Democrats try to cut ‘so help me God’ from committee witness oath,

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives plan to strike “so help me God” from the oath witnesses take before testifying to one of the committees they now control, according to a draft of a rules package obtained by Fox News.

The draft governing procedures of the House Committee on Natural Resources contains the standard oath, “Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” Fox reported Tuesday, with “so help you God” set in red brackets to denote a deletion. It apparently was to be replaced with the phrase “under penalty of law.”

The draft also reveals Democrats intend to purge gender-specific pronouns, replacing “his or her” with “their” and “Chairman” with “Chair.”

Following Fox News’ original report, the committee voted to keep “so help you God” and Chairman Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ, claimed its would-be removal was simply a “mistake,” IJRreports.

Remainder of article: Democrats try to cut ‘so help me God’ from committee witness oath, backtrack after outcry

Ringo84 · Jan 31, 2019

Good. "Under God" should be the next to go.
Ringo

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

Ringo84 said:
Good. "Under God" should be the next to go.
Ringo

Why?

Ringo84 · Jan 31, 2019

Because it's unnecessary and was added in the 1950s during the "Red scare" period.
Ringo

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

Ringo84 said:
Because it's unnecessary and was added in the 1950s during the "Red scare" period.
Ringo

I thought it was later in the 50s. Will have to look at that.

Back in the 50s having Reds under every rock and in control of Hollywood, beatnik hangouts etc did not really affect the church going USA back then.

tulc · Jan 31, 2019

Wouldn't a more accurate headline be One Democrat proposed making "under god" optional when swearing an oath? :scratch:

tulc(is just curious) :wave:

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
...giving people an option to say "so help me god" or not is evil?
tulc(can't really see what's evil about that)

Why did you use a little “g”

Go Braves · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
Wouldn't a more accurate headline be One Democrat proposed making "under god" optional when swearing an oath?
tulc(is just curious)

Yes it would be more accurate but not as dramatic, lol.

tulc · Jan 31, 2019

redleghunter said:
Why did you use a little “g”

because in this case it's a secular legal oath, not something connected to being a Christian. When I talk about my faith in God that gets capitalized, when it's a secular oath in a court of law that's not the same thing. See the difference? :wave:

tulc(kind of likes that redleghunter noticed that) :oldthumbsup:

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
Wouldn't a more accurate headline be One Democrat proposed making "under god" optional when swearing an oath?
tulc(is just curious)

Where did you see that. I checked the link and embedded links. I may have missed it. Please help.

SayaOtonashi · Jan 31, 2019

Most of the under God was added during the cold war and the fear of Communism. So what do you guys think? I'm okay with this. Just has long has it doesn't affected Christians from worshiping

Ada Lovelace · Jan 31, 2019

The proposal is not to strike the phrase "so help me God" from the witness oath, and anyone would still be at liberty to use it. It would merely no longer be the default oath. It's logical and appropriate for "under penalty of law" to be used for the oath considering the context, since perjury is punishable by law. "So help me God" has long been optional for other oaths in the United States.

tulc · Jan 31, 2019

redleghunter said:
Where did you see that. I checked the link and embedded links. I may have missed it. Please help.

My bad, it was a link I found looking for a less...excited...news site:
Grijalva effort to remove words 'so help you God' from oath fails

A U.S. House committee on Wednesday rejected an effort by its new leader, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, to remove the words "so help you God" from the oath that witnesses take before testifying before it.

Hoping to neutralize the language, Grijalva, D-Ariz., proposed removing the religious aspect of the House Natural Resources Committee's oath, which originally read, “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

Grijalva, who was unavailable for comment, wanted to remove “so help you God” and instead use “under penalty of law.”

The committee ultimately adopted a Grijalva amendment that kept the new "under penalty of law" language but also restored "so help you God" to the proposed rules.

There is no legal requirement that a Biblical text be used in the swearing-in process, and the committee was trying to remove the requirement that religion be involved in their hearings.

Had the committee backed the move, Grijalva's change would not have completely removed the phrase, but rather would have made it optional.

According to that article it was Rep. Raúl Grijalva idea, and it was the rest of the committee that came up with the compromise of making "so help me god" as optional. My apologies for the confusion. :wave:

tulc(will try and be more accurate in the future) :sigh:

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
because in this case it's a secular legal oath, not something connected to being a Christian. When I talk about my faith in God that gets capitalized, when it's a secular oath in a court of law that's not the same thing. See the difference?
tulc(kind of likes that redleghunter noticed that)

No I don’t see the difference. It’s the same God invoked.

The reason it is the same God is because our founders hailed from a Christian Colonial culture which just came out of the First Great Awakening. They knew one could not swear or affirm an oath on their own merits but must be a higher authority.

They acknowledged God as King, Judge and Lawgiver.

“For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)

An oath given in their own name was unheard of in the early American Christian culture.

Ringo84 · Jan 31, 2019

Would the exclusion of the phrase change anything about the country?
Ringo

Shiloh Raven · Jan 31, 2019

Ringo84 said:
Would the exclusion of the phrase change anything about the country?
Ringo

Well, if certain Republicans can't impose their Christian beliefs into America's federal government, then that might be seen as problem to said Christians. They seem to be under the impression that America is a Christian nation and that this nation was founded on Christian principles. Many right wing Christians have been pushing their Christian faith in this country for so long that these Christians today must feel entitled to continue pushing their Christian ideologies in the federal government.

tulc · Jan 31, 2019

redleghunter said:
No I don’t see the difference. (snip)

You asked why I did it, you can, of course, feel free to agree or disagree with me about it. :wave:

tulc(is pretty settled about it as far as he's concerned)

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

SayaOtonashi said:
Most of the under God was added during the cold war and the fear of Communism. So what do you guys think? I'm okay with this. Just has long has it doesn't affected Christians from worshiping

This has nothing to do with “under God.”

And it’s “In God we trust.”

The article is about oaths ending in “so help me God.”

Shiloh Raven · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
Wouldn't a more accurate headline be One Democrat proposed making "under god" optional when swearing an oath?
tulc(is just curious)

Go Braves said:
Yes it would be more accurate but not as dramatic, lol.

You're taking the wind out of their political jab at Democrats when you point facts out like that.

redleghunter · Jan 31, 2019

tulc said:
My bad, it was a link I found looking for a less...excited...news site:
Grijalva effort to remove words 'so help you God' from oath fails

According to that article it was Rep. Raúl Grijalva idea, and it was the rest of the committee that came up with the compromise of making "so help me god" as optional. My apologies for the confusion.
tulc(will try and be more accurate in the future)

No issues bro. Thought you had info I missed. Redlegs reading glasses not so good tonight as I left them outside picking up after the dogs.

Democrats try to cut ‘so help me God’ from committee witness oath,

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Thank You Jesus!

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

I miss Senator McCain

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

Newbie

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads