Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 04:55 PM
Original message |
Why should someone swear an oath of office on a book |
|
That means absolutely nothing to him? What type of message is that? If he doesn't believe in the Bible...then swearing in on it would be like a believer swearing in on a dime store novel. No meaning whatsoever. But better than that--no reason to uphold the promise he is making when swearing in. Personally, I would rather he make a promise on something that is dear to HIM. Otherwise it is relegated to simply a meaningless gesture when it should mean everything. Just my .02.
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I would rather they look me in the eye |
phantom power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
2. because people are superstitious. |
hobbit709
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Well, we can't expect them to pledge |
|
what the signers of the Declaration of Independence did. How many of todays politicians would even have "sacred honor" to put on the line?
|
Az
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message |
4. An unfortunate awareness of the origin or words |
|
To testify used to mean to swean on your testies. Thats where the word comes from. You swore on your balls. If it was found out you were lying.... you get the picture. There are even passages in the bible demonstrating this practice.
As we became more ... civilized... the focus of this oath shifted from something very important to us in a physical sense to something more important in a less substantial sense.
To get this you really have to understand how Judeo/Christian religion was different than the other religions of its day. Most other religions were an amalgamation of verbal stories and local customs. But Judaism introduced the idea of text forming the foundation of a particular teaching. This made it very easy to establish lines of authority. Christianity adopted this from its founding religion and expanded upon it. The text became vested with increasing degrees of authority over time. Eventually the texts exchanged amongst fellow Christians began to take on similar value to the Jewish texts and were included in this authority. Letters from teachers and leaders took on the value of doctrine.
Eventually these texts were assembled by the Council of Nicea and given the full weight of moral authority. Essentially voting the particular collection of works to be special or holy. And since they swore to its truth it took on the name of Testiment. Which carried with it all the implications of the origins of that word.
Which all is a round about way of saying that swearing on the bible is sort of like swearing on your balls. Which of course also explains why women were not allowed to testify for so long. No balls.
|
Left Is Write
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And I'm getting more and more angry with those who voice the opinion that Keith Ellison is somehow wrong to prefer taking his oath on the Koran.
Don't these people understand the concept of "no religious test" for any elected official? Why is that so hard to get? Who are these people that think there is some American "rule" about using the Bible?
|
ashling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:45 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I propose that all members of Congress swear on a copy of |
|
Tom Sawyer. After they turn around and spit. I am series.
|
bluerum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
7. There is no requirement that holders of public office swear an oath |
|
on any book, religious or otherwise.
It is the constitution that they are supposed to be defending.
|
Az
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Keep in mind that the purpose of an oath is to risk something |
|
There are all sorts of ways people have tried to ascertain if someone was telling the truth or not. Swearing on testies (see my post above) and worse methods have been used. The Japanese would place a red hot sword on a person's tongue briefly to see if they were lying.
The idea of an oath is based on risk aversion notions. The idea is to place a person in a position where they fear losing something rather than lying. It used to be things like tongues and testies. But Christianity introduced the idea of the soul. And many are taught that risking your soul is the greatest risk of all. So the fear should motivate them to tell the truth.
Course that has no effect on someone that doesn't happen to believe in the bible or a soul. Which causes many believers a lot of consternation.
|
FtWayneBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I have heard tell of swearing on one's mother's eyes. |
|
Some swear by "cross my heart and hope to die."
Here's a thought, for those swearing to uphold The Constitution of The United States of America - Swear on that Sacred Document.
|
BattyDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 07:50 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I think they should swear on the Constitution |
|
It contains the laws they are supposed to uphold and the belief system they are supposed to be loyal to as public servants.
|
B Calm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-04-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Politicians are not sworn into office with one hand on the bible. They raise |
|
their hand and take the oath!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:52 AM
Response to Original message |