House Republicans are upset at Democratsâ changes to House procedural rules, which includes dropping the âso help me Godâ portion of a witnessesâ swearing-in oath
Itâs not like it has been doing any good.
Just trying to keep those good Christian folks from digging their shit holes even deeper.
Good for the Democrats on taking this step, itâs well past the time we respect the 1st Amendment and its freedom of religion provision. That statement does not mean evangelical Christians get to do whatever they want at the expense of everyone else, it means all religious beliefs (including none) are equally respected. Demanding witnesses swear fealty to a God they may not believe in is antithetical to the foundation of this nation, and we will be better off if the government gets out of religion and becomes agnostic towards it.
This coming from the most unChristian lot is absolutely hysterical.
Talibangelicals say what?
I wonder how pissed off a Republican member of Congress will become when a witness swears to affirm their testimony to the fastest growing new religious movement The Satanic Temple, with âSo help me Satanâ?
They had enough trouble with Muslim members of Congress swearing in on the Koran.
âI am a sinner, I make mistakes every single day, but I do think that we could use a little more of God, not less,â said Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA).
âGod tolerates the intolerable; He is irresponsible and inconsistent. Not a gentlemanâ
Arturo Perez-Reverte
"Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) interrupted an Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee hearing to tell subcommittee chair Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) that the witnessâ oath was âincorrect and incompleteâ.â
SCOTUS unanimously has ruled against forcing that language on witnesses, as First and Fourteenth Amendment violations (Torcaso v. Watkins and Everson v. Board of Education):
âWe repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person âto profess a belief or disbelief in any religionâ.â
As I believe the saying goes, âCase closed.â
I canât believe it was still in the oath up to now. I oathed without any mention to God in a local civil case (Federal courthouse?) 1-2 decades ago. However, I guess it is up to the presiding judge with a âright to affirmâ without any mention of God.
The Quakersâ opposition to oaths was based on a plain reading of Matthew 5:33-37, in which Jesus said âSwear not at all⌠But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
- or-
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is Godâs throne; ⌠All you need to say is simply âYesâ or âNoâ; anything beyond this comes from the evil oneâ
Christian Zionists donât even read.
I am so tired of âreligionistsâ of all stripes. They are simply morally and emotionally exhausting.
James 5:12 King James Version (KJV)
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
We seem to be continually re-fighting things that we thought were decided decades ago - voting rights, abortion rights, desegregation, who knows what else.
Our side has been asleep at the switch - while we were snoozing the other side was quietly taking over all levels of government and the courts. And weâll have to live with the results for decades.
So, Congess administers their âSo God help meâ oath. You lie. They call you on it. You counter youâre an atheist, their oath doesnât bind you, you only said the words because they required it of you.
Itâs always important to keep the appearance of religion long after the substance has departed.
Millions of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY SORT OF GODâŚwhy is this so difficult to digest?..the separation of church and state is powerful and necessary⌠revel in the God thing on your own timeâŚstop subjecting people who want no part of long discredited dogma to your beliefs.
Religiously unaffiliated people are the most underrepresented group in Congress.
In Massachusetts, the oath before testimony does not require âso help me God.â
But I think it should be optional. If someone wants to swear before the Almighty, OK. And if someone else does not, thatâs fine, too. As long as the penalties for perjury are he same for both.
As for protesting replacing plastic with glass, I always thought glass was classier anyway.