Fox spins proposal to eliminate "So help you God" from committee swearing in

[disciple Clint]

What statement? You have two quoted sections, one of which repeats part of the first one. Fix it and then I'll know how to answer.

You said "Because as we saw with Kavenaugh's testimony about his yearbook, that simply isn't the case." Do you have some proof that he lied?

 

[disciple Clint]

But if the person taking the oath is required to say “so help me God” regardless of their own agnosticism (or positive atheism, for that matter), then is not the tyranny of the majority going to make them lie in swearing it?

the tyranny of the majority

Seriously??

 

[Sparagmos]

Can you provide an argument as to why God should be eliminated?

Well for one thing what does “so help me god” even mean?!

 

[disciple Clint]

Well for one thing what does “so help me god” even mean?!

Is that your argument?

 

[Pommer]

Seriously??

So requiring someone to use words that mean NOTHING to them, (“so help me God”), doesn’t “force” them to lie?

 

[Sparagmos]

Is that your argument?

I don’t have “an” argument. I honestly don’t know what “so help me god” means and so it seems ridiculous for such an obscure phrase to be part of a legal proceeding. But of course requiring someone to mention or invoke god in a legal proceeding is ridiculous on its face to me.

So...what does it mean?

 

[disciple Clint]

Dems to strike 'so help you God' from oath taken in front of key House committee, draft shows

>> A key committee in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is moving to eliminate the God reference from the oath administered to witnesses testifying before the panel, as part of a new rules package expected to be approved this week, according to a draft obtained exclusively by Fox News. <<

This quote is head smacking.

>> “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of their first acts in the majority," House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., told Fox News. "They really have become the party of Karl Marx.” <<

What in the world is she blathering about? Does she think it's 1954?

What in the world is she blathering about? Does she think it's 1954?

There were many things in 1954 that were much better than they are today.

Kids could play on the street and not get shot

People could have an intelligent conversation without resorting to attacks or violence

When kids did got into a physical disagreement it was with fists, not guns, and no one kicked anyone in the head while they were down.

People did not go out of their way to hurt others instead they tried to help each other.

We have made progress in some areas but in many ways we had it much better in 1954 and we lived in a much more civilized society when we had one nation under God and everyone was proud of it.

 

[disciple Clint]

So requiring someone to use words that mean NOTHING to them, (“so help me God”), doesn’t “force” them to lie?

the tyranny of the majority

Tyranny? Seriously??

 

[disciple Clint]

So requiring someone to use words that mean NOTHING to them, (“so help me God”), doesn’t “force” them to lie?

No they could say by Jupiter and if they had no faith it would be meaningless. believe it or not there are people every day who use God's name but have no faith in God.

 

[Nithavela]

There were many things in 1954 that were much better than they are today.

Kids could play on the street and not get shot

People could have an intelligent conversation without resorting to attacks or violence

When kids did got into a physical disagreement it was with fists, not guns, and no one kicked anyone in the head while they were down.

People did not go out of their way to hurt others instead they tried to help each other.

We have made progress in some areas but in many ways we had it much better in 1954 and we lived in a much more civilized society when we had one nation under God and everyone was proud of it.

Ah yes, the good old days when there was no violence, and when there was violence it was the good kind of violence.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don’t have “an” argument. I honestly don’t know what “so help me god” means and so it seems ridiculous for such an obscure phrase to be part of a legal proceeding. But of course requiring someone to mention or invoke god in a legal proceeding is ridiculous on its face to me.

So...what does it mean?

It is asking God to help them to fulfill the oath they are making.

 

[USincognito]

You said "Because as we saw with Kavenaugh's testimony about his yearbook, that simply isn't the case." Do you have some proof that he lied?

That is a red herring and I'm not going down the rabbit hole. The issue at hand is why people should be forced to say "so help me God" and why it's so important that they do

 

[USincognito]

There were many things in 1954 that were much better than they are today.

Kids could play on the street and not get shot

People could have an intelligent conversation without resorting to attacks or violence

When kids did got into a physical disagreement it was with fists, not guns, and no one kicked anyone in the head while they were down.

People did not go out of their way to hurt others instead they tried to help each other.

We have made progress in some areas but in many ways we had it much better in 1954 and we lived in a much more civilized society when we had one nation under God and everyone was proud of it.

Your Mayberry fantasy past and dystopian present are neither reflective of reality nor germane to the point I was making regarding Liz Cheney's bizarre, anachronistic comment.

Did you not know what I was referring to?

 

[disciple Clint]

That is a red herring and I'm not going down the rabbit hole. The issue at hand is why people should be forced to say "so help me God" and why it's so important that they do

Wait a moment, you, Made a statement adversely reflecting on a Supreme Court Justice and by inference at least said that he lied to Congress under oath, which would be a felony, and now you want to escape any and all responsibility for that statement.

 

[SummerMadness]

Fearmongering over a small part of an oath - words whose exclusion would change absolutely nothing about the country. They have no ideas so they're just going with silly "culture war" claptrap.
Ringo

They have simply started their fearmongering campaign. They will run on two things in 2020, "Dems hate Christians" and "Oh noes, Dems are forcing women to have abortions!" They're not going to run on the economy, foreign policy, education, or any other issue that is relevant to people's live, it will simply about drumming up as much fear as they can in hopes to get the scared base out to vote.

 

[Nithavela]

They have simply started their fearmongering campaign. They will run on two things in 2020, "Dems hate Christians" and "Oh noes, Dems are forcing women to have abortions!" They're not going to run on the economy, foreign policy, education, or any other issue that is relevant to people's live, it will simply about drumming up as much fear as they can in hopes to get the scared base out to vote.

Don't forget "Dems want to let in all the mexicans, blacks and muslims".

 

[Shemjaza]

interesting, I would say that everyone has a god that they worship it may be a being, or their car or house or drugs or themselves. Many of us worship the One True God.

Still feels dishonest to make a religious declaration you don't believe in.

When I attend a religious wedding or funeral I bow my head with the others in respect of their tradition and belief, but I don't say Amen or repeat the call back parts of prayers as I'm not a Christian and it isn't my place.

 

[wing2000]

The culture war is real. You've been fighting it for years.

FOX news has been making big money off the so-called "culture war."

 

[wing2000]

The full teachings is this:

Matthew 5:33-37

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

As a young person, some of our church elders taught that swearing on the Bible was simply wrong (i.e. verse 34). They may have a point.

 

[hedrick]

To my knowledge in court you always have the option to affirm. According to Fox's story, the Congressional oath didn't provide an option. I agree that this is a problem, not just to atheists but to Christians who want to take Jesus' teaching literally.