Rep. Mike Johnson
@RepMikeJohnson
WATCH: Democrats PURPOSEFULLY omit "so help me God" from the swearing-in oath during yesterday's House Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
I will not give up on this issue. Stay tuned.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1101559115405500416
Hello. I am brand new member. Very excited to be here.
I thought the title of this post was interesting, but after reading it I don't understand what the point is. How does omitting "so help me God" from an oath of office "kill" the oath, and what does it have to do with Marxism?
After all, the "No Religious Test Clause" of the Constitution proscribes any religious test requirement for public office.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 20, 2020, 10:39:56 AM
Hello. I am brand new member. Very excited to be here.
I thought the title of this post was interesting, but after reading it I don't understand what the point is. How does omitting "so help me God" from an oath of office "kill" the oath, and what does it have to do with Marxism?
After all, the "No Religious Test Clause" of the Constitution proscribes any religious test requirement for public office.
Welcome to the forum. To answer your question, Marxism depends on the rejection of God. That is the simple answer.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 20, 2020, 10:39:56 AM
Hello. I am brand new member. Very excited to be here.
I thought the title of this post was interesting, but after reading it I don't understand what the point is. How does omitting "so help me God" from an oath of office "kill" the oath, and what does it have to do with Marxism?
After all, the "No Religious Test Clause" of the Constitution proscribes any religious test requirement for public office.
You fail to grasp a belief in God is not a religion first off, and secondly, Marxism is all about removing God form any culture they invade.
You do know our Founding Documents were founded on Gods Law, Law of Nature, Right?
So there are a couple of different issues here.
First, regarding Marxism and atheism: yes, Marxist-Leninist atheism, as enshrined in Soviet doctrine, held that religion enslaved the human mind by encouraging passive acceptance of poverty and position in exchange for an eternal reward. This reflected earlier work by earlier German philosophers who explored scientific materialist arguments against religion. However, other strands of Marxism, notably Liberation Theology, used the church and religious teachings to combat poverty and oppression. However, in the context of this video, I don't see any references to Marxism or atheism. Not all Marxists are atheists, nor are all atheists Marxists.
The second issue has to do with a belief in God, religion in general, and the place of God in our founding documents.
Solar, it's not what you mean when you write that "a belief in God is not a religion." I would say that to believe in
God is to believe in the supernatural, as God is by definition supernatural, i.e., able to suspend understood principles of physics and biology. Now, there is an important distinction, and perhaps this is what you are referring to, between theism and deism. As a rule, religions are theistic, that is, they hold that God (or gods) pay keen attention to and devote great interest in human affairs, demanding certain types of behaviors and worship and meting out divine reward and punishment. Deism is the belief in a supernatural creator who takes no interest in human affairs.
Many of the founders and their philosophical inspirations comprised a spectrum of Deists: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, Allen, Locke, Adams, Washington. Now to your point about (unspecified) Founding Documents being founding on Gods Law, Law of Nature, etc.: the Founders were keenly aware of the divisive nature of religious belief and they assiduously removed support of any specific religion from the Constitution. Whatever their private beliefs, they wanted religion out of government. They understand that the best guarantor of religious liberty was a secular society, as militant theism seeks first to eradicate competing ideologies.
So, coming back to the original question, how does it lessen, let alone "kill" an oath of office to remove the phrase "so help me God." We ask people to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And again, the No Religious Test Clauses prohibits any religious test for office. So how is the oath weakened?
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 20, 2020, 12:39:41 PM
So there are a couple of different issues here.
First, regarding Marxism and atheism: yes, Marxist-Leninist atheism, as enshrined in Soviet doctrine, held that religion enslaved the human mind by encouraging passive acceptance of poverty and position in exchange for an eternal reward. This reflected earlier work by earlier German philosophers who explored scientific materialist arguments against religion. However, other strands of Marxism, notably Liberation Theology, used the church and religious teachings to combat poverty and oppression. However, in the context of this video, I don't see any references to Marxism or atheism. Not all Marxists are atheists, nor are all atheists Marxists.
The second issue has to do with a belief in God, religion in general, and the place of God in our founding documents.
