You can't let that go can ya?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.
But why should they be forced to by a secular government?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.
How old were you in 1954? What part of the country did you live in?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.
While conveniently ignore the discrimination that blacks had face during those time periods.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.
??Apparently this was a proposal by one person, and it was turned down, though only after Republican opposition. I'm surprised it was turned down. The committee seems to be requiring non-Christians to lie and Christians who take Jesus' words literally to violate their religion. I'm surprised to see that kind of thing is still considered acceptable.
Can you provide an argument as to why God should be eliminated?
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.
God isn’t being eliminated. A religious oath is, however.Can you provide an argument as to why God should be eliminated?
“So help you, [State your higher power]” is a bit clumsy.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.
While conveniently ignore the discrimination that blacks had face during those time periods.
You are blinded by nostalgia.
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.
...Women stayed in the kitchen.
Gays stayed in the closet.
Blacks stayed in the back of the bus.
Lots of people would say it was not better.
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.
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.
Kids could play on the street and not get shot
1964People could have an intelligent conversation without resorting to attacks or violence
Who are the trhee from 64? I don't know them.The number of children killed in random shootings pale in comparison to disease deaths in the 1950s. In 1952 3,100 children died of polio. Doing a brief review of the gun violence deaths of children for 2018 I could only find one death from a drive by (which is what I'm assuming you're alluding to) vs. several incidents of muder/suicide domestic violence or children shooting themselves playing with a gun.
Children Killed or Injured in 2018 | Gun Violence Archive
1964
1963
1957
1955
Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner - WikipediaWho are the trhee from 64? I don't know them.
Please explain what you mean by "the tyranny of the majority"Absolutely. Why should a person be made to swear to a god he doesn't believe in?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?