Petition: Pass Federal Law Mandating Public Officials Be Sworn In On The Constitution Not The Bible

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Sep 04, 2015 3:33 PM GMT
    Petition: Pass Federal Law Mandating Public Officials Be Sworn In On The Constitution Not The Bible



    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/petition_pass_federal_law_mandating_public_officials_be_sworn_in_on_the_constitution_not_the_bible

    WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
    require all public officials to be sworn in to office on the Constitution and not the bible or other religious texts.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-all-public-officials-be-sworn-office-constitution-and-not-bible-or-other-religious-texts

    http://wh.gov/iRVQD
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    I personally never the fuck got into swearing.

    If a person intends upon a way of thinking or course of action, why announce it?

    Ya just do it. And if you are not doing it already, then how does taking an oath or vowing make a difference?

    What is this, jail for truth? It's nothing but another layer of "assurance" of truth telling punishable by perjury. Depending on how you look at it, I suppose, it's either a celebration of human frailty or acknowledgment to the powers of corruption.

    So really it's just a verbal contract which can be deceitfully entered or broken by convenience. It's ceremonial but unsubstantial.

    I'm considering attending a specific class which presents itself as transmitting certain tradition. Only there are two vows expected to be declared (concerning compassion) which I've probably always done without saying, but at least consciously incorporated into my life since carefully studying my own emotions and intentions back when I was a little kid, letting my friends win games so they wouldn't feel bad.

    So I now have to vow to live how I've lived for five decades? Noooooo. I don't have to do that. In prideful fact, it's a little insulting.

    Curious now as to from where the tradition derives, I googled and found this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath
    Historical development as a legal concept

    The concept of oaths is deeply rooted within Judaism. It is found in Genesis 8:21, when God swears that he will "never again curse the ground because of man and never again smite every living thing."

    Modern law

    In law, oaths are made by a witness to a court of law before giving testimony and usually by a newly appointed government officer to the people of a state before taking office. In both of those cases, though, an affirmation can be usually substituted. A written statement, if the author swears the statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is called an affidavit. The oath given to support an affidavit is frequently administered by a notary, who will certify the giving of the oath by affixing her or his seal to the document. Willfully delivering a false oath (or affirmation) is the crime of perjury.

    There is confusion between oaths and other statements or promises. The current Olympic Oath, for instance, is really a pledge and not properly an oath since there is only a "promise" and no appeal to a sacred witness. Oaths are also confused with vows, but really, a vow is a special kind of oath.

    With regard to the idea of petition--I've not read about it yet but I think I get the concept--aesthetically it seems right. I support that wall of separation built by the founding fathers, which has obviously been violated numerously.

    The Constitution over the bible seems an appropriate enough improvement if keeping the ceremony at all. But immediately what comes to my mind is that even as is firmly embedded the Constitution, it is subject to amendment whereas the bible be correct or not is unchanging. And if you are going to vow on anything, as a vow is meant to keep you to your word, then that thing ought to be unalterable.

    So I suggest we declare our vows upon something even more stable than the Constitution--as immutable as it may be--something which can't be amended (constitution) or interpreted (rules out the bible, huh?) differently depending on the times or upon new understandings, something more rigid, fixed, invariable, static, unfluctuating, unvarying (yeah, I copy/pasted thesaurus, duh): you know, like a brainless rock or a thoughtless Republican. Things that don't change.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2015 6:31 PM GMT
    The "oath" and swearin to God is built into the justice system, why do we swear to God, place our hand on the bible when we take an oath to tell the truth in the court of law when these are suppose to be separate? If you don't swear to God, than does that mean his biblical wrath will come down on you, you wont be saved or much like the church has done, brainwashed people into thinking this will happen to them? icon_confused.gif




    Sworn testimony
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony


    United States[edit]

    Oath:
    Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?
    Swear may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[4] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[5] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[6]

    Oath (California):
    You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.



    At least the UK offers an alternative, the US should also

    Affirmation: A secular variant of the oath where the witness does not have to mention a deity or holy book
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2015 6:42 PM GMT
    I have never heard anyone, media or otherwise, use the term "Irreligion" so I had to look it up icon_eek.gif

    I guess I am Irreligious because I am spiritual not religious icon_idea.gif

    I am moving to non-religious Amsterdam!

    Irreligion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

    Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion.[1] When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes explicit atheism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes anticlericalism, antireligion, and antitheism.

