Should the Vice President Recuse himself on January 3rd?

[PeaceByJesus]

Vice President Mike Pense is slated to swear in at least 2 new female members of Congress on January 3rd, 2019 while Holding a Koran.

This is part of his assigned duties as the Vice President of the United States.

1) Should he be forced to do this?

2) Should he recuse himself?

3) If he does this willingly, is he willfully sinning against God?

4) If he does this willingly, does this demonstrate that he personally believes swearing an oath upon the Koran is equally binding to swearing an oath upon the Holy Bible?

If he was supposed to do this, then, no, he should not be compelled to do this, and should recuse himself, and which would objectively be a sin, just as using Mein Kampf would be.

For this is not supposed to be empty formalism, as instead the very use of swearing upon or by anything is that of making a solemn promise in the light of a witness greater in authority and integrity than yourself, and signifies accountability, and which adds weight to your own words, akin to using a co-signer.

Referring to this custom, Hebrews 6:16 states, For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. (Hebrews 6:16)

Thus the Biblical admonition in regards to actually swearing by something: But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. (James 5:12)

Making oaths is not sin, but swearing by something, as if your word itself is not enough, is the problem, and swearing by something is not the same as simply saying something like, "I say this before God," yet this itself signifies recognition of the greater authority, and submission to it.

Swearing Presidents in on the Bible is a tradition which began with the first one, to George Washington, and the Western custom of swearing upon the Bible flows from its Christian historicity.
The [liberal[ New Yorker informs ,

The earliest Western use of oath books in a legal setting dates to ninth-century England when, in the absence of a structured royal government, certain transactions were conducted at the altar, the participants swearing on a gospel book. Three centuries later, English courts adopted the practice, requiring jury members and individuals in particular trials to take an oath on the Bible.

An unnamed thirteenth-century Latin manuscript, now held in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, sets out the method and the significance of the act. By placing a hand on the book and then kissing it, the oath-taker is acknowledging that, should he lie under oath, neither the words in the Bible nor his good deeds nor his prayers will bring him any earthly or spiritual profit.

In time, this became standard legal procedure—all witnesses swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—and made its way into American courts. British witnesses today still take their oaths “by Almighty God,” as American oath-takers conclude theirs with “so help me God.”

Therefore at te least the use of anything in swearing in/oath-making at the signifies accountability, but the Qur'an is clearly contrary to both the Bible Pence holds to be the word of God (and which supports separation of church from state, if not as the ACLU would have it) and the US Constitution.

Therefore it is wrong for any politician to be sworn in upon the Qur'an, and it would also be a sin for a liberal to use the Bible for swearing in, as Obama did.

For if the one being sworn in upon such does not concur with that the book most clearly basically teaching, in faith or in morals, then they are dishonoring the document, and the one sworn in is thus signifying dishonestly or corruption by using it, while if they mean to act consistently with the Qur'an, then the one sworn in means that they are in disagreement with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Administering an oath to someone in the presence of their choice of holy book is not a sin.

Wrong, it can be. See post above.

As for your 4th question, it doesn't matter what the VP considers binding what matters is what the law considers binding and it is the oath that is considered binding, not what items may be present when the oath is made.

Wrong again. Biblical law supersedes laws of men. And the items sworn upon when the oath is made are no more meaningless than using a picture of your mother in promising fidelity to your wife would be. Which you would not use to mop the floor with either, due to what it represents.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I see...Kinda like how a Christian baker can’t rightly claim he/she would be participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior or going against his/her own religion by baking a cake for a gay wedding?

Of course, a Christian baker can indeed rightly claim he/she would be participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior by agreeing to contract to create a special work for the known express purpose of celebrating a immoral homosexual "wedding" (in addition to it being an illegal one as per the highest law of the state at the time), which would render the baker complicit in sanctioning it. (A whole thread on this exists.)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

parousia70 said: ↑
I see...Kinda like how a baker isn’t participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior by baking a cake for a gay wedding?

Correct.

See above.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

parousia70 said: ↑
I see...Kinda like how a Christian baker isn’t really participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior or going against his own religion by baking a cake for a gay wedding?

Or how Christ wasn't really condoning the sins of those five thousand people who came to be fed by Him, when He fed them.

Absolutely amazing, the double-standard of so many who name the name of Christ.

Which is a logical fallacy, since the two are not analogous. In the case of the baker at issue (discussed on a past thread ) the baker was not refusing to feed or sell a homosexual couple, but only refused to enter into contract to create a special work for the known express purpose of celebrating a gay "wedding" (in addition to it being an illegal one as per the highest law of the state at the time).

Thus, while the Lord feed and feeds sinners, it would be wrong to sell nails for the known express purpose of nailing Christ to the cross. Or to sell gas for the known express purpose of killing Jews. Regardless of what the law of the state said at the time.

Thus you are in serious error, and the rest of your post abuses Scripture in support of your error.

 

[JackRT]

I would not expect a Muslim to hold a Bible for me. And I think there are Muslims who would not want a non-Muslim to hold their Qur'an. I think a serious Muslim would want an imam to hold it and take the Muslim's oath, if the Muslim really means it. I am curious if they might feel released from the oath if an imam was not taking it from them.

Why don't you enquire of a serious Muslim and report back to us when you are not guessing.

 

[com7fy8]

Why don't you enquire of a serious Muslim and report back to us when you are not guessing.

!!!!

Well, though, I am not totally guessing, because I have been informed how there are Muslims who do not legally treat non-Muslims equally. And so ones like this might not consider taking an oath with a non-Muslim person the same as if it were taken with an imam. And I think I have read that Muslims can be excused to lie to a non-Muslim, in order to meet their purpose of ruling the world. So, even if I were to ask a Muslim, and I am not a Muslim to whom the person would feel obligated to tell the truth . . . I would be guessing about if I should be sure of the answer.

But, of course, plenty of people can decide they are not obligated to their vows, if it suits their purpose which is just selfish. And if a number of non-Muslim people find that a political obligation conflicts with their religious convictions, they will go with what they hold to religiously. So . . . humans do this

Also, I posted the issue so someone has an opportunity to speak for oneself; but I do recall there is something in the Qur'an which excuses a Muslim to lie when it is for the overall purpose of Islam.

 

[parousia70]

Thus, while the Lord feed and feeds sinners, it would be wrong to sell nails for the known express purpose of nailing Christ to the cross.

Isn't our very salvation dependant on Christ Having been nailed to that cross?
No nails, no salvation.

 

[parousia70]

Therefore it is wrong for any politician to be sworn in upon the Qur'an, and it would also be a sin for a liberal to use the Bible for swearing in, as Obama did.

And I suppose equally sinful for a conservative to use a Bible for swearing in when his or her conservative SOP beliefs and actions are counter to those Jesus commanded in Matthew 25:34-40?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Isn't our very salvation dependant on Christ Having been nailed to that cross?
No nails, no salvation.

Indeed, and are part of that plan Judas betrayed Christ, who thus warned him if would have been for Judas never to have been born. God's omniscient use of the sinful choices of men to accomplish His purposes simply does not translate into sanction of the former, nor our being complicit in knowingly facilitating it.

By now you should see there there is something serious wrong with your theology. May I ask when and how you were born again, the changes it resulted in, and how long you have serious studied the Bible?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And I suppose equally sinful for a conservative to use a Bible for swearing in when his or her conservative SOP beliefs and actions are counter to those Jesus commanded in Matthew 25:34-40?

Indeed, if they indeed are, such as supporting homosexual relations is for liberals.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

!!!!

And I think I have read that Muslims can be excused to lie to a non-Muslim, in order to meet their purpose of ruling the world. So, even if I were to ask a Muslim, and I am not a Muslim to whom the person would feel obligated to tell the truth . . . I would be guessing about if I should be sure of the answer...but I do recall there is something in the Qur'an which excuses a Muslim to lie when it is for the overall purpose of Islam.

Taqiya - Wikipedia Taqiya - Wikipedia
In Islam, Taqiya or taqiyya is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief.... This practice is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.[3][8] However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances.[9]..

Yarden Mariuma, sociologist at Columbia University, writes: "Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie...

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir writes, "meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly." He quotes Muhammad's companion, Abu Ad-Darda', who said "we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them," and Al-Hasan who said "the Tuqyah is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection."[20]..

We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream.

 

[parousia70]

Indeed, if they indeed are, such as supporting homosexual relations is for liberals.

Well, most Conservative politicians are these days...it's standard Conservative operating procedure to act & legislate in ways that are antithetical to Jesus' commands in Matt 25.

Such is why I'm a radical centrist.

 

[parousia70]

Indeed, and are part of that plan Judas betrayed Christ, who thus warned him if would have been for Judas never to have been born. God's omniscient use of the sinful choices of men to accomplish His purposes simply does not translate into sanction of the former, nor our being complicit in knowingly facilitating it.

Nor does it change our dependence on it having come to pass.

By now you should see there there is something serious wrong with your theology.

By now you should see I disagree with your opinion.

May I ask when and how you were born again, the changes it resulted in, and how long you have serious studied the Bible?

Yes, You may ask.

I was a student of scripture and fascinated with the Bible in my teens... then when the list of end time prophesies that my teachers and youth pastors were heapng upon me in the 80's failed to come to pass as they had predicted, I came to doubt everything they were teaching, and I chose another path away from the scriptures through my 20's... it was only after meeting my now deceased wife, mother of our 3 children, that I was brought back to the faith 20+ years ago and away from a life of self destruction from Drugs and alcohol.
Been a serious Bible student, searching the scriptures daily for the past 22+ years now.

How about you? Whats your story?

 

[The Barbarian]

So far, it's a moot point. Pence hasn't refused to do it. If he does it only for those who use a Bible, then he would be unable to fulfill his duties and should resign.

It's not like the baker, since this is a governmental function, not a private business.

 

[Hank77]

I see...Kinda like how a Christian baker can’t rightly claim he/she would be participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior or going against his/her own religion by baking a cake for a gay wedding?

Where does the Bible say that it's a sin for a Muslim to serve in the government or make an oath on their holy book?

 

[Hank77]

I would not expect a Muslim to hold a Bible for me. And I think there are Muslims who would not want a non-Muslim to hold their Qur'an. I think a serious Muslim would want an imam to hold it and take the Muslim's oath, if the Muslim really means it. I am curious if they might feel released from the oath if an imam was not taking it from them.

When taking an oath to tell the truth in a court of law, would it matter to you if the person holding the Bible was a believer or not?

 

[parousia70]

When taking an oath to tell the truth in a court of law, would it matter to you if the person holding the Bible was a believer or not?

Great question.

 

[parousia70]

Where does the Bible say that it's a sin for a Muslim to serve in the government or make an oath on their holy book?

The Bible has nothing to say about Muslims specifically.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
Indeed, and are part of that plan Judas betrayed Christ, who thus warned him if would have been for Judas never to have been born. God's omniscient use of the sinful choices of men to accomplish His purposes simply does not translate into sanction of the former, nor our being complicit in knowingly facilitating it.

Nor does it change our dependence on it having come to pass.

But what it does not mean is just what I said, that God's omniscient use of the sinful choices of men to accomplish His purposes simply does not translate into sanction of the former, nor our being complicit in knowingly facilitating it.

By now you should see there there is something serious wrong with your theology.

By now you should see I disagree with your opinion.

Sad to see. Trying to ague against it being wrong to sanction sinful acts, including facilitating or signifying affirmation of such, based upon God being able to use such to accomplish His purposes is perverse theology whether you admit it or not, and is essentially akin to what Paul condemned others for saying, "Let us do evil, that good may come," whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:8)

Yes, You may ask.
I was a student of scripture and fascinated with the Bible in my teens... then when the list of end time prophesies that my teachers and youth pastors were heapng upon me in the 80's failed to come to pass as they had predicted, I came to doubt everything they were teaching, and I chose another path away from the scriptures through my 20's... it was only after meeting my now deceased wife, mother of our 3 children, that I was brought back to the faith 20+ years ago and away from a life of self destruction from Drugs and alcohol.
Been a serious Bible student, searching the scriptures daily for the past 22+ years now.
How about you? Whats your story?

That does not tell me how you were born again, as for myself, I was raised devout RC, and who later returned as a weekly mass-going Catholic in a heavily RC area, who by tearful repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me on His account, not my merits, resulted in basic profound changes in heart and life, including an earnest desire to know how to please God according to Scripture.

But while listening to evangelical radio intently as a result of my new-found desire (I was a truck driver will plenty of time to listen), yet no knowing any church I felt I could trust, I remained as a weekly mass-going Catholic for about 6 years. But I increasingly saw the contrast btwn Catholicism and the NT church. Amd due to my conversion, i knew the vast essential difference btwn institutional faith and real regeneration.

Finally after about 6 years, andd seeking to serve God and find real fellowship with those who found what I did finally, I sincerely asked God if He would have me go to another church, which prayer He quickly manifestly and answered and led me into evangelicalism, which was manifestly a Right Choice, thanks be to God.

And in which I found real fellowship of the Spirit, even in spontaneous union among believers with this shared conversion experience and relationship with the Lord, and walking in it, which I found rare in my years as a Catholic, thanks be to God, even though there is increasing declension (though i certainly come short of what i could and should be), and it is not as in the golden days of evangelical faith, such as produced so many wonderful classic hymns. Glory to God.