Does what? Tell Christian slaves how to behave with respect to their masters? This has no relevance to the present US Constitution. There are no slaves. As discussed before, when it did have relevance in the US, these statements didn’t oppose the US Constitution as well.
We all feel a deep moral repugnance towards slavery. But all your quotes only tells me that the New Testament clearly urges Christians to OBEY the law of the land without judgement or revolt.That was the “evil” Roman Empire at the time. Make that the US Constitution today if you will. You won’t find one jot or tittle that would say otherwise.
I hope nobody thinks I’m preaching here. I’m merely supporting my argument that the use of the overtly subversive Koran to uphold the US Constitution in this situation is rather uniquely ironic.
Not at all. But we do need three pages (and growing) to also talk about the sanctity of IKEA furniture and the purpose of mermaid lingerie. Y’know, the important things in life.
I just looked at this again this morning. I am still seeing a movie in all this. Sort of like Borat. If you got a bunch of these sport of people in a room, a good speaker could have them goose-stepping in an hour.
But why are you only talking about the New Testament? After all, most of the Christian Bible by weight or volume is in the Old Testament, which has all sorts of un-American ideas about divinely appointed kings and theocracy and religious persecution. You can’t just say “Well, the New Testament cancelled all that out”; Christians have been and still are all over the map about exactly how to apply or not apply the Old Testament and its legal and moral codes.
Conversely, one could argue that the problem with the New Testament is that it isn’t subversive enough for a country born of revolution:
Guess the Founding Fathers are all burning in hell.
Any document, whether it be the bible, the koran, or the US Constitution is open to interpretation. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is no supreme judiciary to settle matters of interpretation in the religious texts. Your quote in Romans is quite clear though, and it represents the latest instruction on matters of respect for the authority of the decidedly non Christian state for both Jewish and gentile Christians.
And yes, I’ll bet there were many United Empire Loyalists who expected the founding fathers to burn in hell.
I still find it hard to believe Prager is serious. I read what he wrote, then reflect on the black and white words of the Constitution, and my head threatens to explode. Either he is shamelessly trolling, writing satire, woefully ignorant, or clinically insane. I thank those who have warned against reading the comments - I’d like to hold on to some shred of hope.
I’ve ignored this thread, as I assumed that someone should be able to swear or affirm an oath based on the book of his religion. I just turned the TV on and saw Prager talking about this. He comes at it from a different angle.
While I was assuming that the book was tied to the person taking the oath, his position is that the book is tied to the society which gives rise to the office he has been elected to hold. His position is that the bible is the fundamental “founding document” of the country (if not western civilzation). Based on this line of thinking—that the “thing” to be sworn upon is tied to the society and not the swearer—it seems like The Constitution would be the thing for anyone to place his hand on. But that can then be debated by the usual secularists, theists, and traditionalists.
One poster raised an interesting point about the book itself conflicting with The Constitution. In thinking about it, I’d say it would be pretty logical that swearing to a book (tied to the swearer, of course) that conflicts with The Constitution would be a problem and should be disallowed. And how would you stop it. Well, you can’t take office until the “proper” oath is taken. Isn’t that the way it is now?
Another point was brought up concerning a booik like Mein Kampf. What should we do if a candidate runs in an area where issues concerning Jews are not part of the campaign, then the guy gets elected and wants to swear an oath on that book? Yes, he was elected, but maybe that piece of information would have swayed voters otherwise.
So, maybe in the end the best thing to do is assume that the book is tied to the society, not the swearer. And that the book should be the same one used for all these years, the bible. Either that or The Constitution. Maybe a choice between the two.
I think Prager’s angle has already been pretty well established (and shredded) in this thread. What did you see on TV from him that was different than what has been discussed here so far?
What’s his evidence for this claim? And what’s the significance of it? What if politician in question was elected to represent a community where the majority of residents do not believe in the Bible? Say, he represents a town with a large Chinese Buddhist population? The particular sector of society he has been elected to represent is not tied to that book in any meaningful way.
Aside from this being an entirely unsupportable claim, what of it? Why does it matter if a representative swears on a different book, or on no book at all?
What do you do for people whose religion forbids them from swearing oaths? Bar them from running for office?
I don’t understand this paragraph.
