Even if they want to, say, bring back the draft, are against the rights of women, or are racist, you'd still vote for them? All that's OK, because they're some variety of Christian?
You people are such fools. Wrapped up warm in your web of shakey beliefs that none of you bothers to question. Put a microscope to any religious claim and it falls apart. But no-one has the courage to examine what they believe.
I assume you'd vote 'Christian' because you feel they are morally supurior to atheists? If so, I would remind you that the USA was founded on a set of ideals derived from atheistic ethical systems of thought. The Bible never speaks of democracy. Democracy and freedom weren't to big in any religious sect I have ever spent time with. When I was growing up in my faith induced haze, I was told to sit down and shut up. By Christians. Hardly democtratic, or promoters of free inquiry. There are plenty of sound ethical systems that can be derived elsewhere than the mish-mash of contradictions, mis-translations and, often, backward ideas that constitutes the many conflicting sources that are drawn together in the Holy Bible.
You need some salsa?
For that chip on your shoulder?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I'm sure you'd prefer atheists in political office.
i dont give a fuck what someone's religion is when they're in office. it has little to do with their ability to judge sound public policy. so no, i wouldnt prefer atheists in office. nor christians. nor muslims. on the list of important things i look for in a candidate, religion falls somewhere between annual consumption of garlic and frequency of masturbation.
Find me a christian-politician that doesn't disclose his christianity and i'll show you billy beer.
thats what bush boy did...he professed his "values" then led the country blindly into war....
I currently work for a company......but when I open a business, I will for sure put a Jesus fish on my sign, yellow pages, and web page to get all the blind followers into my shop. So sad....
this is completely ridiculous. first of all this country wasnt founded on the bible. this country was founded to escape religious persecution.
what would be the point of making him swear on the bible if the bible doesnt mean anything to him? wouldnt it make a lot more sense to make him swear on a book that he actually abides by?
i love it when people say stuff is unamerican but their very attitude is whats unamerican.
I agree, the Bible doesn't mean anything to him, so any Oath would be meaningless. Most reasonable people know this if they think about this for two seconds. I don't think the view cited by the original post is indicative of most conservatives.
I hope no one minds if I spout off on this one. The founding fathers did not designate any book to be used for swearing in and there is no law about it. They only have to swear to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have to knock a law down if one was made because one of our basic rights is freedom of religion...there is no state religion.
That being said, when I'm sworn in, I want to use Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy when I raise my left hand. I can use my left hand, right?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
Why refuse?
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
Why refuse?
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
I would refuse because it is pointless for me to swear an oath on something that I consider bullshit. I say this as someone who would be taking the oath seriously of course. If I swear an oath, it actually means something. If you think oaths in general are garbage and don't feel like swearing one has any worth when it comes to whether or not you can be considered truthful or bound to something, then yeah, you'd go ahead and swear on a Bible even if you're an Atheist. But I would not swear an oath that way. Also, I wouldn't want to give the Bible that much credit, lol. Any public opportunity to denounce the Bible is one I'm going to take, haha.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
Why refuse?
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
same reason I don't say "bless you" to someone who has sneezed, or bow my head when my brother says grace at family dinners. it's not my belief, don't expect me to participate in it.
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
Why refuse?
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
same reason I don't say "bless you" to someone who has sneezed, or bow my head when my brother says grace at family dinners. it's not my belief, don't expect me to participate in it.
I hear what you guys are saying and I'm sure you know how I feel about the crusty ritual. My point is that such meaningless traditional dribble still clings to us. Until people figure out the bible is insignificant, sensible people might have to say, "Yah yah. F**k the sun."
some old names in this one. some who are no longer with us...
i still stand by the post in made in 2006...
I miss hippiemom. I also stand by my post from way back.
i miss her too. sometimes this place changes when people leave or are banned, etc. their lack of presence is obvious. when she died i think it was the first time i noticed how someone's absence can impact an entire forum. there have been a couple of others since, but i think she was the first one that made me notice how dynamics can change when just one person leaves.
it is funny how we still feel the same way as we did nearly 9 years ago. some people evolve over time, but i think this issue shows that some things that we believe in are fundamental.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Ditto (or, for me, on the Charter of Rights). If I was asked to swear on a Bible I would refuse. And I just remembered that Victoria's mayor refused to swear an oath to the Queen last year, and it was called by some more conservative Canadians "unCanadian". But for the most part, no one gave a shit. Any oath that is sworn to the Queen in Canada (that includes the swearing in for new Canadians) should also instead be an oath to the Charter of Rights.
Why refuse?
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
I would refuse because it is pointless for me to swear an oath on something that I consider bullshit. I say this as someone who would be taking the oath seriously of course. If I swear an oath, it actually means something. If you think oaths in general are garbage and don't feel like swearing one has any worth when it comes to whether or not you can be considered truthful or bound to something, then yeah, you'd go ahead and swear on a Bible even if you're an Atheist. But I would not swear an oath that way. Also, I wouldn't want to give the Bible that much credit, lol. Any public opportunity to denounce the Bible is one I'm going to take, haha.
Comments
Why not have atheists in political office?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You vote for atheists if you want. I'll vote for Christians.
-Enoch Powell
Even homosexual pro choice christians? I mean, if the opponent were an athiest.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Can you tell the difference between a christian and an atheist without either of them disclosing their affiliation?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I can.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
explain
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Atheists tend to be more liberal.
-Enoch Powell
You need some salsa?
For that chip on your shoulder?
-Enoch Powell
Find me a christian-politician that doesn't disclose his christianity and i'll show you billy beer.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You are so way far off on that one. The rightest of neocons, on top of being phony christians, are the poorest of athiests.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i dont give a fuck what someone's religion is when they're in office. it has little to do with their ability to judge sound public policy. so no, i wouldnt prefer atheists in office. nor christians. nor muslims. on the list of important things i look for in a candidate, religion falls somewhere between annual consumption of garlic and frequency of masturbation.
Amen to that.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
thats what bush boy did...he professed his "values" then led the country blindly into war....
I currently work for a company......but when I open a business, I will for sure put a Jesus fish on my sign, yellow pages, and web page to get all the blind followers into my shop. So sad....
I agree, the Bible doesn't mean anything to him, so any Oath would be meaningless. Most reasonable people know this if they think about this for two seconds. I don't think the view cited by the original post is indicative of most conservatives.
Short answer , it isnt.
Personally I would prefer they swore or affirmed on a copy of the constitution
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You want me to swear on a bible? Sure. Bring the dusty old book over here and I'll swear on it if it makes you feel better.
That being said... the act is a relic that hasn't quite gone the way of the dinosaur. One hand over heart and the other in the air seems most appropriate (as meaningless as the act has become given the amount of deceit and corruption that typically follows).
www.headstonesband.com
some old names in this one. some who are no longer with us...
i still stand by the post in made in 2006...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it is funny how we still feel the same way as we did nearly 9 years ago. some people evolve over time, but i think this issue shows that some things that we believe in are fundamental.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Goes to show this stuff never ends.
Round and round the merry go round.
This shit is still prevalent.