Solar, it's not what you mean when you write that "a belief in God is not a religion." I would say that to believe in
God is to believe in the supernatural, as God is by definition supernatural, i.e., able to suspend understood principles of physics and biology. Now, there is an important distinction, and perhaps this is what you are referring to, between theism and deism. As a rule, religions are theistic, that is, they hold that God (or gods) pay keen attention to and devote great interest in human affairs, demanding certain types of behaviors and worship and meting out divine reward and punishment. Deism is the belief in a supernatural creator who takes no interest in human affairs.
Many of the founders and their philosophical inspirations comprised a spectrum of Deists: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, Allen, Locke, Adams, Washington. Now to your point about (unspecified) Founding Documents being founding on Gods Law, Law of Nature, etc.: the Founders were keenly aware of the divisive nature of religious belief and they assiduously removed support of any specific religion from the Constitution. Whatever their private beliefs, they wanted religion out of government. They understand that the best guarantor of religious liberty was a secular society, as militant theism seeks first to eradicate competing ideologies.
So, coming back to the original question, how does it lessen, let alone "kill" an oath of office to remove the phrase "so help me God." We ask people to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And again, the No Religious Test Clauses prohibits any religious test for office. So how is the oath weakened?
You have that completely bassackwards.
Our Bill of Rights sole purpose was a restriction on govt, using your logic, is the obverse of the same coin, which, had they not put restraints on govt, it would have been able to create a church.
The Founders were well aware of the dangers of the church and govt, so they restricted govt from interfering with all religion, hence, it was the very First Amendment to the Constitution, backed by the Second Amendment.
Our nation was built on Christian values. No values equals no morality equals evil intensions.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 20, 2020, 12:39:41 PM
So there are a couple of different issues here.
First, regarding Marxism and atheism: yes, Marxist-Leninist atheism, as enshrined in Soviet doctrine, held that religion enslaved the human mind by encouraging passive acceptance of poverty and position in exchange for an eternal reward.
This reflected earlier work by earlier German philosophers who explored scientific materialist arguments against religion. However, other strands of Marxism, notably Liberation Theology, used the church and religious teachings to combat poverty and oppression. However, in the context of this video, I don't see any references to Marxism or atheism. Not all Marxists are atheists, nor are all atheists Marxists.
The second issue has to do with a belief in God, religion in general, and the place of God in our founding documents.
Solar, it's not what you mean when you write that "a belief in God is not a religion." I would say that to believe in
God is to believe in the supernatural, as God is by definition supernatural, i.e., able to suspend understood principles of physics and biology. Now, there is an important distinction, and perhaps this is what you are referring to, between theism and deism. As a rule, religions are theistic, that is, they hold that God (or gods) pay keen attention to and devote great interest in human affairs, demanding certain types of behaviors and worship and meting out divine reward and punishment. Deism is the belief in a supernatural creator who takes no interest in human affairs.
Many of the founders and their philosophical inspirations comprised a spectrum of Deists: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, Allen, Locke, Adams, Washington. Now to your point about (unspecified) Founding Documents being founding on Gods Law, Law of Nature, etc.: the Founders were keenly aware of the divisive nature of religious belief and they assiduously removed support of any specific religion from the Constitution. Whatever their private beliefs, they wanted religion out of government. They understand that the best guarantor of religious liberty was a secular society, as militant theism seeks first to eradicate competing ideologies.
So, coming back to the original question, how does it lessen, let alone "kill" an oath of office to remove the phrase "so help me God." We ask people to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And again, the No Religious Test Clauses prohibits any religious test for office. So how is the oath weakened?
I don't think nature is "supernatural". I would also suggest maybe you don't have the mysteries of the universe figured out.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 20, 2020, 01:09:09 PM
Our nation was built on Christian values. No values equals no morality equals evil intensions.
Which ones exactly?
Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2020, 12:50:32 PM
You have that completely bassackwards.
Our Bill of Rights sole purpose was a restriction on govt, using your logic, is the obverse of the same coin, which, had they not put restraints on govt, it would have been able to create a church.
The Founders were well aware of the dangers of the church and govt, so they restricted govt from interfering with all religion, hence, it was the very First Amendment to the Constitution, backed by the Second Amendment.
Either way, it amounts to the same thing. Government was to be independent of religion, and religion free from government interference. Which brings us back to my original question regarding the original post, why is it a problem, or unconstitutional, to remove the phrase "so help me God" from an oath of office? The OP clearly thought that doing so was a bad idea.
Quote from: taxed on April 20, 2020, 01:38:38 PM
I don't think nature is "supernatural". I would also suggest maybe you don't have the mysteries of the universe figured out.
I certainly don't have the mysteries of the universe figured out. Do you? If so, please share.
But I hold to my statement that God is supernatural, by definition, being, as I said, not subject to laws to physics and biology as we understand them. Nature, in contrast, is subject to those laws.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 21, 2020, 02:04:21 PM
Either way, it amounts to the same thing. Government was to be independent of religion, and religion free from government interference. Which brings us back to my original question regarding the original post, why is it a problem, or unconstitutional, to remove the phrase "so help me God" from an oath of office? The OP clearly thought that doing so was a bad idea.
Our Founders took an oath to God to protect this country. They never defined God, just that all law is based on Gods Law, the Laws of Nature.
Point is, for a culture to exist and prosper and find a cohesiveness in a belief, it needs to have faith in a supreme being, the belief that we are not above the law.
Does that make sense to you?
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 21, 2020, 02:07:02 PM
I certainly don't have the mysteries of the universe figured out. Do you? If so, please share.
You're the one who declared he knows what God is, and that he's supernatural. I didn't make that idiotic statement.
Quote
But I hold to my statement that God is supernatural, by definition, being, as I said, not subject to laws to physics and biology as we understand them. Nature, in contrast, is subject to those laws.
To be clear, are you saying man has figured everything out with nature and the universe? Or are we still learning how things work?
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 21, 2020, 02:00:11 PM
Which ones exactly?
Heard of the Ten Commandments?
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not covet. Stuff like that.
Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
You're the one who declared he knows what God is, and that he's supernatural. I didn't make that idiotic statement.
To be clear, are you saying man has figured everything out with nature and the universe? Or are we still learning how things work?
Now, now, I never said I know what God is. I said that if God exists he is a supernatural being, and I defined supernatural as being able to transcend laws of physics, biology and other sciences as we currently understand them. Otherwise, how do you explain miracles? Those are, again by definition, events that cannot occur according to our understanding of how the physical universe operates (e.g., rising from the dead, healing someone by touching them, a virgin birth, and so on). Observable phenomena lead physicists to conclude that the universe originated with the Big Bang, but we don't know how that started or what was before it. If God created the universe, then he is somehow "beyond it" for lack of a better term.
Second question: no, humans have certainly not figured out everything with nature and the universe. But we are learning more all the time, and the rate of growth of our knowledge is increasing. One aspect of the history of science is that we have discovered rational explanations for things that were previously explained by religion and superstition - the germ theory of disease, weather, cosmology, geology and geophysics (Christianity used to teach that the earth was roughly 6000 years old), and many many many more.
God tells your heart what is Right, the law tells your brain.
Meaning, if one listens to God, we know the difference in Right and wrong, our laws are based on Gods law, and these laws as a Republic, affirm what our heart tells us.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 21, 2020, 05:59:52 PM
Now, now, I never said I know what God is. I said that if God exists he is a supernatural being, and I defined supernatural as being able to transcend laws of physics, biology and other sciences as we currently understand them. Otherwise, how do you explain miracles? Those are, again by definition, events that cannot occur according to our understanding of how the physical universe operates (e.g., rising from the dead, healing someone by touching them, a virgin birth, and so on). Observable phenomena lead physicists to conclude that the universe originated with the Big Bang, but we don't know how that started or what was before it. If God created the universe, then he is somehow "beyond it" for lack of a better term.
Second question: no, humans have certainly not figured out everything with nature and the universe. But we are learning more all the time, and the rate of growth of our knowledge is increasing. One aspect of the history of science is that we have discovered rational explanations for things that were previously explained by religion and superstition - the germ theory of disease, weather, cosmology, geology and geophysics (Christianity used to teach that the earth was roughly 6000 years old), and many many many more.
Did you not say if you believe in God then you believe in something outside of science? Or can God exist in reality?
Not everybody believes in God. There are several Christian denominations that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. Removing the phrase "so help me God" makes the oath more inclusive.
Thank you Mjoinr for an articulate contribution.
Quote from: Tory Potter on April 24, 2020, 02:14:09 PM
Not everybody believes in God. There are several Christian denominations that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. Removing the phrase "so help me God" makes the oath more inclusive.
Thank you Mjoinr for an articulate contribution.
List these so called "Christians" that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. I guarantee you, they aren't Christians!
Quote from: Solar on April 24, 2020, 02:56:57 PM
List these so called "Christians" that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. I guarantee you, they aren't Christians!
