Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[Hurlshort]

Not everyone in the government swears in on the bible. I know a Muslim senator recently was sworn in on the Qu'ran, and I believe some non-religious congressmen have sworn in on the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

 

The trick is getting elected to the office of President as an atheist. Good luck with that.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Hurlshot

[Laozi]

How about proving that swearing on the Bible is what actually corrupts the politicians?

[Humodour]

What? You said:

 

Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe.

 

Which is obviously false but then somehow I didnt catch the hidden meaning of your post and you REALLY meant the addition of "so help me god"? Whatever.

 

Oh noes, I was off by 20 years! So smegging sue me. Or, you know, don't.

[Meshugger]

How about proving that swearing on the Bible is what actually corrupts the politicians?

 

Zing!

[Gfted1]

What? You said:

 

Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe.

 

Which is obviously false but then somehow I didnt catch the hidden meaning of your post and you REALLY meant the addition of "so help me god"? Whatever.

 

Oh noes, I was off by 20 years! So smegging sue me. Or, you know, don't.

 

 

*sigh* Abraham Lincoln assumed office in 1861. So, you know, you were only 89 years off.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Gfted1

[Hurlshort]

How about proving that swearing on the Bible is what actually corrupts the politicians?

 

Zing!

 

I'm confused where the zing is?

[Meshugger]

To those that think that swearing on the bible actually works.

[Hurlshort]

To those that think that swearing on the bible actually works.

 

You mean the book doesn't have magical properties that will strike down anyone with an impure soul who touches it? That's against all the teaching of the Christian church!

[Humodour]

What? You said:

 

Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe.

 

Which is obviously false but then somehow I didnt catch the hidden meaning of your post and you REALLY meant the addition of "so help me god"? Whatever.

 

Oh noes, I was off by 20 years! So smegging sue me. Or, you know, don't.

 

 

*sigh* Abraham Lincoln assumed office in 1861. So, you know, you were only 89 years off.

 

Every president since FDR has used the oath ("so help me god"), so no, I was off by two decades. But dude, whatever. I dunno why you're having a fap about this.

 

Do you really want to know my thoughts on the matter? I think it's wrong for the person administering the oath to include the words "so help me god" - if the President wants to, well hallelujah. But he shouldn't be urged to like this:

 

Roberts: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Obama: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Roberts: "So help you God"

Obama: "So help me God"

Roberts: "Congratulations, Mr. President"

 

The actual oath in the constitution is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Edited January 21, 2009 by Krezack

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Is that possible?

 

Yes. In fact, when I was worn in as an election official I used a copy of the U.S. Constitution and not the offered Bible.

[Gfted1]

What? You said:

 

Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe.

 

Which is obviously false but then somehow I didnt catch the hidden meaning of your post and you REALLY meant the addition of "so help me god"? Whatever.

 

Oh noes, I was off by 20 years! So smegging sue me. Or, you know, don't.

 

 

*sigh* Abraham Lincoln assumed office in 1861. So, you know, you were only 89 years off.

 

Every president since FDR has used the oath ("so help me god"), so no, I was off by two decades. But dude, whatever. I dunno why you're having a fap about this.

 

Do you really want to know my thoughts on the matter? I think it's wrong for the person administering the oath to include the words "so help me god" - if the President wants to, well hallelujah. But he shouldn't be urged to like this:

 

Roberts: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Obama: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Roberts: "So help you God"

Obama: "So help me God"

Roberts: "Congratulations, Mr. President"

 

The actual oath in the constitution is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

Oy, if your just trying to beat me down with some wierd circular argument, youre winning. You keep addressing something you never originally said, just look at what you quoted in your reply.

 

 

Anywho, tell me why you feel its different to "only" swear on the bible/koran/wiccan tablet then it is to also include "in god/allah/odin we trust".

[Humodour]

Oy, if your just trying to beat me down with some wierd circular argument, youre winning. You keep addressing something you never originally said, just look at what you quoted in your reply.

 

I only ever referred to 'the oath' ("so help me god") as being problematic, though even that was largely facetious, as I said.

 

Anywho, tell me why you feel its different to "only" swear on the bible/koran/wiccan tablet then it is to also include "in god/allah/odin we trust".

 

Son of a gun. Note a) I was being facetious, b) I take no real issue with either of these since they're all de facto practices, but you can read my post above for something I do have a problem with!

 

Now, would you care for a cuppa?

[Pushtrak]

Anywho, tell me why you feel its different to "only" swear on the bible/koran/wiccan tablet then it is to also include "in god/allah/odin we trust".

This is a tough point to explain. On one level, there isn't a difference at all. A person is expected to have faith in whatever they are pledging to, and will honour that pledge. What if the person is not of that faith? Then this pledge will mean nothing to them. Only the morals or codes they adhere to themselves will guide them, not the promise.