    When characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include deism, implicit atheism, spiritual but not religious, agnosticism, pandeism, ignosticism, nontheism, pantheism, panentheism, religious skepticism, and freethought. Irreligion may include forms of theism, depending on the religious context it is defined against. In 18th-century Europe, the epitome of irreligion was deism


    Percent of non religious

    Top 5

    Estonia 70.4
    Czech Republic 67.8
    Vietnam 63
    Denmark 61
    Netherlands 56

    Bottom 5

    Iran 1.1
    Uganda 1.1
    Nigeria 0.7
    Thailand 0.27
    Bangladesh 0.1



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2015 7:02 PM GMT
    Signed...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2015 7:11 PM GMT
    Sort of odd there being a separation between church and state and swearing on a bible...Do athiests and agnostics swear on a bible? And if so, does that make their oaths irrelevant?

    In a court of law, does anyone ask the people going up to testify, before they take an oath, if they are athiest or agnostic?

    Does not a ham sammich sound much more appropriate?

    Perhaps a nice lean pastrami on rye for the non ham eating folks...

    For the vegetarians, we got ya covered, egg salad with roasted red peppers...icon_wink.gif

    Vegans? Why of course, hummus on pita with lots of garlic.

    The rest of ya'll? Peanut butter and jelly...shut up...you know you like it.

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2015 12:51 AM GMT
    bon_pan saidSort of odd there being a separation between church and state and swearing on a bible...Do athiests and agnostics swear on a bible? And if so, does that make their oaths irrelevant?

    In a court of law, does anyone ask the people going up to testify, before they take an oath, if they are athiest or agnostic?

    Does not a ham sammich sound much more appropriate?

    Perhaps a nice lean pastrami on rye for the non ham eating folks...

    For the vegetarians, we got ya covered, egg salad with roasted red peppers...icon_wink.gif

    Vegans? Why of course, hummus on pita with lots of garlic.

    The rest of ya'll? Peanut butter and jelly...shut up...you know you like it.

    icon_biggrin.gif
    I'd be happy to swear on PB&J.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2015 1:30 AM GMT
    It really depends on the person's choice. You don't have to be sworn in on any book. I've taken oaths with no book involved whatsoever. As far as I know, there is no legal mandate regarding that.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Sep 05, 2015 9:58 PM GMT
    James_Thunder_Early saidIt really depends on the person's choice. You don't have to be sworn in on any book. I've taken oaths with no book involved whatsoever. As far as I know, there is no legal mandate regarding that.


    Right.

    They are required to swear to uphold the Constitution, but they are not required to use the Bible. The Quran has also been used, and perhaps other books also or even no book. The three times I was sworn in as a juror a Bible was not used; no book was used.

    Has anyone watching Perry Mason seen a Bible used?
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Sep 05, 2015 11:02 PM GMT
    This seems unnecessary and only likely to create even more conflict with evangelicals. They'll only cite the effort as more evidence of a war against Christianity in the US -- which I think is absurd, by the way.

    It is unnecessary because the oath of office for federal officials, including commissioned officers in the armed forces, already states that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether a person "swears" on the Bible (or not), or simply "affirms" (it is the individual's choice), they are stating that they will uphold the US Constitution. Nothing further is needed, especially since the Constitution makes it very clear that the US is not a theocracy.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Sep 05, 2015 11:16 PM GMT
    jeepguySD saidThis seems unnecessary and only likely to create even more conflict with evangelicals. They'll only cite the effort as more evidence of a war against Christianity in the US -- which I think is absurd, by the way.

    It is unnecessary because the oath of office for federal officials, including commissioned officers in the armed forces, already states that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether a person "swears" on the Bible (or not), or simply "affirms" (it is the individual's choice), they are stating that they will uphold the US Constitution. Nothing further is needed, especially since the Constitution makes it very clear that the US is not a theocracy.


    Right, but many evangelicals insist that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. Of course there is plenty of documentary proof that it was not. And, if it had been a truly Christian nation, would the Native Americans have been driven off of their land considering that one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not steal."?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 2:49 PM GMT
    This. Where is my pen?

    The Constitution makes a lot of things "very clear" that people (looking at you, Davises) are willing to ignore outright. And yet we continue to coddle them if they follow a "preferred" religion that our "founding fathers" would have approved.