Mennonites, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Jehovahs Witness.
However, whether one is Christian or not has no bearing. Public office is open to all faiths and people with no faith.
Quote from: Tory Potter on April 24, 2020, 04:13:30 PM
Mennonites, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Jehovahs Witness.
However, whether one is Christian or not has no bearing. Public office is open to all faiths and people with no faith.
You just contradicted yourself, and no, not one mentioned is Christian.
Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2020, 08:17:50 PM
Did you not say if you believe in God then you believe in something outside of science? Or can God exist in reality?
I am saying that God cannot be explained by science, and by definition transcends science. That is not the same thing as being able to exist in reality. But it does require a belief in the supernatural. I have to admit I am puzzled by your confusion on this question of the supernatural. Are you saying that God is subject to physical laws of the universe as we understand them/
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2020, 02:34:03 PM
Our Founders took an oath to God to protect this country. They never defined God, just that all law is based on Gods Law, the Laws of Nature.
Point is, for a culture to exist and prosper and find a cohesiveness in a belief, it needs to have faith in a supreme being, the belief that we are not above the law.
Does that make sense to you?
I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.
Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish. I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance. The Rule of Law above all else. Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.
They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they? Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments. But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion. There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible. Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity. The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.
More importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow. The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs. A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true. I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on. His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them." Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.
You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such. In your view, they are not Christians. In their view they are. So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs? The answer is that you cannot. Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.
It is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 07:53:08 PM
I am saying that God cannot be explained by science,
Why? Is it not science that we don't yet understand? (or actually never will?)
Quote
and by definition transcends science. That is not the same thing as being able to exist in reality. But it does require a belief in the supernatural. I have to admit I am puzzled by your confusion on this question of the supernatural. Are you saying that God is subject to physical laws of the universe as we understand them/
If something is real, but we don't understand it, how is that "supernatural"?
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.
Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish. I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance. The Rule of Law above all else. Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.
They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they? Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments. But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion. There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible. Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity. The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.
More importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow. The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs. A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true. I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on. His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them." Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.
You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such. In your view, they are not Christians. In their view they are. So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs? The answer is that you cannot. Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.
It is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.
And of what discipline to you adhere to, if I may ask, Mjoinir?
Are you a Bible believing Christian espousing it is the infallible Word of God?
Maybe an agnostic or atheist?
Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.
Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish. I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance. The Rule of Law above all else. Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.
They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they? Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments. But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion. There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible. Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity. The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.
Yes they did! The Declaration of Independence declares that "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" are the source of man's rights. The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government, and in no way depend on government for their existence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this fact. These are known as absolute rights. Absolute rights belong to us due to the nature of our existence, are "unalienable" and "self-evident."
America was founded as a republic - a "nation of laws." In a republic the government is formed by - and constrained by - laws.
QuoteMore importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow. The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs. A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true. I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on. His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them." Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.
You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such. In your view, they are not Christians. In their view they are. So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs? The answer is that you cannot. Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.
No, they do not identify as Christians, but followers of God, only Christians see themselves as Christians.
I don't really care about religion, or what religion anyone is, nor do I favor one over another, though I do take issue with certain sects that claim hierarchy over others and dismiss them out of hand with prejudice and ridicule for their ignorance.
QuoteIt is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.
Glad we could agree on something. I don't know why you even thought I considered such a thing. I'm Conservative, not religious by any stretch of the imagination.
So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?
Quote from: Tory Potter on April 27, 2020, 07:46:27 AM
So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?
The citizen didn't decide. Government did under Marxist control or Marxist complaint had it removed.
Quote from: Tory Potter on April 27, 2020, 07:46:27 AM
So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?
Let me see if I can clear this up as to why God is so important to our judicial system, for without God, we have no law.
Let us go back in ancient history, yes, our Founders were well versed in history, which is why we have a Republic, something kids are no longer taught for a reason, the left controls our education system, and they hate the idea of God having power over leftist behavior in their pursuit of destruction of Principle.
I'd link to the statement below, but it comes from memory
Natural Law, Principles of Legality
Calvin's natural law theory is based on the sovereignty of God. In natural law terms, the 'sovereignty of God's doctrine prescribes that the normative standards for positive law originate from God alone.
God is the sole measure of the 'good'.
Our Head of State is chosen by God, so, there is a tenuous connection.