Marxist Pelosi Fixing Law to Eliminate God from Oath in House. Vote!

[beautress]

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

I don't need to "change" jack shit. The Founders drew up this country and its Constitution based on Liberalism ---- that's known historical FACT.

Again --- national constitutions DO NOT prescribe or enforce religions or religious principles unless that country is a theocracy. Which we ain't. The fact that some flowery language appears in a preamble is irrelevant, nor is it a prescription or enforcement of religion or religious dogma. Did it never occur to you that references such as you cite above were stated as such for the benefit of the European readers they were addressing? Particularly Britain, the monarchy/theocracy that was until then running the show? Did it not dawn on you that if you're telling your colonist to fuck off, that colonist has to understand the message?

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

So now you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself. My work is done.

I never disagreed with you on the basic tenets of our constitution. I never claimed that we were a theocracy. Nice try, but you lose again.

Not a theocracy, exactly, but even so, men relied on affixing God's name in the noblest of uses to be behind their intent. Take the Declaration of Independence, for example. Thomas Jefferson, who has been in recent years accused of atheism invoked God's name often. i.e.:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.

*********
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. https://usconstitution.net/declar.html
​

Thomas Jefferson, of the committee of five tasked with writing this declaration of Independence, invoked the name of God 4 times, and he did not use references to and God's name in vain, but with the full provision and prayer that God would bless the founders' intervention with the oppression inflicted on the people in the thirteen colonies south of the St. Lawrence River, was at its end. I agree it was not a theocracy, but the men who were involved this used the language of Christianity and furthermore, its tenets throughout the remainder of this document (denoted as asterisks, *********) that again, are available for your perusal in the link provided: https://usconstitution.net/declar.html

And duly, I add, God bless America, even at this time when some people are having hissy fits about God's influence in America from the get go.

 

[Seawytch]

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

I don't need to "change" jack shit. The Founders drew up this country and its Constitution based on Liberalism ---- that's known historical FACT.

Again --- national constitutions DO NOT prescribe or enforce religions or religious principles unless that country is a theocracy. Which we ain't. The fact that some flowery language appears in a preamble is irrelevant, nor is it a prescription or enforcement of religion or religious dogma. Did it never occur to you that references such as you cite above were stated as such for the benefit of the European readers they were addressing? Particularly Britain, the monarchy/theocracy that was until then running the show? Did it not dawn on you that if you're telling your colonist to fuck off, that colonist has to understand the message?

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

So now you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself. My work is done.

I never disagreed with you on the basic tenets of our constitution. I never claimed that we were a theocracy. Nice try, but you lose again.

Not a theocracy, exactly, but even so, men relied on affixing God's name in the noblest of uses to be behind their intent. Take the Declaration of Independence, for example. Thomas Jefferson, who has been in recent years accused of atheism invoked God's name often. i.e.:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.

*********
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. https://usconstitution.net/declar.html
​

Thomas Jefferson, of the committee of five tasked with writing this declaration of Independence, invoked the name of God 4 times, and he did not use references to and God's name in vain, but with the full provision and prayer that God would bless the founders' intervention with the oppression inflicted on the people in the thirteen colonies south of the St. Lawrence River, was at its end. I agree it was not a theocracy, but the men who were involved this used the language of Christianity and furthermore, its tenets throughout the remainder of this document (denoted as asterisks, *********) that again, are available for your perusal in the link provided: https://usconstitution.net/declar.html

And duly, I add, God bless America, even at this time when some people are having hissy fits about God's influence in America from the get go.

They did not, however, see fit to put "so help me god" in the oath for the highest office in the country. Why would you require of a congress person that which you would not require of the President?

 

[Pogo]

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

I don't need to "change" jack shit. The Founders drew up this country and its Constitution based on Liberalism ---- that's known historical FACT.

Again --- national constitutions DO NOT prescribe or enforce religions or religious principles unless that country is a theocracy. Which we ain't. The fact that some flowery language appears in a preamble is irrelevant, nor is it a prescription or enforcement of religion or religious dogma. Did it never occur to you that references such as you cite above were stated as such for the benefit of the European readers they were addressing? Particularly Britain, the monarchy/theocracy that was until then running the show? Did it not dawn on you that if you're telling your colonist to fuck off, that colonist has to understand the message?

