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

[USincognito]

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?

 

[zephcom]

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?

It is just liberal hating at its finest.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus said just let your yes, be yes, and your no, no.

 

[Ringo84]

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

 

[zephcom]

Jesus said just let your yes, be yes, and your no, no.

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.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

The US is a secular government.

"I so affirm" is perfectly acceptable for sworn testimony.

 

[zephcom]

The US is a secular government.

"I so affirm" is perfectly acceptable for sworn testimony.

Except when one is trying to make one's opposing political party look bad. THEN it is acceptable to wrap oneself in the cloak of one's religion.

 

[Pommer]

The US is a secular government.

"I so affirm" is perfectly acceptable for sworn testimony.

And always has been!

 

[USincognito]

It is just liberal hating at its finest.

The best part was the dog whistle paragraphs at the end of the article which discussed the scary Muslim freshperson Congresspeople. Like they had anything to do with the swearing in oath.

>> The House panel's proposed change comes as far-left progressive Democratic freshman in Congress, including Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota Ilhan Omar, have come under fire from Republicans for pushing what they call radical and unfounded religious-based attacks. <<

 

[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?

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

 

[Shemjaza]

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

Not all Americans worship God?

 

[Radagast]

The US is a secular government.

"I so affirm" is perfectly acceptable for sworn testimony.

Indeed. The US has afaik always had affirmations as an alternative to oaths. This is something different, as far as I can see.

 

[Radagast]

They have no ideas so they're just going with silly "culture war" claptrap.

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

 

[disciple Clint]

Not all Americans worship God?

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.

 

[USincognito]

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

I take this to mean "eliminating the phrase from swearing in people who are going to testify", and not some variation on "God is eliminated from schools". The fact is it's a discriminatory forced statement that non-believers shouldn't have to make. There's no statutory requirement for the phrase being used by people testifying. And Torcaso v. Watkins showed that, at least at a state level, such forced oaths are a violation of the No Religious Test for Office clause.
Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia

I think the more germane argument is why should it be included in the swearing in oath? Do you think that it somehow makes people more honest and reliable? Because as we saw with Kavenaugh's testimony about his yearbook, that simply isn't the case.

 

[USincognito]

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.

That would be an insipid thing to say and it would make a mockery of both the word "god" and "worship".

Many of us worship the One True God.

You forgot the Trademark symbol.

 

[disciple Clint]

I take this to mean "eliminating the phrase from swearing in people who are going to testify", and not some variation on "God is eliminated from schools". The fact is it's a discriminatory forced statement that non-believers shouldn't have to make. There's no statutory requirement for the phrase being used by people testifying. And Torcaso v. Watkins showed that, at least at a state level, such forced oaths are a violation of the No Religious Test for Office clause.
Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia

I think the more germane argument is why should it be included in the swearing in oath? Do you think that it somehow makes people more honest and reliable? Because as we saw with Kavenaugh's testimony about his yearbook, that simply isn't the case.

I think the more germane argument is why should it be included in the swearing in oath? Do you think that it somehow makes people more honest and reliable? Because as we saw with Kavenaugh's testimony about his yearbook, that simply isn't the case.

what proof do you have for this statement?

 

[USincognito]

what proof do you have for this statement?

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.

 

[disciple Clint]

I will repost. I caused some technical issues somehow

 

[Pommer]

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.

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?