I think they should scrap the whole swearing on the bible thing. It would be much better if they took the oath with their hand on the latest edition of Cosmo.
Or Hustler.
Could we add in a part where a libation is poured upon the ground for one’s dead homies?
Here is an article about the flap that gives some examples of swearings-in in the US that did not involve Christian bibles.
As a Chrisyain, i have a problem with swearing oaths of any kind-did not JC himself say words to the effect of “do not swear by God…let its be yes , or no”. cany anyone locate the verse i’m referring to? In any case, jesus is saying: DO NOT involve God in man’s petty affairs.
I’d consider myself bound by an oath sworn on the IKEA catalogue…
That’s not the basis of the phrase “so help me God”. It’s not invoking God in an active manner, rather it’s intended to remind you that your oath is solemn, and that by doing wrong you are demeaning yourself before Him. That’s my read on it, anyway.
Regardless, the God of the Koran is the same God of the Bible and of the Torah. The objection is absurd on its own merits. Some people need to think before they speak. What’s the quote? It’s far better to have people think you an ass than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? That’s close enough, and it’s quite apropos in regard to the author of that shameful article.
Is it really true that no Mormon or non-Christian has sworn in on another book besides the Bible?
That seems pretty unambiguous to me, and would rule out swearing on a Bible.
I assume you mean you’d feel bound by any oath you swore, under any circumstances, which is as it should be, of course. That’s actually the same argument RALPH is alluding to, that your word should be your word and you should follow it because you gave it, without being bound by any larger obligation.
(The scripture, BTW, is Matthew 5:33: “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”)
BUT if you felt more bound by a promise made before your diety – an oath, if you will – than by a simple promise, I assume that trotting out the IKEA catalog would be an ineffective way of invoking your allegiance to your diety – unless Swedish furniture is your religion. 
IOW, if it makes the promise more binding to swear by your God, that extra binding seems to me to be obviously ineffective if we aren’t, in fact, talking about your God. That’s why insisting that non-Christians take a Christian oath makes no sense.
In the link I gave in post #24, the last example is of a Jewish Congresswoman swearing in on a Hebrew bible. Does that fit?
From Lambo’s link:
I’m sure if you look hard enough on a local level, you can find people sworn in using the AD&D Advanced Rule Set (ok, maybe not).
And Jodi, I suspect a catalog of affordable Swedish furniture may in fact be the Bible of fabulous gay gentlemen on a budget. But that may be a stereotype.
The whole thing is so stupid that I simply couldn’t resist emailing this asshole and telling him so.
I was so peeved that I’m afraid my note was rather disconnected and ranty. Good thing I don’t care what he thinks of me or my temporarily lame writing skills.
I could be wrong but I don’t think Cthulu or one of his cults has a book. But in the Lovecraftian vein, do you think there’d be much of an uproar if he wanted to swear on The Necronomicon?
Sorry. Missed that post. I found it hard to believe the claims that were made in the article that this would be some kind of unprecedented action. And of course even if it were unprecedented, who cares? No one should have have to swear an oath on any religious text, especially from a religion one doesn’t adhere to.
GILES –
[hijack]
Some Christians follow this interpretation (Quakers, to name one sect off the top of my head), but most don’t, and haven’t. In fact, in the Middle Ages, the desire to swear by something close to God by not by God led to such phrases as “Gadzooks!” (God’s hooks – the nails of crucifiction), “Zounds!” (God’s wounds) and “Ods Bodkins!” (God’s Bodkin [a bodkin being a little knife]).
Most mainstream Christians interpret Matthew to mean you should not swear (that is, profane) nor should you take oaths in your daily life, thus making them mean less (i.e., “I swear to God I’ll get it to you tomorrow!”), nor should you demean your own word by only considering yourself bound by what you have “sworn” to do – let your word be your bond, your “yes” be “yes,” your “no” be “no.” But oaths in matters of gravity, such as swearing allegiance or swearing to tell the truth in formal proceedings, are still allowed. IOW, this passage is read as a prohibition on swearing and on inappropriate oath-taking. This interpretation is supported by the fact that oaths are allowed and apparently approved in other sections of the Bible, both OT and NT. Furthermore, when called before the Sanhedrin, Jesus refused to answer until “charged under oath by the living God” – at which point He answered, and without objecting to the oath. So most Christians do not read this passage perfectly literally, and never have done so. Some Christians do read it literally, though, and choose only to affirm, never to swear.
You’d think that would be apparent to anyone who’s attended the fourth grade.
People’s increasing inability to distinguish between religion and government scares the hell out of me. We’ve turned into a nation of blithering idiots. All the flag waving and bible thumping in the world won’t make them look any smarter or more patriotic.
Right – and in the light of some Christians refusing to swear for religious reasons, Dennis Prager’s rantings seem pretty hollow.
And Jesus went on immediately in his sermon to say:
There are a lot of things there which a majority of Christians do not follow in real life!
Hmm – Another chance to try to defend Christianity on the Boards. I could do that, or I could jam a fork in my eye repeatedly, for the same payoff. While I consider my options, let’s just return to the original topic.
At first, I thought Prager’s column was an amazing exercise in ignorance, inolerance, mindless hatred and stupidity…then I read the comments. :eek:
Have I been living in a bubble? Are Christian conservatives really this insane as a rule? Is the gibbering idiocy and hatred on that board really representative of Christian conservatives in general or is that just the extreme of the extreme? Please tell me the majority aren’t like that. Reading those comments is like reading the Stormfront site.