David Kuo: The Bible Is Not America’s Holiest Book.

[Quixote1818]

I am starting to LOVE this guy!!!!! He gets it!

Snip>>

No, the BIble isn't Ameirca' holiest book. America doesn't have a holy book. It does have two holy documents, however. One is called the Constitution. The other is known as the Declaration of Independence. That's it. Book study finished.

Snip>>

What is more deeply troubling than Prager's column, however, is the reaction of a group called the American Family Association. Its head, a man named Donald Wildmon, has called for his supporters to egg on Members of Congress to pass a new law - one requriing every official to be sworn in using the Holy Bible. Good idea except for that dreaded Constitution again. After all it contains these diabolical words in Article VI, section 3, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Darn those liberal Founders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kuo/americas-holiest-book_b_35462.html

[leftofthedial]

1. America's holiest book

is Exxon's annual report

[KittyWampus]

5. ouch!

[Mythsaje]

2. After Bill Maher's interview with him

I was left with an incredible sense of respect and admiration for the man. He is smart, wise, and possessed of a great sense of humor.

He might have started out asleep, but he's learned an awful lot since then.

[cspanlovr]

3. He's the most credible spokesman for Bu$hCo. religious hypocrisy out there.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. Wrong . It's the check-book. And that's something to which the very Reverend Pat Robertson

would surely say, "Amen!"

[judaspriestess]

6. David Kuo is spot on again

I have been very impressed with what he has said so far.

I applaud him for recognizing his calling from God to fight people who hide behind religion to spread fear and hate. Thou shall not use Gods name in vain.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Don Wildmon is one of the most dangerous of the religious shitwits out there.

Stupid sonofabitch. Every year he stays alive is another year that humanity takes a small step backward in evolution.

[ellenfl]

8. thank you, david kuo. eom

[cui bono]

9. I just told my friend today... govt should be sworn in using the Constitution.

Why the hell are elected officials sworn in on a bible ffs??? That makes no sense whatsoever. We need a lawsuit regarding this, has there ever been one?

[Jim Lane]

11. As an agnostic, I disagree

Officials who want to swear on a Bible (or on a Koran) should be allowed to do so. No religious test means NO religious test.

Just for a thought experiment, though: Suppose that Christians, Jews, and Muslims were somehow barred from election to Congress. Would the quality of governance improve or decline? I'll go with "improve" but I'll admit I'm biased. :)

[ProfessorGAC]

12. How Is NOT Doing It A Test?

I'm not following your logic. It would seem that the absence of a requirement eliminates any test, and doing it treads precariously near the establishment clause.
The Professor

[cui bono]

13. It's not a religious test. It's about separation of church and state.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I never said anything about anyone having faith, any faith, not being able to serve in government, or that swearing them in on a religious book is some sort of test. I don't even know how it would be one. It simply makes no sense to me to have them sworn in on a religious book when the government is supposed to be separate from religion.

[Jim Lane]

23. Let me clarify my view

The government requires the members of the incoming Congress to raise their right hands and swear an oath. Fine.

As I understand it, a few of them bring a religious book into the chamber and put their left hand on it during the ceremony. Many more use a religious book in a later re-enactment of the ceremony, staged for photo purposes. The book used is most often the Bible, but not always.

My point was that it would be an improper religious test, and a burden on the free exercise of religion, for the government to prohibit anyone from using a Bible (or a Koran) in this fashion. Some religious people want to use their holy book on this occasion. Their use of it doesn't undercut any important governmental interest. (Compare it with the Muslim woman who said that her religion required her to appear for her driver's license photo while wearing a veil. Honoring that wish would have impaired the value of the license as an ID card. I think she was forced to choose between uncovering her face and getting a license -- the correct result, IMO.)

I interpreted some of the comments here as meaning that the members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to have one hand on the Bible while they swear. That's where I disagree. As long as it's purely an act of individual choice, I don't see an Establishment Clause problem. If the government permits anyone to use any book they choose, or to use no book at all, then it's not favoring one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.

[ComerPerro]

15. Your first comment, I say let them swear in on something, anything, they believe in

your second comment, I am not touching with a ten foot pole.

LMAO

[jgraz]

10. "Some people's election loss grief counseling isn't going well."

Best line of the piece. :rofl:

[Az]

14. The Contender

In the movie The Contender a female atheist is selected to become the new Vice President. When asked what church she goes to she points to the halls of Congress and proclaims it to be her church. Theists look to God for what connects them to one another. We atheists look to our humanity and society for what connects us together. We The People. That as close to doctrine as you will find any atheist to swear to.

[Az]

16. Found the quote

I stand for a woman’s right to choose. I stand for the elimination of the death penalty. I stand for a strong and growing armed forces because we must stomp out genocide on this planet, and I believe that that is a cause worth dying for. I stand for seeing every gun taken out of every home, period. I stand for making the selling of cigarettes to our youth a federal offense. I stand for term limits and campaign reform. And, Mr. Chairman, I stand for the separation of church and state, and the reason that I stand for that is the same reason that I believe our forefathers did: It is not there to protect religion from the grasp of government, but to protect our government from the grasp of religious fanaticism. I may be an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go to church. The church I go to is the one that emancipated the slaves, that gave women the right to vote, that gave us every freedom that we hold dear. My church is this very chapel of democracy that we sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes. I need my heart and my brain and this church. - Sen Shelly Runyon from The Contender

[KAT119]

17. Thank you, David Kuo for reminding christo-fascists of our Constitution

and Declaration of Independence=Justice, Truth, Liberty and Equality for ALL-an inspiration and light for all relgions,nations,races, sexual orientation.
Amen, awomen, aeverybeing....

[blondeatlast]

18. The Constitution protects every holy book. If you read "Tempting Faith," you know

that Kuo is far closer to a liberal than he is a RRRepublican.

Yes, he has views that some here cannot embrace (he also realizes that legislation cannot stop abortion and would like to see many other options explored for reducing the occurrence), but he's an eloquent spokesman for a fair, just society and he knows he was dangerously misled.

[thingfisher]

20. America was once a nation where the majority

of people were to one degree or another Christian. The use of the Bible to swear on was a cultural custome meant to insure "honesty" in public functions, as when testifying in court. (Even though the New Testament admonishes believers to let your no be no and your yes be yes without swearing by anything.

The hedgemony of Christian beliefs as a social given has passed, and we can no longer assume that it is an assumption that should be recognized by all citizens. Christians should recognize this and adjust to living in a society that they feel does not reflect the way they would prefer it to be. They are still free to practice their religion, and even propagate its message, and to be an example of exemplary citizenship to all others. The early church suffered persecution by Rome because their allegience to the emperor was suspect. All religions must recognize the rights of others to follow their conciences.
The Christian message has suffered greatly from the excesses and wrong doings of its most publicly visible protagonists. It is up to individual Christians to repair the damage without expecting the society at large to endorse it unquestioningly.

[blondeatlast]

22. I can only add to that--

Amen! :thumbsup:

[Horse with no Name]

19. Theodore Roosevelt was NOT sworn in on the Bible

Wonder if these asshats would have screamed about that?

[Saphire]

21. why swear on anything at all???? why not just swear to do it?

[pdxmom]

24. Here is one of the better summaries I've read regarding the "oath"

and requirements regarding swearing in:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg11.htm

They do not have to "swear" on anything. They only need to affirm. And it is a Constitutional violation to "make" them do it in any specific way other than what is specified.