No, we are not a "Christian" nation......

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1486 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon (also a Quaker) swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[8] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[9] Washington kissed the Bible afterwards,[10] and subsequent presidents followed suit, up to and including Harry Truman,[11] but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible.

Washington even kissed the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And all others up to Truman!!

i'm not even condoning a Christian nation, other than the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
i wish that Christianity and government were never in the same sentence.

But facts are facts, just don't deny.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
try adding a few more exclamation marks. It makes all the difference you know.

What exactly are you insinuating Blue? Are you saying that the act of swearing on a cocconut would make the solemnity any less or that the vow of allegience to the law would be less or more valid?

whether its swearing on a bible or koran is irrelevant. It is a gesture of solemnity nothing more. It is not a act of codifying religiousity sureptitiously into law. If it was intended that religion or cocconuts doctrine were to be officially codified into the law it would be described as such using the english language, stated explicitly and without ambiguity, much like your constitution and other statements and definitions of law.

Like Mark said, it is stated clearly as it was intended. If they intended otherwise it wouldn't be done by the backdoor of whatever secret handshake or fraternity chant you prefer, it would be stated, written and signed off on.

Or maybe I'm missreading you but its not surprising if so, considering your vagueness. Are you actually suggesting the first amendment is actually an endorsement of christianity.... simply because a biblee was used as a prop?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:40pm PT

Option of taking an oath or an affirmation

The Constitutional language gives the option to "affirm" instead of "swear". While the reasons for this are not documented, it may relate to certain Christians, including Quakers, who apply this scripture literally: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation" (James 5:12, KJV)
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:43pm PT
Blue, your argument seems to be that the religion of the nation resides in the religion of the President, not the words of the Constitution. I don't agree.

If we were to elect a Mormon, would we become a Mormon nation? Hindu? Buddhist? If we elected several of them? What is the threshold?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:53pm PT
whether its swearing on a bible or koran is irrelevant.

If we started out swearing on the koran our laws would be much different today!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


i'm merely pointing to facts to help peoples opinions grow.

The fact that when we citizens elect the most powerful person in the world, the act of him putting his hand on the bible and giving an oath unto God shows everyone, including himself he is NOT the highest authority!


Are you actually suggesting the first amendment is actually an endorsement of christianity.... simply because a biblee was used as a prop?

No No No. The bible does mean christian and jew BTW. When you see a pic of someone giving an oath. People don't remember much what was said, but they do remember seeing the left hand on the bible and the right hand raised toward God.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
If we started out swearing on the koran our laws would be much different today!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


No it wouldn't... and knock it off with the exclamation marks for crying out loud. What is it with the rapturously delerious and exclamation marks? Go -B can't stop doing it too. Its annoying, like you think we are so thick you have to yell to be understood or something.

Anyway, it wouldn't. How about if they used a cocconut? Would suddenly the law be null and void? If they swore on a Penthouse magazine the written law is the law, as defined by the language and signed off on.

Your whole point - whatever it is, you refuse to state it - is lost on a point of semantics or symbolism that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is written and signed. That states the truth of the matter.

People don't remember much what was said, but they do remember seeing the left hand on the bible and the right hand raised toward God.

Only the stupid or easily distracted. What matters is the testimony, or whatever the hell else is being sworn to as verified, not the cocconut. OK Maybe if it was a cocconut, that might get remembered but not a run of the mill bible. It is completely irrelevant to the business.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
The fact that when we citizens elect the most powerful person in the world, the act of him putting his hand on the bible and giving an oath unto God shows everyone, including himself he is NOT the highest authority!

I'd be more impressed if it was a beating heart ala the Aztecs...
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:16pm PT

If we were to elect a Mormon, would we become a Mormon nation? Hindu? Buddhist? If we elected several of them? What is the threshold?


This was the early drafters worry. and the reason for the wording.

But yea could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys. or if a morman ran it, caffine and sugar would be against the law. and if a muslim, well you know. Rediculusness!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
If the president was a damn Spaniard instead of a damn Kenyan it would be fresh bleeding Aztec Heart. If it was Gilligan it would be a cocconut. Either way it is the written word, clear and defined that matters not some symbolic talisman
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Here BB, I did your research for you ( you're welcome) . Watch this and it will be explained to you that laws are not enacted by devine providence or whooshed into existence with the proper magic wand, and if you insist it is you are likely to be laughed out of town even by the peasants

locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 30, 2014 - 07:32am PT


"could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys"...


Uh...
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Jun 30, 2014 - 09:05am PT
Blueblocr imagining evolution:

HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 30, 2014 - 09:42am PT
I don't know when to take Blue seriously and when to just laugh
But yea could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys. or if a morman ran it, caffine and sugar would be against the law. and if a muslim, well you know. Rediculusness!
You might remember we've had a Catholic President. Perhaps you don't. His name was John F. Kennedy. My otherwise very intelligent and politically savvy Mother wouldn't vote for him because he was Catholic. I'm sure she'd have felt the same about a Jew although she would never have admitted to THAT.
JFK kept his religion entirely out of the affairs of state. As did his two famous brothers, Robert and Ted.
Don't we have a Muslim President right now? Suppose we have a "real" Muslim President (we will eventually)
Please be specific about your concerns.

