Petition to require all gov't officials to swear upon the Constitution, not the bible

[Roland99]

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

[TheGunslinger]

1. Signed!

[Faux pas]

2. I love the idea!

Signed and verified!

[hifiguy]

3. Done!

About damn time someone came up with this excellent idea.

[rhett o rick]

4. #1052. A long way to go. nm

[NightWatcher]

5. I didn't think they had to swear on anything, just swear like you do in court

I've never put my hand on a bible when testifying in court over the years, just to tell the truth. If found out that you lied, you are charged in the court, not prosecuted by god.

[csziggy]

6. The Kentucky oath for officials ends with "so help me god."

Which I would have to object to if I were insane enough to run for office in Kentucky (or anywhere).

As a juror a few weeks ago I had to swear in and the oath jurors had to take ended the same way. I started to make an objection, but decided that since I intended to tell the truth anyway (which was all they asked during juror selection) I just didn't say that last part.

I wish they would take that god part out of the courts. I find it objectionable and hate having to feel like a hypocrite every time I am called in for jury duty and just slide over that part of the oath. Maybe the next time I'm called I'll make an issue out of it - it might get me OUT of jury duty!

[onenote]

15. Under specific Kentucky law, jurors are allowed to substitute an affirmation

for an oath.

454.170 Substitution of affirmation for oath.
An oath required by any statute derived from the former Civil Code, or by the Rules of Civil Procedure may be substituted by the affirmation of a person who is conscientiously opposed to taking an oath.

[csziggy]

19. I'm in Florida and don't know if they allow this

And it didn't occur to me until they were actually giving the oath. The previous time I was called for jury duty they did not administer any oath until the actual voir dire took place and there was a smaller group of people. This time they made the entire jury pool for several trials take it at once - probably 100-150 people in the room. We'd already been sitting for over an hour and I simply didn't want to stop the proceeding to ask.

Next time I get a jury notice I will ask when I check in at the courthouse.

[onenote]

26. For your future reference, Florida also allows jurors to skip the "so help me God"s

Rule 3.360. Oath of Trial Jurors

The following oath shall be administered to the jurors

“Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try the issues between the State of Florida and the defendant and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God?”

If any juror affirms, the clause “so help you God” shall be omitted.

[MADem]

21. That is pure fiction that anyone has to swear on anything, it's simply custom.

One well known Democratic legislator swore upon the Quran, because he is Muslim.

You could swear upon a copy of Ladies' Home Journal, if you'd like...or nothing at all.


You can also "affirm" if you have some dumbass objection to the "swear" word.


So help me God, at the end of oaths? That's an addendum, and can be dispensed with without altering the essential features of the oath.

[eallen]

7. Hmmm. It's unconstitutional to require any oath, whether on the Bible or the Constitution.

The Constitution makes very clear than a simple affirmation is an acceptable alternative to taking an oath of office. That was put there to respect those who had religious or philosophical objections to oaths. It would never pass muster today. Let's be glad it is there!

[Fritz Walter]

8. Signed, sealed and delivered n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. X marks the spot!

[MisterP]

10. I actually have little problem with a swear on the Bible

as long as they can quote one thing from it

one

thing

[struggle4progress]

11. Nothing in US law requires swearing on the Bible

The US constitution, article II, paragraph 8, says of the President: Before he enter on 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."

The US constitution, article VI, paragraph 3, says: 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.

That oath or affirmation, is (for federal officials) prescribed by 5 USC 3331: An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law

[onenote]

14. which is why this is a silly petition

[MADem]

22. +1,000!

It is certainly an UNINFORMED petition.

People get mad at me for pointing out how little so many Americans know about their own government, but this is a perfect example--someone went to all the trouble of ginning up a petition and going on the internet to spread the word and get people to sign it. And here it is, it's reached our shores, and it's ... pointless.

Maybe they should start a petition to bring back CIVICS classes to public schools. Failing that, they need to re-start that SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK franchise!

[branford]

30. Sometimes the ignorance of our own government and laws is truly astounding.

However, I did love Schoolhouse Rock as a child, even if it was educational,...

[MADem]

33. +1,000! nt

[Roland99]

16. But yet a bible is present almost always and assumed to be used

it should not be anywhere in the building and the phrase "so help me God" needs to be stricken.

[struggle4progress]

17. There's no chance a competent court will require "so help me God"

The option to affirm, in lieu of swearing, goes back to the earliest days of the Republic

That the option is acknowledged twice in the Constitution reflects the objections of certain people to swearing

Note the second occurrence, that I cited, further adds: but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

So the option to affirm, in lieu of swearing, clearly provides that one is free to omit such language as so help me God from these oaths, should using the language offend one's conscience

[Roland99]

20. You're not understanding the point

The point is that no one should have to opt to affirm to a different version of the wording. It should be one version and one version only. No reference to any make believe creatures in the sky of any type.

[MADem]

24. Because you say so? I think you are missing the point.

That's not how it works. People are given a choice. If we're going to play the "majority rules" game then your team would be pushed to the side, but fortunately, the US does have that 'religious freedom' thing going on, and people do have options.