 

Adding on the "In ___ we trust" when spoken as a nation serves only to tell people who do not worship ___. There is a them and us atmosphere created. I recall reading somewhere that atheists were the least trusted minority in the U.S.

 

Then, there is the adding on the "In __ we trust" on a personal level. I don't think many people who didn't believe in ___ would feel comfortable saying that they belong to a group that they do not belong.

[Gfted1]

Anywho, tell me why you feel its different to "only" swear on the bible/koran/wiccan tablet then it is to also include "in god/allah/odin we trust".

This is a tough point to explain. On one level, there isn't a difference at all. A person is expected to have faith in whatever they are pledging to, and will honour that pledge. What if the person is not of that faith? Then this pledge will mean nothing to them. Only the morals or codes they adhere to themselves will guide them, not the promise.

 

But they have a choice. They may swear on the bible (christianity), the koran (islam) or simply the Constitution itself.

 

Adding on the "In ___ we trust" when spoken as a nation serves only to tell people who do not worship ___. There is a them and us atmosphere created. I recall reading somewhere that atheists were the least trusted minority in the U.S.

 

I see what youre saying but isnt "god" a general term used for every religions head dude?

 

Then, there is the adding on the "In __ we trust" on a personal level. I don't think many people who didn't believe in ___ would feel comfortable saying that they belong to a group that they do not belong.

 

They are not required to say that. The actual oath is:

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Pushtrak]

But they have a choice. They may swear on the bible (christianity), the koran (islam) or simply the Constitution itself.

Ah, now we get to the big leagues. Do you think a person could become President of America who was an atheist?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I made that post after seeing:

Roberts: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Obama: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Roberts: "So help you God"

Obama: "So help me God"

Roberts: "Congratulations, Mr. President"

Yes, not the biggest thing in the world, but for a country that talks about seperation of church and state, thats something of a WTF-ism.

[Gfted1]

Ah, now we get to the big leagues. Do you think a person could become President of America who was an atheist?

 

Unfortunately, not a chance in hell.

 

Yes, not the biggest thing in the world, but for a country that talks about seperation of church and state, thats something of a WTF-ism.

 

As is swearing in on any religous document! I was more curious why the addition of "in god we trust" had people up in arms any more then swearing an oath on a religous document, like somehow its EVEN MORE religious. All Im saying is it seems the same to me.

[Hurlshort]

"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50's in order to root out communists.

 

The original intent of a separation between church and state was really about creating a barrier between organized religion and the government. In a lot of ways it is about protecting the freedom of religion. Having no official state religion allows many denominations to coexist. It prevents one denomination from taking over i.e. the Anglican Church in England.

 

In the 17th Century, the concept of atheism was almost non-existent. Organized religion was an issue, but the concept of God was generally accepted. That is the sandtrap I see many people getting in when we argue about religion. Believing in organized religion and believing in God can be two completely different things.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

In the 17th Century, the concept of atheism was almost non-existent.

 

But you have to admit that some of the founding fathers were, indeed, nonbelievers.

[Hurlshort]

In the 17th Century, the concept of atheism was almost non-existent.

 

But you have to admit that some of the founding fathers were, indeed, nonbelievers.

 

I'm not sure where you get that. We can guess at their true beliefs, but there isn't any hard evidence. I know you will think it's funny that I'm pulling out evidence to prove they believe in something that has no evidence to support it

 

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

[Darth InSidious]

In the 17th Century, the concept of atheism was almost non-existent. Organized religion was an issue, but the concept of God was generally accepted. That is the sandtrap I see many people getting in when we argue about religion. Believing in organized religion and believing in God can be two completely different things.

Two points: first, the American Revolution was in the latter 18th Century - 1763-8, though I'm sure that was a typo. Secondly, several of the most prominent proponents of the Enlightenment - Baron d'Holbach and Hume, for example, so atheism was not non-existent, or entirely unknown, at least in Europe. Can't comment on your founding fathers or their knowledge of such ideas, though. Sorry if this seems unnecessary, but I'm a horrid pedant.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Hurlshort]

Sorry, definitely meant the 18th century. The website I linked to defined them (founding fathers) as deists, which is interesting.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The website I linked to defined them (founding fathers) as deists, which is interesting.

 

Yes, most of the influential ones were, as far as we can tell, deists.

[Hurlshort]

The website I linked to defined them (founding fathers) as deists, which is interesting.

 

Yes, most of the influential ones were, as far as we can tell, deists.

 

I wonder if there are active Unitarian groups today? I actually identify with that line of spirituality more than many I've seen. I guess I would consider myself a Pro-Christian Deist otherwise.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I wonder if there are active Unitarian groups today?

 

I think so. I've got some friends who are Unitarian and I'll ask if there's a website or anything where one could look for a group.

[Calax]

If I get sworn into office I'm going to try to get sworn in as a Viking.