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

So now you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself. My work is done.

I never disagreed with you on the basic tenets of our constitution. I never claimed that we were a theocracy. Nice try, but you lose again.

Ummm..... no. You need to read UP. That last sentence wasn't all there was in the post. Right above it, again, it says:

Again --- national constitutions DO NOT prescribe or enforce religions or religious principles unless that country is a theocracy. Which we ain't. The fact that some flowery language appears in a preamble is irrelevant, nor is it a prescription or enforcement of religion or religious dogma. Did it never occur to you that references such as you cite above were stated as such for the benefit of the European readers they were addressing? Particularly Britain, the monarchy/theocracy that was until then running the show? Did it not dawn on you that if you're telling your colonist to fuck off, that colonist has to understand the message?​

I've got two more bigger font sizes in case you still missed it.

Once again to return to the basic truism here, the question is not "should 'so help me gods' be dumped from an oath". The proper question is, "what was it ever doing there in the first place?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And i see you've no idea our founding fathers escaped a theocracy they did not wish to recreate here Bueat.....~S~

what they wanted to escape was monarchy and mandatory religion, much like the muslim nations of today.

What the Framers wanted was to safeguard citizens from the sort of ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate exhibited in your post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Washington was not very religious in his writings or speeches

I read it all a few years back, sir, and all of it contained references to God like this below:

Here's his inaugural address of 1789. I will try to highlight his references to God for you, which you must have missed before:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

AMONG the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years—a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated. 1
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. 2
By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. 3
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted. 4
To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require. 5
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend

I love this man's Lord, his life, his faith, His sensibilities, his selflessness, his gifts, and his knowledge of who God is.​

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

 

[Redfish]

And i see you've no idea our founding fathers escaped a theocracy they did not wish to recreate here Bueat.....~S~

what they wanted to escape was monarchy and mandatory religion, much like the muslim nations of today.

What the Framers wanted was to safeguard citizens from the sort of ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate exhibited in your post.

no bigotry or hate in my post, just facts. Sorry if facts offend you. It is a fact that in muslim countries today the head of the religion is also the head of state and the Koran is the body of law that all must live under in that country. No bigotry or hate. I have lived and worked in muslim countries, I speak from experience. while you speak from partisan bigotry and ignorance.

 

[Redfish]

I read it all a few years back, sir, and all of it contained references to God like this below:

Here's his inaugural address of 1789. I will try to highlight his references to God for you, which you must have missed before:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

AMONG the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years—a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated. 1
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. 2
By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. 3
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted. 4
To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require. 5
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend

I love this man's Lord, his life, his faith, His sensibilities, his selflessness, his gifts, and his knowledge of who God is.​

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

 

[Seawytch]

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

 

[beautress]

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

It's always been required. The first Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion. It does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. Stop the pretense created by your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

It's always been required. The first Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion. It does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. Stop the pretense created by your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Link to where it has "always been required". I guarantee you that the founding fathers would not have wanted an oath required to be sworn to a god in order to take public office. Remember the no religious test part? You still have not answered the question; Why would you require of a congress person that which is not required of the President? You know the oath for President is in the Constitution, right? Clause 8

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"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."
​

Notice how THEY didn't write "so help me god" in there? Why? I doubt it's because Jesus himself is opposed to oath swearing. Could it be because they didn't want a theocracy like you do?

 

[Pogo]

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

It's always been required. The first Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion. It does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. Stop the pretense created by your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Link to where it has "always been required". I guarantee you that the founding fathers would not have wanted an oath required to be sworn to a god in order to take public office. Remember the no religious test part? You still have not answered the question; Why would you require of a congress person that which is not required of the President? You know the oath for President is in the Constitution, right? Clause 8

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"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."
​

Notice how THEY didn't write "so help me god" in there? Why? I doubt it's because Jesus himself is opposed to oath swearing. Could it be because they didn't want a theocracy like you do?