    And get back to E Pluribus Unum while we're at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    Great idea. Maybe now all the gun grabbers will stfu.
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is right there in the constitution they sworn on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 5:01 PM GMT
    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/
    1598 Spain seeks to spread Catholicism in modern-day New Mexico

    1607 Anglican settlers arrive in Virginia

    1620 Pilgrims (Protestant reformers) arrive in Massachusetts in search of religious liberty

    1624 Church of England "established" in Virginia; supported with public funds

    1628 Dutch Reformed Church organizes in New Netherlands (NY/NJ/etc)

    1630 Puritans arrive in Massachusetts

    1650 Waves of immigration create religious diversity...Mennonites, Amish, Anabaptists, Dunkers and Moravians...Quakers...Anglicans...Reformed Church and Jewish...The waves …continue until the American Revolution.

    1701 Slave trade merges Christianity and West African religious traditions...West African religious traditions...paganism or Islam....enslaved Africans meld African worship with Christianity, creating...the black church.

    1765-1783 The American Revolution

    1768 Quran transcribed by Muslim slave...Some of the first Muslims in America were slaves taken from Africa

    1769 Franciscan missionaries arrive in California

    1775-1783 American Revolutionary War

    1776 Declaration of Independence signed

    1776 Freemasons among signers of the Declaration of Independence
    Freemasons…practice a "rational religion" that embraces the idea that there is one universal faith: "that religion in which all men agree." Influenced by deism and the Enlightenment, Freemasonry's basic tenets -- belief in the existence of a Creator God, an immortal soul and the importance of moral living and charity -- allow members to incorporate elements from the particular denominations in which they were raised without renouncing their religion entirely.

    1776 Virginia Baptists petition for freedom to worship…Virginia law restricts where non-Anglicans can preach.

    1784 Methodist Church in America established

    1786 Virginia disestablishes, ends state support for Anglican Church

    1787 U.S. Constitution drafted; no guarantee of religious liberty

    The Constitutional Convention submits a draft of the Constitution to the states for ratification. For the first time in Western history, religion and state government are decoupled. God and religion are scarcely mentioned in the document. Wanting to create "a more perfect union," some of the Constitution's framers fear that statements on religion would be divisive. The sixth state to ratify the document, Massachusetts is the first to suggest constitutional amendments guaranteeing individual rights, including religious liberty.

    1791 Bill of Rights ratified

    …The First Amendment, guaranteeing religious liberty and other rights, is drafted by James Madison. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first half becomes known as the Establishment Clause; the second is called the Free Exercise Clause

    1794 African Methodist Episcopal Church forms in Philadelphia

    1797 Adams signs Treaty of Tripoli; it says U.S. "not founded on the Christian religion"
    …It reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…"

    1801 The first Universalist ministers preach in America

    1802 Jefferson invokes "wall of separation" in letter to Baptists

    1820 Joseph Smith founds Mormonism

    1838 Transcendentalist movement takes shape
    Ex-Unitarian minister Ralph Waldo Emerson…argues that Christianity is no longer a "doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal…with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus." …the American-born Transcendentalist movement, which stresses the importance of the personal religious quest...

    1843 Spiritualism…becomes popular because of its potential to reconcile religion and science…the séance, a gathering aimed at communicating with spirits -- attracts seekers demanding a more intense and full religious experience.

    1844-1857 Three Protestant denominations split over slavery

    1845 Baptists split over slavery
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 5:02 PM GMT
    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/

    1847 Mormons arrive in Utah...Three years after founder Joseph Smith's murder

    1850 Hispanic Catholicism takes root in California

    1850s Chinese immigrants arrive in large numbers in San Francisco, bring new traditions
    Taoist temples...

    1857 Presbyterians split over slavery

    1861 Civil War begins

    1865 13th Amendment abolishing slavery adopted after Lincoln's death

    1868 Fourteenth Amendment passed; ensures Bill of Rights applies to states

    1875 Muslim immigrants arrive in New York

    1875 Isaac Mayer Wise brings Reform Judaism to America

    1878 Supreme Court rules polygamy not protected under First Amendment

    1879 Native American children forced to attend Protestant schools

    Despite increasing Catholic and Jewish immigration in the late 19th century, the United States remains an overwhelmingly Protestant nation, and the dominant Protestant ethos deeply influences the federal government's policy toward Native Americans.

    1879 Mary Baker Eddy founds Church of Christ, Scientist


    1880 Agnosticism takes root in America

    July 11, 1883 The First Food Fight
    Controversy erupts at dinner celebrating graduation of first Reform Judaism rabbis…
    Observant Jews are shocked by the menu, which includes shellfish, beef in a cream sauce and other courses that are prohibited under Jewish dietary law. Wise refuses to apologize for the dinner, which comes to be known as the "trefa banquet" after the Yiddish word for "unkosher." Following the banquet, the split within American Judaism between traditionalists and reformers widens.

