would be OK with so help you in the name of those would be just hunky dory with you? I mean, what is the difference? If "so help me Allah" means nothing to you because you don't believe in Allah, why would you object to that? Would you tell the truth or not?
Where is that in the Constitution? (hint: It isn't)
In case you missed it way back in Civics, it's the Constitution which is determinant, subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.
Where is that in my post? (hint: It isn't)
Changes nothing.
The principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence doesn't need to be restated in the Constitution to be valid and fundamental to our way of life.
You don't have to accept it, but at the time of the Revolution, lots of people wanted to know by what presumed authority we challenged the rule of George the III.
By the time the Constitution was written and ratified, the issue of George the III and our right to self-governance had been addressed and permanently resolved, so it would have been unnecessary and even self-defeating to mention it again.
The text of the preamble to the Constitution makes clear that what follows is predicated upon the issue self-determination, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, having already been resolved.
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that there is no mention of the authority by which "we the people" intend to do all of these things.
That's because we just fought and won a war with Great Britain based on the assertion made in the Declaration of Independence that God gave us the authority.
The principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence doesn't need to be restated in the Constitution to be valid and fundamental to our way of life.
You don't have to accept it, but at the time of the Revolution, lots of people wanted to know by what presumed authority we challenged the rule of George the III.
By the time the Constitution was written and ratified, the issue of George the III and our right to self-governance had been addressed and permanently resolved, so it would have been unnecessary and even self-defeating to mention it again.
The text of the preamble to the Constitution makes clear that what follows is predicated upon the issue self-determination, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, having already been resolved.
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that there is no mention of the authority by which "we the people" intend to do all of these things.
That's because we just fought and won a war with Great Britain based on the assertion made in the Declaration of Independence that God gave us the authority.
You missed my point. The Constitution has specific word the POTUS must use to take the oath of office. No god needed, so why would or should a god be needed or desirable in any other oath involving the USA government?
The Constitution does not include any words about a god in the oath of office of the POTUS. If it doesn't, why should any other oath include them?
What about those that don't believe in a god? Why should they have to say those words, which would be false?
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
You missed my point. The Constitution has specific word the POTUS must use to take the oath of office. No god needed, so why would or should a god be needed or desirable in any other oath involving the USA government?
There is no prohibition either.
When the Constitution is silent on a subject, that means it doesn't have anything to say on the matter.
So if you don't believe in Allah or Vishnu, you would be OK with so help you in the name of those would be just hunky dory with you? I mean, what is the difference? If "so help me Allah" means nothing to you because you don't believe in Allah, why would you object to that? Would you tell the truth or not?
I'm fine with a member substituting the identity of their preferred deity in the oath.
We make such accommodations when individuals swear upon their preferred holy book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
