posted on December 12, 2000 12:21:09 PM"When testifying in Court, one must place their hand on a "Christian" bible and swear to God to tell the truth."
As it happens, I was on jury duty last week, and throughout the entire trial, there was nary a bible to be seen. Whenever anyone was sworn in, they faced the court clerk while being asked "Do you swear or affirm that the tesitmony you are about to give is the truth?" Well, more or less as I remember it, anyway. I am sure there was no mention of "God" in the statement, though.
posted on December 12, 2000 12:41:11 PM
mrjim - The military oath has no allegiance to God in it. In fact it reads as follows,
"I swear/affirm to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic. I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and all officers appointed above me."
No god there and I've taken it four times since 1984 and there's still no God there.
The liquor laws are local in nature and it appears that the voters in those areas like the Sunday clause in the law.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written before the first atheist got here. Since nobody says it anymore anyway they aren't objecting.
The oath of court the atheist got that removed years ago in most parts of the country. I am only 33 years old but spend a lot of time in court and have never had to say "so help you God". In fact it reads like this.
" Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this court will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
nob And I get offended when people like yourself and stusi say something just because you happen to have an internet connection and computer. Then have the nerve to get offended when corrected. But I do have to remember something told to me by Great Grand father a lot more often when dealing with both of your types. Funny thing if I posted it here stusi would run to moderators corner and cry boo hoo. Stusi was given references from the bible to justify my position.
And to further I will assume that stusi doesn't know that the Jewish Torah happens to be the First Five Books of the Bible. The same one we read, also known as the Law Handed Down by Moses. I Beleive I gave him Jehovah name reference from Exodus or Book 2. He can go read it for himself. Is that too much to ask. Or do we just post because we can on sensitive issues with no desire to learn just a desire to post.
posted on December 12, 2000 12:57:28 PM
The Pledge of Allegiance was written before the first atheist got here. Since nobody says it anymore anyway they aren't objecting.
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
posted on December 12, 2000 12:58:37 PM
I recall when I was in grade school in New York City the phase "under God" was added. I don't believe that it was in the original pledge. We also said prayers everyday in homeroom which as I recall was the Lord's Prayer.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 12, 2000 12:59:53 PM
networker-your previous,blatantly nasty post got what it deserved. you may be a student of the bible, but to presume that your obviously biased interpretation should apply to all Judeo-Christian religions is at the root of religious wars. have you ever been rightfully corrected on these boards? or are you always right? remember,those who think they're always right really annoy those of us who are. p.s.-despite any obscure biblical reference to a transliteration of a series of letters, Jewish people do not call their God Jehovah. maybe you should attend a Jewish service and find out for yourself. do you "have a desire to learn" or does that only apply to others?
posted on December 12, 2000 01:06:07 PMStusi, I hope this post doesn’t get the thread locked, but I’m really tired of the sophomoric rantings I’ve seen here.
Its not exactly holier than thou than it is a little smarter than you
Really? Then explain the following oversights or misapplications:
Europe has fought numerous wars over Religion in the period 1600 - 1800.
Europe has been fighting wars in the name of religion since before the time of the ancient Greeks. The Crusades actually started several centuries before the 1600 date that you mention.
...let's address the Northern Ireland issue. That is the world's longest and most continuous religous war. Fought for over 800 years because Henry VII pulled England out of the Catholic Church...
Let’s investigate the “smarter” mathematics stated here. Year 2000 – 800 years is 1200. Henry VIII was born in 1491, and reigned from 1509 to 1547. Smarter math doesn’t hold water. That’s only 450 years. In your eagerness to appear smarter, you overstate the number of years.
Its not exactly holier than thou than it is a little smarter than you. So I draw your attention to Exodus 3:13 and Exodus 3:14, when you get done...
Net, I don’t know of what faith you derive, if any, but Stusi is dead on correct about the name Jehovah not being used in Jewish services. When those books of the Bible that you allude to were written, the Name was not spoken. It had nothing to do with it being unpronounceable in a European tongue. It was not spoken because it was considered sacrilege to do so. BTW, the practice of Judaism does not normally include the use of your Bible. Perhaps you should have brushed up on that before you started your diatribe against Stusi. Perhaps your confusion lies in equating the Old Testament with the Torah and the Talmud. But then again, I’m certain that a “smarter” individual would have picked up on that. You show extremely limited knowledge of Judaism in your attempt to address its articles of faith.
And I will assume that you read from either the King James Bible or one of its many derivatives.
The only legitimate heir of the KJV is the New KJV. There are no “derivatives”. There may be a few paraphrases but they are not recognized by Biblical scholars as being anything more than paraphrases. The other translations of the Bible are just that—translations. And they are certainly as legitimate as the KJV you cite. The interpreters started from scratch utilizing the Septuagent and Greek scriptures. They did so to avoid translating what was in itself a translation.
Don't let a zeal to correct place you in position that you get corrected.
posted on December 12, 2000 01:09:21 PM
I am always amazed at sporting events when each team bows down and prays for victory. I wonder if they would like Her to make the other side lose.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 12, 2000 01:12:08 PM
stusi - If I wanted to I could tell you what the name is in hebrew. Which translates to jehovah based on what I posted earlier. Many jewish congegations use Jehovah due to the rise extra faith marriages and the lack of these converted jews ability to learn hebrew. Stop trying to elevate yourself to this level, as you said those who think insult those who do. And its obvious to me you fall into those who think.
And before you run crying to pat remember you started it. Because I took the time to remind him of where you started it at.
posted on December 12, 2000 01:13:26 PM
query on " BTW, the practice of Judaism does not normally include the use of your Bible. Perhaps you should have brushed up on that before you started your diatribe against Stusi. Perhaps your confusion lies in equating the Old Testament with the Torah
and the Talmud."
The Torah and the Old Testament do not contain the same books????? What books in the Toarah do you not find in the Old Testament??
posted on December 12, 2000 01:14:44 PM
lswanson- i just heard net's head explode! i guess that's what happens when someone just can't admit they are wrong. as the old Red Roof Inn commercial said,"thanks for your support".