    1890 Battle of Wounded Knee; Native Americans seeking to exercise religious rights killed

    1890 Catholicism becomes America's largest denomination

    1890 Mormons give up plural marriage to gain statehood for Utah

    1880s and 1890s Liberal and Conservative Protestants divide over the inerrancy of Scripture

    1906 Los Angeles revival marks beginning of Pentecostal movement

    1906 First Hindu temple in America is erected in San Francisco

    1908 Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indians immigrate to the American West, Hawaii
    By 1908, 62 Chinese temples and 141 shrines have been built in 12 states. Three thousand Asian Indians, mostly Sikhs, arrive in the Western United States, and Korean Buddhists come to Hawaii.

    1915 …the founding of the Anti-Defamation League by the Jewish B'nai B'rith Organization and the re-emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, which expands its targets to include Jews and Catholics.

    1920 Women gain the right to vote

    1920s Christian evangelists dominate early commercial radio programming

    1924 First African American mainstream Islamic community founded in New York

    1925 Scopes monkey trial: Biology teacher tried for teaching evolution

    1926 Conservative Christians disengage from politics following the Scopes trial
    At the trial, reporter H.L. Mencken and other members of the national press ridicule fundamentalists for their conservative interpretation of Scripture. Despite their legal victory, many conservative Protestants retreat from the public sphere, while many fundamentalist churches remove themselves from instutions and national politics altogether. Liberal Christians dominate national politics and denominational institutions, until key court decisions -- Green v. Connally and Roe v. Wade -- galvanize them to re-engage in wider culture.

    1930 Wallace D. Fard founds Nation of Islam

    1939 Religious radio programming regulated

    1940 Supreme Court ruling protects Jehovah's Witnesses' right to solicitation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 5:03 PM GMT
    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/

    1945 Postwar America undergoes religious resurgence; nonbelievers viewed as anti-American

    Americans flock to church in record numbers, swelling the growth of traditional denominations -- Methodists, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Lutherans and Presbyterians. Church building booms; Bible sales skyrocket. Amid the prosperity, the United States and the Soviet Union face off in the Cold War, a spiritual struggle that pits Christian America against "godless communism." In 1952, President-elect Dwight Eisenhower famously says, "Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." This statement is taken as an admission that the nonreligious, be they atheist or socialist, are fundamentally anti-American. Because of the anti-communist views espoused by the church, Catholics gain greater acceptance in American society.

    1947 Supreme Court ruling resurrects Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state

    …Justice Hugo Black writes: "The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. ... In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

    1948 Supreme Court rules against school "release time" during religious instruction

    1949 Billy Graham leads Los Angeles revival

    Billy Graham becomes one of the leaders of a new evangelicalism that departs from the strictures of fundamentalism and embraces new media, technology and institution building, bringing evangelicalism to national prominence. Fundamentalists criticize Graham for his willingness to work with liberal Protestants and politicians. The depth of this split is evident years later as Billy Graham schedules breakfast meetings with U.S. presidents, while fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell preaches that political involvement is a sin.

    1952 The Power of Positive Thinking published

    Norman Vincent Peale's book sells more than 30 million copies and becomes one of the most widely read books in modern America. A Methodist and then Dutch Reformed pastor, Peale preaches …of the individual's ability to take control of his or her inner spiritual life in order to achieve specific personal gains. Peale's message strikes a chord with Americans and shares aspects of the New Thought and later New Age religions.

    1952 Radio evangelists successfully move to television

    1955 U.S. redefined as Judeo-Christian nation College professor Will Herberg publishes the influential book Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Herberg posits a "triple melting pot" in which Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism form the branches of a shared national faith opposed to "godless communism."

    1956 "In God We Trust" becomes national motto

    1961 Pat Robertson begins broadcasting on television

    1962 Supreme Court rules school prayer unconstitutional

    1962 San Francisco Zen Center established

    1963 Supreme Court says Bible reading, reciting Lord's Prayer in schools unconstitutional

    1960s and 1970s Neopaganism attracts growing following

    Introduced to the United States in the 1950s, Neopaganism includes a variety of traditions that share a rejection of institutional religion and a reverence for nature.