Or to state it in a neutral way it could be, and most likely is, that it simply didn't occur to them to stick it in there, seeing as how it would be irrelevant to the oath and the office. In other words it's not in there for the same reason there's no reference to an ice cream sandwich --- there's no reason for it to be there.

Moreover Article 6 of the Constitution specifies:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[1]*​

And yet, invoking the Christian-specific term "God" , arguably does just that where it's held as mandatory, particularly if the official entering his/her duty is Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, atheist, etc. In most instances including state offices, the military Enlistment Oath, the Oath of Citizenship, the POTUS oath, and most of the countries of the world where the phrase still exists, it's optional.

* from the Wiki page on the religious test clause:

>> A variety of Test Acts were instituted in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their main purpose was to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England — the official state religion — from holding government office,
notably Catholics and "nonconforming" Protestants. Government officials were required to swear oaths, such as the Oath of Supremacy, that the monarch of England was the head of the Church and that they possessed no other foreign loyalties, such as to the Pope. Later acts required officials to disavow transubstantiation and the veneration of saints. Such laws were common throughout Europe, where numerous countries had a state religion.

Many colonists of the Thirteen Colonies had left England in part to gain a measure of religious freedom. With the royal government's religious favoritism fresh in their memory, the Founders sought to prevent the return of the Test Acts by adding this clause to the Constitution. Specifically, Charles Pinckney, delegate from South Carolina where a Protestant denomination was the established state religion, introduced the clause to Article VI and it passed with little opposition.[2][3] <<​

 

[Pogo]

The Wiki page on the phrase doesn't give us a birth certificate but there is a reference to its use in France somewhere in medieval times (in French) ---

Car c'était sous ses voûtes profondes que passaient le souverain du duché et l'évêque de Rennes, à leur première et joyesuse entrée dans la capitale de la Bretangne. Devant sa herse abaissée, en présence des chanoines et du clergé, des barons et des chevlaiers, des bourgeois et du populaire, réunis pour les recevoir, les ducs et les prélats prêtaient le serment de garder les franchises du pays, de gouverner leur peuple et leur troupeau selon le droit et conformément aus devoirs de leur charge. "Et qu'ainsi Dieu me soit en aide!" Telle était la conclusion de la forumule du serment. Dieu était pris à témoin de ces solennels engagemenets.

("Before leaving, in the presence of the clans and clergy... the dukes and Prelates pledged to keep the confidence of the country, to govern its people and the rabble according to the rights and duties of their charge. "And so God give me help!" Such was the conclusion of the oath. God was brought in to witness these solemn engagements.")​

The passage, which is from an archaeological text, refers to the city of Rennes, the capital of Brittany, when it was a feudal duchy between the tenth and sixteenth centuries. In other words from a time of Clergy/Nobility/commoners (First, Second and Third "Estates) when the first two ran everything, hence Clergy as the First Estate ---- or in other other words, exactly the system that the Founders were distancing themselves from with the revolutionary Liberal idea that government derives from the consent of the governed, and not from the "Divine Right of Kings". That Clergy-Nobility system was also abolished in France in 1792.

In other words this is an anachronistic relic from a time when kings ruled with the aid and abettance of its enforcer, the Church, used as a cudgel to keep the rabble in their place with threats of damnations, excommunications and even public executions, complete with torture, for "heresy" or "witchcraft" (today we call it "terrorism"). The phrase is a linguistic holdover from primitive dust bunnies of the Wayback Machine that still existed in the 18th century at the writing of the Constitution, much like using a stylized "Long S" (which looks to us like lowercase F) to represent the letter "S", much like the then-common practice of capitalizing nouns, a holdover from English's parent language, German:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...."

Whelp --- we no longer capitalize nouns, do we. We seem to have moved on. But leave us continue the same passage and make some connections:

".... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."


