It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Remove - SO HELP ME GOD - From The Swearing-in Oath.

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Obviously you can't expect people to invoke the deceptive powers of Satan if they are compelled to swear that oath.





posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Choose now, and you have. Hope you didn't struggle with it.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
well this will probably cost the Democrats a lot more than they realize, that is probably going to alienate many voters on all sides.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




No, a book written by men says that...


Say the people that worship at the alter of the State that was created by man, but is 'better'.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
not sure why so many people hate admitting that America is a Christian nation, the separation of church and state isn't saying religion shouldn't be part of government,it's saying the church like say the Catholic church or whatever church shouldn't be dictating laws. wish people would understand that suppressing religion isn't what the Constitution meant by separation of church and state.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

People do get that.

It's just that religion, unless a theocracy, is an antithesis to authoritarian rule shaped around secular humanism.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Eisenhower included 'In God We Trust' on our money in 1957.


And you know who lobbied him to do that? Those evil mackerel-snappers the Knights of Columbus.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
not sure why so many people hate admitting that America is a Christian nation, the separation of church and state isn't saying religion shouldn't be part of government,it's saying the church like say the Catholic church or whatever church shouldn't be dictating laws. wish people would understand that suppressing religion isn't what the Constitution meant by separation of church and state.


I think if you look at the context as a whole, and in addition to freedom of religion, I think it is intended that one religion doesn't dictate the way we legislate.

That said, it's not up for me or you to interpret the Constitution, but rather Congress to legislate accordingly, and SCOTUS to interpret.
edit on 30-1-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)


(post by soundguy removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Not a Christian so I approve of this and i detest having someone pander or push their beliefs upon me. God has no place in government, this is the realm of men. Keep your God(s) in the church.

A win for the Democrats, that'll do donkey, that'll do.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I grew up in a household that really didn't teach us much about god, when I started asking questions and asking my father if I could go to church with my friends, he just gave me a bible to read. I was really rather young at that time.
but, it was my parents that taught me that I shouldn't lie, not the book. and, I had accepted that truth without the threat of hell...



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Though my sweet wise grandmothers RIP would likely cursing this announcement. This isnt the battle to fall on the sword for.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: namehere

People do get that.

It's just that religion, unless a theocracy, is an antithesis to authoritarian rule shaped around secular humanism.



You keep using that word.

I do not think it means, what you think it means.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

a theocracy will allow the church powers to place pressure onto the people to reflect the values and principles the leaders of the religious leaders wishes to instill, weather the people believe in those values or principles or not.
a powerful monarchy will allow the all powerful monarch to use his power to pressure the people to reflect the whims of the current kind or queen, including what religion they feel the people should follow.
a democratic republic, like we have, is designed so that our gov't reflects the people's values and principles, which can and do change over time. while given the people the freedom to explore other options or which, might prove to a better way of life than the current standard. our nation wasn't created to be a christian nation, our nation was created to be where people were free to express their ideas, try them out and see how they worked out and have the possibility of gaining enough influence to advance the country forward! and even when christianity had a much higher influence in this country, the values, beliefs, and taboos were allowed to evolve and shape our society even when the church leaders had to be dragged along for the ride.

edit on 30-1-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


a theocracy will allow the church powers to place pressure onto the people to reflect the values and principles the leaders of the religious leaders wishes to instill, weather the people believe in those values or principles or not.


Well you can even see in a country where one religion is prominent, it defacto makes it's way into certain areas of policy, IE. our policy regarding Israel.
edit on 30-1-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
dbl
edit on 30-1-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I'm certain they did not do this for any biblical or positive reason, but Jesus himself would agree with removing God from the equation.


Mathew 5
33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

Agreed.

I've read about some authoritarian religious rulerships that were the antithesis to society.

Jihadist caliphate for example.
Convert or die...
Don't blasphemy or die...
Basically do as they tell you or, die...

Another example that speaks for itself, look at the violence in Ireland over religious difference...

Harvard and Iowa State have papers on religious violence. Religious violence is the most prolific in my opinion.

The Global Impact of Religious Violence - Iowa State University Digital Repository
PDFlib.dr.iastate.edu... › cgi › viewcontent
by H Avalos · 2016 · Related articles
All politics is locaI:'1 In the case of religious violence, it is particularly difficult to say ...... make up the government or rulership. It exists to ...

Religion and Violence: Social Processes in Comparative ... - Projects at Harvard
PDFHarvard University › iq › projects › files

by JR Hall · Cited by 46 · Related articles
martyrs, and the medieval Roman church, its crusades and Inquisition. As for Islam, the close association between rulership and religion ...
35 pages·92 KB

Today we see a paradigm shift from religious violence to political violence, and many could argue politics is the new religion. The religion of state.

Many religions don't enforce violence, but peace.
Those may be exempt from being clumped in with the others. But they are an exception to the rule.

Theological perspective, is based on the morals and values of the culture they stem from.

We must keep in mind the times and conditions from which they came. We don't see things now in this modern age, as they did a century ago, let alone a millennium.

We must consider things in the context from which they were, not as we are.

Take these factors into consideration, when basing ones perspective on only our view. The view from another may be drastically different, even though both parties experience the same event.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Kind of a waste of time, and they have much bigger things to worry about right now, but other than that I don't see the problem.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Well, at least that means they can't install Sharia Law now, since Allah is arabic for God.

Now they are going to have to pay interest.
edit on 30-1-2019 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join