That's the entire point of the 1st Amendment. Our laws and governance must NOT be at the whim of religion.
D'oh!!

Today's Supreme Dunces decision is a travesty.
So now a "closely held corporation" can deny an employee's rights based upon the owners' religious beliefs.
Wikipedia doesn't even have a description of a "closely held corporation". I'm sure it will by tomorrow.

The IRS does
Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:
Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
Is not a personal service corporation.
The definitions for the terms "directly or indirectly" and "individual" are in Publication 542, Corporations.
10 largest from Forbes in 2008
Cargill, Koch Industries. Chrysler, GMAC Financial Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mars, Bechtel, HCA, Ernst & Young, Publix Super Markets

Add Hobby Lobby, Fidelity Investments, Toys "R" Us, Aramark, Enterprise Rent a Car, Harrah's Entertainment, Cumberland Farms.......Bloomberg, McKinsey, Save Mart, Simplot, Levis......
18 pages of them with revenues of $1Billion or more.
They must employ 10s of millions of people.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/21/privates08_Americas-Largest-Private-Companies_Rank.html
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 30, 2014 - 10:14am PT
i try to be funny like Bill Mahr

Don't we have a Muslim President right now? Suppose we have a "real" Muslim President (we will eventually)
Please be specific about your concerns.

Obama is a confessed christian. And quotes the bible to much IMO.

with a Muslim pres. i'd be worried about sharia law. wouldn't you?


a corporation is a privately owned business. Shouldn't they be allowed to hire who they want?
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 30, 2014 - 10:28am PT
Shouldn't they be allowed to hire who they want?
Again, you are confusing the issues.

They certainly can hire who they want as long as they don't discriminate against race or religion.
That's not the question.
The question is: having hired someone, can you deny them benefits because of YOUR religion?
That's whats wrong. When you hire someone, does this give you the right to interfere in THEIR rights to equal opportunity under the law?
It also discriminates specifically against women. The exclusion of the rights in question (birth control benefits) of course doesn't apply directly to men.

Unfortunately the Supreme Dummies have the last say.

It appears their nonsense decision was, as usual, on fairly narrow grounds; another law passed by Congress in 1998 or 1999.
We'll see what happens.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 30, 2014 - 10:33am PT
And quotes the bible to much IMO.
Finally something we agree on. I'd be interested in knowing why you say this.
This whole "the President's gotta mention god in every third speech" nonsense came about due to the Christian Fundamentalists and Reagan. Before Raygun, a President might mention God in his coronation speech or state of the Onion.
Otherwise hardly at all.
If Catholic JFK had done it, you can be sure the mostly Protestant right wing and Southern Democrats would have been all over it.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 30, 2014 - 10:45am PT
So back to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] — or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

We doubt that the Congress
So, are they interpreting the Constitution, or their belief of Congress' intent? Or fudging so they can insert their own belief system?
The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.
Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that the ruling that would have wide repercussions and “untoward effects.”
“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private,” she wrote.
The Obama administration argued that the requirement wasn’t a mandate at all because the companies could have dropped coverage.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html
The whole historical point of Corporations are that they shield individual owners (not necessarily the directors) from financial and criminal liability for acts of the Corporation.
Given that huge legal barrier, how can it be argued that now the owners can insert their religious beliefs through that barrier?
How can it be different for a "closely held corporation" rather than a not so closely held one? Who decides what defines a closely held corporation?
This asymmetry in rights and protections may in the strictest sense be legal but it certainly seems an unfair differential.
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 30, 2014 - 10:47am PT


BLUEBLOCR...


Dude...


BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 30, 2014 - 11:06am PT
OK humor me, i've never had a job that granted me rights. so i never cared.

The question is: having hired someone, can you deny them benefits because of YOUR religion?
That's whats wrong. When you hire someone, does this give you the right to interfere in THEIR rights to equal opportunity under the law?

Did they use their religion and say "Thou shalt not steal" and since you did your fired? Or, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" and since you hit on my VP's wife your fired. how do you mean they used their religion to deny benefits?

What if their religion requires them to bow and pray every two hours. should i be able to fire them?

Or what if they are a smoker and want smoke breaks? Or what if you found out they are smokers after you hired them. Can you fire them because everyone knows smokers have health risks?

Is it a "right" for a woman to take leave for a few months to have a baby and expect her job to be waiting for her? If my business can't be sustained with that long of a leave. Shouldn't the employer have the right not to want to hire a woman?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 30, 2014 - 11:16am PT
Shouldn't the employer have the right not to want to hire a woman?
No

courts have repeatedly held that an employer absolutely cannot make employment decisions based on the gender of applicants

or their race, their national origin, or their religion

this has been the law of the land since the 1965 Civil Rights Act
Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1486 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews