GameBanshee Forums

Article I of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What will happen when a person with no religious backing is elected President and refuses to be sworn in on the Bible?

That would interest me as well. And here's something else: What about swearing on the bibel when being summoned to court? This can't be part of the constitution, can it?

And here's another thing: Isn't it forbidden to swear on anything according to the New Testament?

[QUOTE=Monolith]And here's something else: What about swearing on the bibel when being summoned to court? [/QUOTE]
As far as I know they don't use a bible when swearing people in to testify anymore.

Ok, once again misguided by Hollywood...

this may me of track a little, but fyi... that qhole seporation of chirch and state thing isn't in the constitusion... some guy sayed it in a speach. just a thought...

[QUOTE=dark_raven]this may me of track a little, but fyi... that qhole seporation of chirch and state thing isn't in the constitusion... some guy sayed it in a speach. just a thought...[/QUOTE]


The Bill of Rights (Amendments)

Amendment I - Religion, Speech, Assembly, and Politics
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Bill of Rights

The Constitution is set up for changes.

Hm. Interesting propositon on the matter of the potential President. I would say that they might swear him in on the Constitution, or some other such article (Declaration of Independance, for example). Or, they COULD potentially re-write the entire ceremony. Dunno.

Interesting, Weasel. It's quite simply a judicial tradition. Since the US was a British colony, we have much in our legal system that finds its roots in Colonial times. It's not required to swear on a bible in a court of law anymore...but you must still make an "oath" after a fashion when you take the witness stand.

Re: Presidents swearing in....LOL! Not a one of them ever kept their oath of office.

In regards to the New Testament forbidding taking oaths: as I recall, Paul sponsored some men taking Nazarite vows at the Temple in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. One should understand that those letters were written to a Jewish reader, and a vow was considered sacred to God, and part of Jewish religion and culture. Once you made a vow, you were bound not to break it, under any circumstances. Christ was explaining that no matter how diligent people were, they were bound to break the Law, even by the least of their thoughts (such as notcing an attractive woman). It wasn't just your actions that could break the law, but your thoughts as well - which God sees as clearly as your actions, and to God thought and action are the same. He was urging people not to get themselves involved in taking a vow, since you were eventually doomed to break it in some way. He didn't expressly forbid it, though. If you were to take his words as a Jewish listener would at the time he spoke them, it would be a very liberating concept indeed...or, conversely, blasphemous and dangerous as some felt at the time.

Re: Presidents swearing in....LOL! Not a one of them ever kept their oath of office.

Rather reminds me of a piece by National Lampoon years ago, after Nixon graciously resigned. As his very good pal was the extremely Reverend Billy Graham (who apologized years later, when the Watergate tapes appeared, and he could be clearly heard exchanging bigoted remarks about Jews and Blacks with Nixon), they got a Graham-soundalike to do a "The Swearing Out of The President." It began with a wonderful inversion of the Graham manner, "God DAMN you, Richard Nixon!"

[QUOTE=Chanak]In regards to the New Testament forbidding taking oaths: as I recall, Paul sponsored some men taking Nazarite vows at the Temple in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. One should understand that those letters were written to a Jewish reader, and a vow was considered sacred to God, and part of Jewish religion and culture. Once you made a vow, you were bound not to break it, under any circumstances. Christ was explaining that no matter how diligent people were, they were bound to break the Law, even by the least of their thoughts (such as notcing an attractive woman). It wasn't just your actions that could break the law, but your thoughts as well - which God sees as clearly as your actions, and to God thought and action are the same. He was urging people not to get themselves involved in taking a vow, since you were eventually doomed to break it in some way. He didn't expressly forbid it, though. If you were to take his words as a Jewish listener would at the time he spoke them, it would be a very liberating concept indeed...or, conversely, blasphemous and dangerous as some felt at the time.[/QUOTE]

You should have a look at Matthew 5, 33 to Matthew 5, 37. "Swear not at all". And I talked with a catholic pastor about it who confirmed it: "Absolutly forbidden".
I know, this is only the catholic interpretation. But in my opinion what is said in Matthew 5 is quite clear.
The funny thing about this is that he as a catholic pastor had to swear at least once to reach his position; he knows others who are higher ranked who had to swear about three times. But it's forbidden. Forbidden as much as divorce, which is mentioned in Matthew 5 as well. But the catholic church takes the prohibition of divorce much more serious. Weird, isn't it?

Aaarrr...

Somehow, I rather doubt that I will ever see an atheist or agnostic President in my lifetime (and I'm only 22!). I'll break down and cry the day that our society can leave behind its outdated beliefs and moral sensibilities and take that first step forward, but until that day, I'll remain the pessimistic cynic that I am.

A lack of a religious background is one thing, but how about a black, atheist, lesbian President? That would be something.

[QUOTE=Cab00se] I'll break down and cry the day that our society can leave behind its outdated beliefs and moral sensibilities[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but what's so wrong about moral sensibilities? In my opinion higher ranked statesmen should have more moral sensibilities. And those who have none at all shouldn't be statesmen.

EDIT:
Hum, now that was politically incorrect, wasn't it? I meant statesmen and stateswomen.

[deleted] - nevermind.

[QUOTE=Monolith]Sorry, but what's so wrong about moral sensibilities? In my opinion higher ranked statesmen should have more moral sensibilities. And those who have none at all shouldn't be statesmen.

EDIT:
Hum, now that was politically incorrect, wasn't it? I meant statesmen and stateswomen. [/QUOTE]
You misunderstand me; I said outdated beliefs and moral sensibilities. Perhaps I should have been more clear on that. Of course, it's questionable whether or not politicians have any values whatsoever. They don't often practice what they preach.

[QUOTE=Cab00se]They don't often practice what they preach.[/QUOTE]

not compleatly... but then again... neighter do the rest of us, do we...

think of it, there is always somthing we say we do/did that we didn't/don't do... oh so small or how big we are, we all do it...

[QUOTE=Monolith]You should have a look at Matthew 5, 33 to Matthew 5, 37. "Swear not at all". And I talked with a catholic pastor about it who confirmed it: "Absolutly forbidden"...Weird, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

Yup. I'm familiar with that. Then you look at Paul, who had the endorsement of Christ to be an apostle, who supported some Jewish Christians taking a vow at the Temple. The inconsistencies to be found within the canon can be profound at times. Despite the forbidding of vows, you take a vow when you are married in a Christian wedding.