|
Grex > Agora46 > #222: Proposed revision to oath of US citizenship. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 36 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 25 of 36:
| 
Sep 16 03:19 UTC 2003 |
I agree, gull.
|
tsty
|
|
response 26 of 36:
|
Sep 16 05:32 UTC 2003 |
heh-heh .. rcurl had professed many time before that he has
no faith. he's never been in a foxhole before either.
fat gliding on top of of the nutrients - his, not mine.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 27 of 36:
|
Sep 16 11:47 UTC 2003 |
Swearing (an oath) and affirming are two different things. Quakers will not
swear; they never would use God's name that way. So the laws, from the
beginning, were written to allow folks to affirm what they wouldn't swear to.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 36:
|
Sep 16 16:03 UTC 2003 |
That's certainly true of the US Constitution (see
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg11.htm) but it isn't true in
all states.
I ran across at one time a summary of states that specifically require an
exhortation to a god in their oaths and those that specifically do not
(but can't find it now). Michigan is among the latter. Here is an extract
from the Michigan government home pages concerning the oath for a Notary
Public:
"Oaths and affirmations are pledges sworn to before a notary public
attesting to the truth of a given statement. The effect of an oath and an
affirmation is the same. Both put the burden of responsibility for the
veracity of the statements on the party subscribing to the document. The
difference, however is that an oath calls upon God as a witness while an
affirmation is made under the penalties of perjury.
"Examples are as follows:
"Oath: Do you solemnly swear that the statements contained herein are
true, so help you God?
"Affirmation: Do you solemnly affirm, under the penalties of perjury, that
the statements made herein are true?"
[I'm uncertain from this if a person that elects to swear an Oath, as
defined above, is also subject to penalties of perjury if they break their
Oath, or if it is only the said God that is then subject to penalties of
perjury.]
|
janc
|
|
response 29 of 36:
|
Sep 16 16:06 UTC 2003 |
Though generally I agree that fewer mentions of "God" in government would be
good, this particular one doesn't bother me.
The point is to make the statement in a form that is meaningful to the person
taking the oath. For a person who is strongly religious, mentioning "God"
might be a good way to clarify how seriously they take the oath. As long as
some flexibility is given in how the oath is taken then it is clearly a
reference to and acceptance of the oath taker's faith, not and endorsement
of that faith. The key point is that the person saying it is saying it for
themselves, not for the government, and that the person saying it is not
required by the government to say it in that form.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 36:
|
Sep 16 16:11 UTC 2003 |
Note this is different from "In God We Trust" on coins, where the "we" clearly
represents the whole nation.
It is also different from the "One nation under God" bit, because that asserts
that God rules over the nation, not just that the speaker believes in God.
So I'd be fine with having "God" in the pledge of allegence if you moved him
to an "so help me God" at the end, and allowed non-believers to substitute
or omit that bit if they don't believe in God.
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 36:
|
Sep 16 17:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
clees
|
|
response 32 of 36:
|
Sep 17 19:51 UTC 2003 |
I think it's despicable to renounce any other religion than the here
intended christian faith. It discriminates gainst agnosts, muslims,
hindus, buddhists, pagans etc.
IOW: the majority of this planet.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 36:
|
Sep 17 21:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
pvn
|
|
response 34 of 36:
|
Sep 19 05:51 UTC 2003 |
re#32: Uh, the muslims worship the same god as the jews and christians
even by the most fanatical interpretation of the quran and as others
have pointed out since its founding the US has had means for minded such
to dispense entirely with the mention of deity while partaking of the
benefits. You one of them there foreign types that doesn't know any
better?
|
clees
|
|
response 35 of 36:
|
Sep 19 07:30 UTC 2003 |
No, ,I am not.
Most christians don't know any better. I was merely stooping to your
level.
|
pvn
|
|
response 36 of 36:
|
Sep 20 03:35 UTC 2003 |
Ah, but obviously I know better as I would suspect do most christians.
|