    1963 "Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

    On Aug. 28, civil rights supporters march on the Mall in Washington, D.C. In a speech that resonates with the language and rhythms of the Bible, Martin Luther King Jr. invokes the call of the Hebrew prophets and the pledge of the Founding Fathers to honor the principles of equality and social justice: "When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"

    1964 Civil Rights Act passes

    1968 Ban on teaching evolution ruled unconstitutional
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 5:03 PM GMT
    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/
    1971 Three-part "Lemon test" established to determine First Amendment violations

    The landmark case Lemon v. Kurtzman strikes down Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws that give direct financial assistance to private schools, including parochial schools. In the ruling, the court lays out a three-part test, which becomes known as the "Lemon test," to decide whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause: Does it have a secular purpose? Does it have the primary effect of promoting any religious beliefs? Does it "excessively entangle" religion with government? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the law is unconstitutional.

    1973 Roe v. Wade galvanizes Catholics and evangelicals

    1979 Moral Majority founded

    Jerry Falwell, a popular Baptist sinister, organizes the conservative Christian lobbying movement. Setting aside his earlier aversion to mixing religion and politics, Falwell leads the organization into the political arena, where evangelical voters become a major force who transform both the religious and political landscape of the country, beginning with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan.

    1987 Supreme Court overturns Louisiana law banning teaching of evolution in public schools

    1989 Christian Coalition founded

    Founded by Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition picks up the torch of evangelical political action from the Moral Majority.

    1992 First Muslim prayer reading in the U.S. Senate

    1993 Supreme Court strikes down laws prohibiting animal sacrifice in religious worship

    1993 Congress passes bill to ensure protection of free exercise

    In the wake of the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith case, courts rule against religious groups and individuals in more than 50 free exercise cases. Religious and civil liberties organizations team up to support what becomes known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to provide more federal protection for religious exercise.

    1995 Supreme Court: University discriminating by not funding evangelical publication

    2000 U.S. House session opens with Hindu prayers

    2001 9/11 attacks; Muslims fight to redefine America as "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" nation

    2005 Federal court judge rules requirement to teach intelligent design unconstitutional

    2006 First Muslim, Buddhist representatives elected to Congress

    2007 VA allows Wiccan emblems on government-issued grave markers

    2007 Protests at first Hindu prayer before a U.S. Senate session...Christian activists disrupt and attempt to shout down Zed as he begins the prayer.

    2009 President Obama acknowledges nonbelievers in his inaugural address

    President Obama references America's religious diversity, and for the first time, a president acknowledges nonbelievers in an inaugural address: "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
    ... A recent Pew Center paper reports that while 16.1 percent of Americans say they're religiously unaffiliated, not a single member of Congress identifies that way."


    Pardon if anyone might deem that too much copy/paste, I thought it all perfectly germane to the topic. Super-much thanx to PBS which did such an excellent job outlining our history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2015 5:04 PM GMT
    jeepguySD saidThis seems unnecessary and only likely to create even more conflict with evangelicals. They'll only cite the effort as more evidence of a war against Christianity in the US -- which I think is absurd, by the way...

    Clearly this is war, the first battle lost to religion in the 1950s, the consciousness of the nation enslaved since then.

    It ought to be proudly fought against. A battle to bring this country back to its foundation of religious tolerance, not of obedience to religion.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2929

    Sep 06, 2015 6:19 PM GMT
    My understanding is that you can swear an oath on anything you like: the Koran, the Bible, the Constitution - anything that you hold as a sort of higher witness of your oath.

    Ironic that Kim David probably took an oath on the Bible to uphold the laws and do her duty - making her an oath-breaker and a person who obviously does not take her Bible seriously - only the bits she likes, I guess.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 06, 2015 7:15 PM GMT


    I'd be all for making people swear on the constitution instead of the bible.

    If I ever ran for and won an election I'd swear on the Constitution before I'd ever consider doing it on the bible.

    On the subject of oaths with " so help me god" in them.
    Having sat on two juries, one grand jury, given testimony in two trials and attended three trials, I've never heard 'so help me god' used in courts in Florida or Alabama...

    I went to Rockford, Alabama for the trial of Billy Jack Gaither's murderers - talk about a scarey rural town!!! I got out of my car and looked around and thought there would be no way in hell the people there would convict two rednecks of killing a gay guy. Wrong. They gave them life with no parole in less than 30 minutes. I mention Rockford because two or three witnesses added 'so help me god' to their oath but the bailiff never said those words.

    But so help me god, I've heard 'so help me god' in court...icon_biggrin.gif:

    I was going to post Billy Jack's wiki page but it's gone. His murder never attracted the attention of Matt Sheppard's but was ten times more brutal.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 06, 2015 7:21 PM GMT


    tazzari saidMy understanding is that you can swear an oath on anything you like: the Koran, the Bible, the Constitution - anything that you hold as a sort of higher witness of your oath.

