... So help me, Allah.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i saw an interview with praeger in which he stated essentially that the problem lay in that "it is a long standing american tradition to swear on the bible. so it's not a religious problem, but a problem of breaking tradition".

huh? the bible is a religious book. laying your hand on it and swearing on it must give the book a vested power, in that it's considered a "holy" thing. thereby, an act of religious fealty.

so praeger's assertion is nonsense.

i still like the idea of using a copy of the constitution better.

It strikes me as being some of both tradition and religion.

March 4, 1853 -- Franklin Pierce
1.Drove to and from the Capitol standing up in his carriage.
2.Affirmed (rather than swore) the oath of office.
3.Broke precedent by not kissing the Bible, but merely placing his left hand on it.
4.First president to deliver inaugural address without referring to notes.

...

September 14, 1901 -- Theodore Roosevelt
1.The only President not sworn in on a Bible. Mr. Ansley Wilcox, at whose home Roosevelt took the oath of office, wrote in 1903, "According to my best recollection no Bible was used, but President Roosevelt was sworn in with uplifted hand." (The Presidents and Their Wives, p. 3)

. . . That we neither blaspheme nor misuse the name of God by cursing, perjury, or unnecessary oaths, nor share in such horrible sins by being silent bystanders.

Q. What is God's will for us in the third commandment?

A. That we neither blaspheme nor misuse the name of God by cursing, perjury, or unnecessary oaths, nor share in such horrible sins by being silent bystanders. In a word, it requires that we use the holy name of God only with reverence and awe, so that we may properly confess God, pray to God, and glorify God in all our words and works.

Q. May we swear an oath in God's name if we do it reverently?

A. Yes, when the government demands it, or when necessity requires it, in order to maintain and promote truth and trustworthiness for God's glory and our neighbor's good. Such oaths are approved in God's Word and were rightly used by Old and New Testament believers.

There's an interesting thing about John Adams and John Quincy Adams -- they were both very religious men, and John Quincy Adams were so religious that he is one of probably only one or two American presidents who did not take the Oath of Allegiance on a Bible. Now, it's kind of ironic that John Quincy Adams, being such a religious man, would not have used the Bible, but he said that he thought the Bible should be reserved for strictly religious purposes. So he took the Oath of Office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. That's really what he was swearing allegiance to was the Constitution, so he didn't use the Bible.

5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

It appears to me that Roosevelt may have been willing to swear an oath, but not to swear upon a bible.

Setanta wrote:

It appears to me that Roosevelt may have been willing to swear an oath, but not to swear upon a bible.

Or it may have been that Roosevelt's first inauguration was a rather ad hoc affair, conducted in a private home in Buffalo shortly after President McKinley's death, and no one remembered to hand Roosevelt a bible. According to the Library of Congress, Roosevelt used a bible at his second inauguration in 1905, so if he had any scruples about swearing on a bible in 1901 they were removed in the intervening four years.

Monte Cargo wrote:

Imagine, if you would, during WWII if a district elected a Japanese person who insisted on swearing on a Shinto or Budhist volume, or elected a fascist who insisted on swearing in, holding his hand over Mein Kaumpf. Those people doubtfully would make it out of the Capitol building alive!

With this remark you prove that you neither understand what the bible is nor why someone swears on something.

Monte Cargo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i saw an interview with praeger in which he stated essentially that the problem lay in that "it is a long standing american tradition to swear on the bible. so it's not a religious problem, but a problem of breaking tradition".

huh? the bible is a religious book. laying your hand on it and swearing on it must give the book a vested power, in that it's considered a "holy" thing. thereby, an act of religious fealty.

so praeger's assertion is nonsense.

i still like the idea of using a copy of the constitution better.

It strikes me as being some of both tradition and religion.

could be.

it might be worth thinking about at what point a tradition becomes.. um, i don't to say "irrelevant", but maybe "less important than it was".

a humorous version of the idea is the "traditional christmas fruitcake".. i don't know a single person that actually likes eating the stuff. but, every year, the fruitcake makers get rich off of it because "it's a tradition".

my point being that whether or not one excepts the evolution of man from beginnings as a chimp, the evolution of man from cave dweller to our current state is undeniable. and such is the way with the evolution of a country or a people. or the world for that matter.

what was once exotic becomes common place. it's a slow process even after the information becomes widely available.

for instance, even though i have a firm belief in a creator, my spiritual practice leans more towards zen-buddhism than the abrahamic religions. not a big deal here in california. buddhism has had an established presence in the mainstream here since the fifties.

however, many years ago, i was sitting in a cracker barrel restaurant in east tennessee with my father, just talking. somehow, it came up that i'd adopted buddhism as the path i preferred. as i was telling him this, a waitress doing set-ups at the next table dropped a whole hand full of silverware (quite loud in an empty room, i tell ya..). when i turned around, she had a horrified look on her face and she actually said, " i'll pray for your soul". uhhh... okay...

while in the same small town a few months back, i learned that there is now a small buddhist community there.

my father, however, was quite concerned that i would be "waving those beads all over the place" at my mother's funeral.

but he's 86 years old. so......

also, according to the minnisota times, not only have several jewish pols used the "jewish bible" (gov. lingle/hawaii --- rep. wasserman-shultz/florida), but they report that no less than 4 u.s. presidents have elected to not hold any bible at all..

if i can find out who they were, i'll post it. wouldn't be surprised if one of them was teddy r.

Monte Cargo wrote:

The fact that there are extremists in religion as there are anywhere there are people doesn't change the fact that the United States was not founded as a secularist nation, nor does it change the fact that Keith Ellison is posturing for publicity by being the first of over 40,000 Congressman in over 200 years to make such a demand, which is the real point being discussed on this thread.

Remove only the red word and I am in complete agreement with the above.

So we can add John Quincy Adams to the list of American Presidents who did not swear on the bible.

By your post you prove that you really don't have anything remotely intelligent to say on the subject.

Monte Cargo wrote:

By your post you prove that you really don't have anything remotely intelligent to say on the subject.

At least some of my researches were imtelligent enough to part of my history exams at university (although that's quite some time ago, I admit)

And I say, my professors liked it. As well as the publishers of two historical magazines.


Merry christmas as well.

Our melting pot welcomes Germans and Japanese, which would not have been wise during the WWII years.