The problem here isn’t that the guy wants to swear on Mein Kampf, though. The problem is that the electorate voted for a bona fide Nazi. Specifying which text an elected official has to swear on isn’t going to solve that problem. However, that’s pretty much moot, because the scenario is so incredibly unlikely that it’s never going to happen. Considering the level of media scrutiny faced by elected officials these days, how on Earth would one make it all the way through primaries, debates, interviews, elections, attack ads, and every other instrument of the modern media and the electoral process without this becoming known? If a Nazi was canny enough to make it through all of that without being revealed, why would he blow it in the middle of his swearing in ceremony by using Mein Kampf? All that would happen is an immediate recall election, and an unending media storm until then that would make it impossible for him to achieve anything during his very abreviated tenure.
Why is that “the best thing?” What’s wrong with allowing people to swear on whatever document they feel the most personal attachment to? What disaster has resulted from the current practice, that cries out for remedy?
How do you intend to square that requirement with the first ammendment?
The US Constitution explicitly states that there must not be a religious test to hold office. No one has to swear “on” anything. They can take an oath (by whatever religion, book, or ethical system they like) to uphold the Constitution, or they can simply affirm that they will uphold the Constitution.
No oath can be required. Requiring people to swear on the Bible is dangerious unAmerican nonsense.
I’ve thought about it, too, as someone who does not believe in any religion. For those who use a Book to swear an oath, whatever Book is being used, the person taking the oath is not swearing to follow that Book. They are instead swearing, by their belief in that Book, to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Works for me.
I thought it was rather plain, but I must have been unclear. My apologies. Most of the points in this thread start from where I started: that if you are asking someone to swear an oath, it makes sense that he swear based on a religion he actually believes in. So a Christian, would use the bible, a Muslim, the Koran, etc.
But Prager’s position is that the bible is there to reference NOT the swearer’s religion, but the founding principles of the society. Now that is a debate in and of itself, but it is quite different than the issue as it has been discussed in this thread. That is why I said that (based on that thinking) that it might make more sense to have everyone swear on The Constitution.
My guess is that he would argue that the small community is a product of the larger society going back to the founding of the country. And that it is beneficail to remind everyone what makes all of it, even the smaller community within the U.S., possible. Again, a debatable point. As far as evidence, I think that it is fair to say that the U.S. was, informally at the very least, founded on Judeo-Christian principles. If anyone demands evidence for that, we have more profound problems.
The point is that IF IT IS TRUE, then it seems reasonable that we would ask all elected officials to “swear to” our founding principles.
No. The Constitution allows for an affirmation. I personally do not think it would be unreasonable to have somoen affirm that they advocate following The Constitution. Would you? He’s viewing the bible as an even more fundamental document.
A previous poster pointed out that parts of the Koran would conflict with The Constitution. That could be a problem, couldn’t it? Especially since the devout might put allegiance to their God before their allegiance to their country. Should someone be allowed to swear an oath to a God or a religion that is in direct conflict with the law of the land?
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful in making a larger point. Should someone be able to get elected then decide to swear on Mein Kampf? In the end the question is whether there should be any restrictions on what book should be sworn to.
As I stated, I started in agreement with most in the thread, which is why I felt no need to opine. I posted to clarify what Prager’s position was. And one can certainly argue that the “thing” sworn to be The Constitution. He takes it further and goes to what he sees as a more fundamental document. Now, the whole issue of swearing an oath brings up a sub issue, i.e., does it make more sense for any swearing or affirmation to invoke a higher power?
I don’t see that it runs afoul of the first ammendment. Keep in mind that even in the instance of the “thing” being sworn to being the bible, Prager doesn’t see the swearer’s religion the reason that the bible is there as at all. It has to do with its relationship to the founding of the country.
As far as my position, I say that it makes no sense to ask someone to swear an oath of office and invoke a book or religion that conflicts with it. To avoid that, I think it’s cleaner to have the thing be the founding “document” whether it be the bible or the Constitution. I could see giving people the choice: the bible or The Constitution. Either that or having them state which “thing” they will swear to when they file papers to run for office. That way your Buddhists could get the exact guy they might want, but all would know before hand.
Sorry my post was so unclear, but Prager’s point is that the bible is not there as a representation of the swearer’s beliefs, but as a document critical to the founding of the country.