Article

2010-01-06 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-01-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 seems appropriate for those who don't believe in God. It's all just a word game rather than a belief in a higher calling.

Posted by Jumbo Slinerong5015 2010-01-06 05:49|| 2010-01-06 05:49|| Front Page Top

#2 It's all the same words anyway, just different order and frequencey, so it should be just fine to substitute a dictionary for a Bible.

(However I am not sure I see a legal justification for using a Bible in the first place, at least not at the request of the government; I am fine with allowing the oath taker to use it if he chooses.)

Posted by Glenmore 2010-01-06 11:27|| 2010-01-06 11:27|| Front Page Top

#3 The original idea was two-fold: an oath on God's own book would naturally be more binding because God would take an interest if it weren't, and also that the Bible would reject a false oath (remember that this started before the Salem witch trials). For non-believers that's all moot, but there weren't many non-believers in those days, and precious few permitted to believe even slightly differently than the majority.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-01-06 13:39|| 2010-01-06 13:39|| Front Page Top

#4 The dictionary thing seems a bit silly, though. On the other hand, the office manager/administrative assistant who didn't ensure that the bible was ready to hand, as it were, should be demoted.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-01-06 13:44|| 2010-01-06 13:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Williams said later he didn't mind using a dictionary instead of a Bible because the swearing-in Saturday was purely ceremonial.

I think I see what the problem with government is.

But in truth it is probably more appropriate, because law has become the de facto religion, and the hair-splitting that comes along with interpreting a religious text for certain religions seems to have an odd parallel here when it comes to words and their intent for legal "interpretations".

Posted by gorb 2010-01-06 14:02|| 2010-01-06 14:02|| Front Page Top

#6 dictionary vs bible?

Obama: "words...just words"

Posted by Frank G 2010-01-06 15:25|| 2010-01-06 15:25|| Front Page Top

23:39 OldSpook
23:39 Barbara Skolaut
23:37 Skunky Glins****
23:36 OldSpook
23:32 OldSpook
23:32 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 OldSpook
23:30 rjschwarz
23:29 trailing wife
23:28 OldSpook
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 Dopey Ominetch3594
23:09 Old Patriot
23:09 trailing wife
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:08 trailing wife
23:06 trailing wife
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:03 trailing wife
23:01 JosephMendiola