I've given the oath of office many, many hundreds of times. I always asked "swear or affirm?" And "So help me...or not?" ahead of time so the event would go smoothly.


I think I've gotten a request for "affirm" maybe three times. Tops. The "so help me" got the dump maybe two dozen times. The rest of the time, the oath takers wanted the "classic" version.

[Roland99]

25. It's not a "majority rules" or "religous freedom thing" as you put it,

rather, it's keeping any semblance of religion and deities and supernatural clap-trap OUT of our CIVIL institutions as it should be.

[MADem]

28. Good grief, listen to yourself!! "As it should be?" Because YOU say so?

You're gonna lose this little battle--but hey, do carry on!

There are no religious tests--but that also means you can't run around discriminating against people on the basis of their religion.

You have much to learn. Start by learning that the whole "affirm" thing came to us by way of a Quaker:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99539230

[Roland99]

31. Again, you're missing the point. Refer back to my previous two posts.

[MADem]

34. I fear you are the one who has missed the point. You can refer back to my previous posts, too. nt

[tritsofme]

29. This is your political opinion of how things should be.

And that is surely fine. However the Constitution certainly doesn't make this sort of requirement, I thought #11 explained it pretty nicely.

[branford]

32. That's really not how the Constitution works or what it requires.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As emphasized by centuries of jurisprudence, the amendment guarantees that government does not create a de jure or de facto state religion or discriminate against people because of their religion (or lack thereof) or prevent them from observing their religious beliefs (narrowly subject to other generally applicable laws).

However, contrary to what many believe or want, the amendment doesn't protect people from religion, mandate it be banished entirely from the public sphere, or generally prevent religious expression or belief of people employed by or dealing with the government.

No one is actually required to "swear" an oath (it may be "affirmed&quot , no less include "under God" or do so upon a Bible (or the Constitution). The fact that such options exist or even may be the "default," however, in no way renders them unlawful. In fact, under certain circumstances, preventing someone from swearing over a Bible when other options are available, may actually be unconstitutional.

You are certainly free to believe that the Bible should never be involved in any public act or ceremony, but that was certainly not the intent of the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which you want people to swear upon), how the relevant jurisprudence has evolved since our country's founding, nor reflect the will of the vast majority of American citizens.

[struggle4progress]

36. If I had my preferences, and thought it a winnable fight, I'd take "God" out of all legal language

But it's not a winnable fight IMO, and it's not a huge deal either AFAIKS: as long as no religious test is actually imposed, and as long as people aren't forced to use language that offends their consciences, I'm not going to get bent out of shape

[hunter]

12. Most of my childhood our family was Jehovah's Witnesses, then Quakers.

We don't do that.

Even now as a Catholic heretic, living in a Catholic community, I still don't do that.

The Pledge of Allegiance still makes me cringe, since I sat it out throughout school, contributing to my powerful aura as a weird little kid. But I think it gave me a different perspective on politics, and the strength to resist authoritarian demands for conformity.

Anyways, I don't see the Constitution as any kind of sacred document. I think it has many flaws.

Is it my sacred Second Amendment right to build a clean electromagnetically ignited fusion bomb in my basement and test it out on uninhabited BLM land somewhere? If I vaporize some of Cliven Bundy's cattle, not grazing there legally, is that going to be a problem?

I see the Bible as it is interpreted by most Christian sects as a flawed document too. Much of the Bible is deeply metaphoric, and much of it is too tightly bound to cultures alien to our own.

Christ himself lived in a society very similar to our own. Look what he mostly talks about.

I think many fundamentalists, of all religions and political ideologies, are under the spell of selfish people who wanted their authoritarian control over others to live on even after they died.

The most progressive leaders of human history tend not to be like that. Krishna, Buddha, Christ, St. Francis, [link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá%27í_Faith|Bahá'u'lláh], Martin Luther King Jr....

Peter Smith says of the Baha'i, "Humanity is understood to be in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale."

I find the Fundamentalist's devotion to the King James Bible amusing in some ways. King James and a few of his translators were rather flowery sorts. Then again some of his legislative activities are very reminiscent of closeted Republicans and Fundamentalist preachers.

The much more conservative Catholics stuck with Latin until Vatican II. No King James Bible for them.

[Scuba]

13. Done. K&R.

[brooklynite]

18. UNREC

Government officials aren't REQUIRED to swear ON anything. They choose to.

Before he enter on 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."

[wildbilln864]

23. signed. 5914. a great idea! n/t

[haikugal]

27. Signed!

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. You're not required to swear on the Bible?

"Oath or affirmation". It's right there in the Constitution.

[NutmegYankee]

37. I don't like this Idea.

The purpose of swearing upon a holy book, if the oath taker is a believer in that faith, is to invoke divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties. It basically implies that breaking the oath is an offense against the deity.

Some faiths do not believe in taking Oaths (like Quakers) and have the option to instead affirm the oath vs swearing it.