Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^^ When have we ever had a non-Christian president? If we were swearing in a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist president on a Holy Bible that would say something significant about our government. Right now, the only thing significant the oath says is about the personal beliefs of the person being sworn in. Just to make a point, when I am elected president, I'll choose not to have the Bible present on inauguration day.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Why don't you look up Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Lee v. Weisman (1992), or Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989). The Allegheny County case specifically involved the display of a nativity creche and which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.>> I stand corrected. But it just makes my point about seperation of church ans state being a total joke, a total myth, and an attack on Christian faith by liberals like the ACLU. There is no way in the world having a nativity scene on public land is unconstitutional. The founders, who had church services in the Capital building would be disgusted at the decisions the court has made in the last 50 years. The Courts are perfectly pleased to substitute words of its choosing for those found in the Constitution and to place its judgment before that of the founding fathers. This is why we need conserivate judges on the court. judges who don't make up meanings that go against the traditions of the country. Trying to ban the Easter bunny is just another lame attempt at this.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If we were swearing in a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist president on a Holy Bible that would say something significant about our government. Right now, the only thing significant the oath says is about the personal beliefs of the person being sworn in.>> Your dodging the point that a bible is being used in a public ceremony. According to liberal logic, this ties the government to religion... and we can't have that because libs know best, or so they tell us. How about bibles in courtrooms? Anyone who knows history can see that this country has always been religious, and that includes the government. In fact, the reason we have done so well as a country ( greatest country ever ) is BECAUSE we are Christian and follow Christina rules and ethics. The Nazis and communists rejected religion, kinda like liberals do, and you can see where that led. Mass killing and suffering for the people. This is something the libs will never understand. All they have to do for proof is look at how far Europe has fallen since they turned secular.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj For what it's worth, Beaumandy, there are instances where a nativity scene would be permitted on public grounds. The Allegheny County case found that religious symbols would not be inappropriate on public grounds if displayed in context with other symbols of secular and religious origin. It was also determined that the location of the religious symbols also played a role in their constitutionality -- i.e. a nativity scene placed in the most prominent spot in a public building with religious declarations surrounding it is different from the same display in a less prominent location without overt religious statements attached to it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I see your point... don't agree at all but see it. Allegheny v. ACLU 492 U.S. 573 (1989) Docket Number: 87-2050 Abstract Argued: February 22, 1989 Decided: July 2, 1989 Subjects: First Amendment: Establishment of Religion Facts of the Case Two public-sponsored holiday displays in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. The first display involved a Christian nativity scene inside the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second display was a large Chanukah menorah, erected each year by the Chabad Jewish organization, outside the City-County building. The ACLU claimed the displays constituted state endorsement of religion. This case was decided together with Chabad v. ACLU and City of Pittsburgh v. ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh. Question Presented Did the public displays violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Conclusion In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the crèche inside the courthouse unmistakably endorsed Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. By prominently displaying the words "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ," the county sent a clear message that it supported and promoted Christian orthodoxy. The Court also held, however, that not all religious celebrations on government property violated the Establishment Clause. Six of the justices concluded that the display involving the menorah was constitutionally legitimate given its "particular physical setting."
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Trying to ban the Easter bunny is just another lame attempt at this.> So, we've gone from a mall having a 'Spring Bunny' instead of 'Easter Bunny' to the 'Easter Bunny' being banned, to it's dumb that we can't have church services in the Capitol Building. Love the way it all moves to hysterical.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How about bibles in courtrooms?> This is not unlike bibles at innaugurals. It relates to the faith of the person being sworn, not of the country. In other words, the person making the oath is doing so on the book that is holy to that person, saying "I swear by this book that is holy to me that I will...". We have never had a non-Christian president, but in courts all across America on any given day, if a person does not want to be sworn in in court on a Bible, they don't have to be.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "We have never had a non-Christian president, but in courts all across America on any given day, if a person does not want to be sworn in in court on a Bible, they don't have to be." Yup. Many elected officials have family bibles, etc., or something they use. Here in California, no one is sworn to testify using a bible. The clerk has them raise their right hand as they swear them in.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I've served on a jury in Orange County about 12 years ago. There was no bible to be seen. It's just, "Raise your right hand and repeat after me, 'I swear that the testimony I give here will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'" They don't even do the "so help me God" part any more. Which is fine with me. In my opinon, it profanes the title of God (not His name which is Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, Elohim, El Shaddai, etc.) to use it in civil proceedings anyway.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Rutherford B. Hayes and Theodore Roosevelt were sworn in as President sans Bible. It is a tradition, but not a requirement of law, that a Bible be used.
Originally Posted By avromark So technically you could use the Torah, Quaran, The Book of Mormon or another holy book if you chose?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Certainly. Some in civil ceremonies swear on a copy of the Constitution.
Originally Posted By avromark I now wonder what versions of the Bible were used? I'd imagine NIV or King James would be common? Perhaps Good News?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>KJV. They want it just the way God said it!<< Um...excuuuuuuuse me, the KJV is chopped up. It's missing seven entire books and major parts of Daniel and Esther. It would be the Douay-Rheims-Channoler Version that is closer to the way God said it. Myself, I'd bring my Resvised Standard Version: Catholic Edition...a Complete Bible.
