I hadn’t, actually. 
crap. fucking typo. fucking eyes that didn’t see it. fucking cordless keyboard. fuck.
That may very well be, but’s that’s a secondary discussion. The reason I posted here at all was to point out what I thought was an interesting distinction Prager was making: that the “thing” being sworn to symbolize the country’s founding beliefs, and not the personal convictions of the swearer.
Subsequent to that we can talk about which document would serve best in that regard. The Constituition is an obvious choice, but it is not philosophical in nature. Maybe that’s a good thing, though. I like your suggestion of a Lockean presence, so maybe the D of I, a reminder of the reasons for our very existence.
The degree to which Judeo-Christian beliefs steered and inflenced our founding is a point of never-ending debate. Personally, I doubt I’m near Prager, but I am much further in his direction than most dopers (specifically in more of a stripped away theist sense). There have been many discussions along these lines. There will be more. But it is not the thrust of why the point I related that was made by Prager.
Emglish takes up twice the typesetting space as English.
That’s why these church & state discussions go so long…
pbthththtthttththththth
:: Snort :: You had me at “hello,” Frank; you had me at “hello.”
Well, it seems to me that if he can be so far wrong in his assertion as to what the specific symbolic founding text should be, that itself is reason enough to wonder how well-thought-out his theory is.
The whole purpose of swearing an oath is to bind the swearer to do the promised thing, not to emphasis the promise or the purpose of the promise. Swearing “by” something is a symbolic invocation of the power of the thing to underpin your vow – and to impart consequences if you break it. Christians swear on the Bible because it is the founding text of their religion and in their eyes a holy book; to take hold of it and lie would be to profane it. You swear to do a thing, but you don’t swear by the self-same thing. There’s no reason to, and no symbolic power imparted.
There’s that whole passive approval of slavery thing. That’s right out of the Bible. So we got that going for us.
Outside of Prager’s column, what is the basis for this belief? Is there anyone else out there who thinks that the use of the Bible in an oath-taking ceremony is meant to represent the majority belief of the nation, and not the personal belief of the oath taker? More particularly, is there anyone out there who has actually taken the oath of office who so believes?
I don’t think this is a legitmate argument from Prager. I think it’s a deliberate attempt to cover his ass after he got caught out flatly advocating something that flies in direct contradiction of one of our most cherished national principles.
That would be the Bible (as noted and ignored several times, previously).
The Bible espouses the divine and sacred nature of monarchies.
The Bible makes no provision for democratic or republican electoral processes.
The Bible contradicts itself in a couple of places, but clearly provides substantial evidence to support bills of attainder (violating the Constitution Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3).
The Bible demands that the religious authorities be provided with a tithe of each family’s earnings.
The Bible makes explicit calls for or provides examples of blood sacrifice, divine revelation, the anointing of leaders, communist economy, and a number of other provisions that are in conflict with the Constitution.
And while the Bible does permit slavery, it puts restrictions on slavery that are not permitted by the original Constitution.
Whatever argument Prager put forth on TV, he clearly did not put forth the same argument in the text article that prompted this thread. And the argument he put forth on TV appears to be just silly. Why permit affirmations with no book (or, for that matter, oaths with no book, since that is merely custom and not a matter of law*), but then turn around and say that IF one uses a book in the ritual, it has to be a particular book that was not even mentioned in the Constitution?
- Perhaps we should go back to the practice of swearing oaths by placing one’s hands on the testicles of the person administering the oath?
Certainly most of the founders and settlers of the US were from Christian backgrounds, but the countries that they left were also Christian. What made the US unique was not that it was based on Christian principles (whatever they are) but the fact that it was based on post-Enlightenment ideals. England had a state religion and the FFers decided explicitly to reject tieing together religion and state.
Furthermore, if preger truly believes that office holders should swear on a Judeo/Christain book then doesn’t it make more sense to require that it be the Old Testament/Torah and forbid the New Testament? The OT is the common book between those two religions.
And honi soit qui mal y pense! 
Well of course they should. I can’t see how any reading of the Constitution would yeild any other answer. How is that in any way different from someone swearing on the Bible and then turning around and saying he is a Nazi in the next breath. In either case the electorate can vote him out of office at the next election or recall him immediately. If the country survived elected officals advocating slavery, separation of the states, and other repugnant beliefs I don’t see why we suddenly make up new laws for Nazis or Muslims.
Do you believe that people who live their lives by faithfully following the Koran’s teachings are inherently anti American because of this conflict?
It was the first I had heard of it. As I said, my default belief was similar to everyone’s: that an oath would be made more meaningful if the item be sworn upon was something close to the heart of the person doing the swearing.
I’m not so sure. Contrary to many opinions here, he is no idiot. Even some here who find his opinions on this issue ridculous have had some nice things to say about him in the past. While I’m sure he is capable of making a mistake then wanting to cover his ass, the religious-church/state subject matter here seems to be an area where he has spent a lot of time. My guess is that this is his genuine belief.
That makes sense. I think that the reality of it is—assuming his position on the pointof the book to begin with—that the book we simply refer to as the bible includes the New Testament and has become an object of ceremonial desim.
Probably. But the fact is that out increasiingly pluralistic society brings to the fore issues that were moot in more homogeneous times. That raises the question whether or not we should have any restrictions concerning the allegiance someone seeking office might have. It may or may not be necessary or wise, but discussing whether a book someone chooses to swear uopn (assuming they choose to swear on anything) should be expected to **not **conflict with basic tenets of our Constitution seems reasonable.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Koran to make that judgement. My point has been theoretical. If there is a book that is in direct conflict with the fundemental laws of this nation and the rights they protect, should we seek to prevent an prospective office holder from being anle to swear an oath to it? I repeat, that for many devout people, whatever their religion, that their religious faith supercedes any national allegiance or responsibility they might feel.
That sounds exactly like the sort of religious test for taking office that’s expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
Would it be all right if I used Common sense by Thomas Paine? I think that if someone were to do so, it send a good statement, since we seem to be lacking so much of it these days.
Aaand he’s just gonna go right on ignoring it:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.