--- this phrase is often cited as some sort of "proof" that the Founders somehow had religion in mind, when it pointedly indicates the opposite. "Creator" is a generic; it is not the same entity as "Allah" or "Jehovah" or "Ahura Mazda" or "Pangu" or any other creation-myth headliner. ANY of ALL of these could apply to the generic "creator", "that which creates", and remembering that "Creator" is capitalized only because it's a noun, German-style.

Clearly the emphasis of the adjectival phrase is not on the entity doing the creating but rather on the nature of the Rights, i.e. that they are intrinsic birthrights (regardless who or what created us, which question is immaterial) as opposed to rights that may or may not be "granted" by or "requested" of some higher caste (i.e. the Clergy and Nobility). The phrase means that the rights which follow are a fact of being, naturally and not some privilege to be either awarded or restricted. Which is the whole point of the Constitution in this regard.

So this is another anachronism of style, like the Long S, like the capitalized nouns, contemporarily employed by people living as we all must in their own time, another example of ideals running ahead of, and contrary to, actions ---- as in the case of declaring "all Men are created equal" while at the same time owning slaves.

Long S went. Capitalizing nouns went. Eventually, slavery went. It's time to move on from the medieval already.

 

[Pogo]

References to God do not prove that Washington wanted America RUN by God, or his followers.....~S~

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

 

[Faun]

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

It's always been required. The first Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion. It does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. Stop the pretense created by your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

If it was always required, it would’ve been in the Constitution.

 

[Redfish]

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

of course not, but the country and its constitution were founded on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job. The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

 

[Faun]

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job. The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

For an atheist, it means they’re being forced to acknowledge the observance for a deity in which they don’t believe. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job. The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

Then why not make it optional? Those that believe in a god can say it, those that believe in a goddess can change it and those that don't believe at all aren't forced to say it like in a theocracy.

 

[beautress]

Ummm nnnnnnnnnnnnnno, they were founded on the principles of Liberalism.

A national Constitution doesn't delve into "moral standards". That's what religion is for.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you. But that's not it, is it? You want to prevent the majority from practicing their beliefs. You want a Godless state, you want the third reich in the USA.

Why make it required in an oath for Congress when it is not written in for the oath of office for the presidency? The only possible explanation is that you like the idea of an authoritarian theocracy.

It's always been required. The first Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion. It does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. Stop the pretense created by your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Link to where it has "always been required". I guarantee you that the founding fathers would not have wanted an oath required to be sworn to a god in order to take public office. Remember the no religious test part? You still have not answered the question; Why would you require of a congress person that which is not required of the President? You know the oath for President is in the Constitution, right? Clause 8

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"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."
​

Notice how THEY didn't write "so help me god" in there? Why? I doubt it's because Jesus himself is opposed to oath swearing. Could it be because they didn't want a theocracy like you do?

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Although that was a quotation from a Psalm, those who heard Christ say it knew what it meant. Remind me not to ask you for what stuff in the bible refers to attempt to challenge people to be confounded by and not blessed by the scriptures, which are to me, a blessing. And you know, hearing sermons each week by some of the best biblical scholars anywhere and hearing them for a lifetime gives you a reasonably good understanding of time, place, circumstance, and specificity of any given scripture taken out of context to "prove" something that could be quite irrelevant to what someone thinks who hasn't had Aramaic, Greek, or Latin linguistics or even King James' English examined for the veracity of Christ's words. But please, don't stop learning the Word. Truth is infectious. Even so, diachronic linguistics and philology well-studied could change your mind. Other than loving the Lord, and considering my politics and your negativism toward it, you'd have a hard time agreeing with me about anything, much less about the matters of the Lord. There likely is nothing under the sun that the Lord wouldn't forgive to the truly contrite heart who walks humbly with his God.

 

[beautress]

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

"endowed by their creator" "under God" This country, its constitution, and its body of law are all based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but you cannot change it.

We are not a theocracy, we are a free democratic republic that provides freedom of religion to all of its citizens. If you want to see what a theocracy looks like visit Saudi Arabia, their government and law is the Koran as interpreted by the family of Saud.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job. The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

For an atheist, it means they’re being forced to acknowledge the observance for a deity in which they don’t believe. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.

Tissue?

​

 

[rightwinger]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?