    Ironic that Kim David probably took an oath on the Bible to uphold the laws and do her duty - making her an oath-breaker and a person who obviously does not take her Bible seriously - only the bits she likes, I guess.


    She apparently doesn't take her own FOUR marriage vows as seriously as she takes her oath of office when it comes to gay people.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Sep 07, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    Swearing an oath is irrelevant here.

    Outside of the same sex marriage issue is the clear overreach of the judge in this case.

    When do we put government officials in jail for being deficient in their job? I guess starting in 2015....

    The remedy here is that the state government has to impeach her and remove her from office.

    This clerk lacks a fundamental understanding what "religious freedom means". Its not a veto on laws you do not agree with.

    However just because she wont follow the law doesn't mean she deserves jail-time.

    Here is the test. If she became mentally insane which seems very close to what she is currently, would the judge have a right to jail her until she did her job? If she came to work and refused to process any paperwork for anyone could a judge throw her in jail?

    No not at all.

    Trust me she will get paid for every day in jail. And all to make a point. The way about this is through the process of impeachment, and or change the statute for marriage.



  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Sep 07, 2015 3:11 AM GMT
    ^
    What else could the judge do? She was stopping people from getting what is their Constitutional right. The only way he could try to make sure that people were able to get their rights was to put her in prison. As a judge, he swore that he would uphold/defend the Constitution.

    It is doubtful that the legislature will try to impeach her. They are in a very poor conservative area. It will be interesting to see what the legislature will actually do. But I'm guessing that what they will probably do instead is remove her name from the marriage certificate (which has already been done) and remove the requirement that the County Clerk has to sign the marriage certificates. That is what she is asking DEMANDING and her husband has insinuated that he has been told that is what the legislature will do when they come back in....I think in January.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Sep 07, 2015 3:47 AM GMT
    metta said^
    What else could the judge do? She was stopping people from getting what is their Constitutional right. The only way he could try to make sure that people were able to get their rights was to put her in prison. As a judge, he swore that he would uphold/defend the Constitution.

    It is doubtful that the legislature will try to impeach her. They are in a very poor conservative area. It will be interesting to see what the legislature will actually do. But I'm guessing that what they will probably do instead is remove her name from the marriage certificate (which has already been done) and remove the requirement that the County Clerk has to sign the marriage certificates. That is what she is asking DEMANDING and her husband has insinuated that he has been told that is what the legislature will do when they come back in....I think in January.


    Well its good to see you are thinking. Not in the correct way but its a start.

    What could he do? Well we only want judges to interpret the law. They can give remedy , but the remedy has to be within the scope of legal precedent and of course the law.

    The fact here is we have an elected official who is not performing on the job. I maybe wrong but this maybe the first time ever an elected official was jailed for that.

    Could this judge imprison a doctor for not performing an abortion? How about a lawyer for refusing a case?

    Remember here he is imprisoning a women for not doing her job. The plaintiffs case here is sound, the ACLU is right for doing this to prevent boycotting of the new marriage ruling. However we should not throw out the constitution in the pursuit of this.

    If she committed a felony she would have a right to a bond hearing. Here she is not. The process should be handled through the regular impeachment system. If the judge levied a fine against the state of kentucky, you betcha they would convene the legislature.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 07, 2015 3:53 AM GMT
    musclmed saidSwearing an oath is irrelevant here.

    Outside of the same sex marriage issue is the clear overreach of the judge in this case.


    The Kentucky judge is not exceeding his authority.
    SCOTUS has already ruled on a related issue in 2006...

    NY TIMES The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04-473, was one of a long line of cases addressing the rights of public employees and surely not the last. When it was argued before the justices on Oct. 12, the Bush administration sided with Los Angeles County in arguing that if the Ninth Circuit were upheld, public employees would in effect get constitutional protection for performing their duties "to the dissatisfaction of the employer."

    Justice KennedyPublic employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment. When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."


    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30cnd-scotus.html?_r=0

    And I believe your same basic premise was used against Reagan when he fired 10,000 union air traffic controllers for going on strike after he warned them not to. That year I hired two former mid 40's union air traffic controllers as seasonal delivery truck drivers... with an experienced 19 year old as their supervisor who still works for me.

    In the real world people really do reap the consequences for not performing their assigned jobs as instructed from the top down.