<p>I understand it is historic, but why? Why not touch the flag, or the constitution, or just raise your hand and promise…this is just an archaic tradition that is pretty meaningless, actually…what, you can’t make a pledge without touching a manuscript</p>
<p>do we need to instill the fear of hell in order to get promises out of elected officials, cause otherwise, why is a religious text used at all? it implies that if you break the pledge, God will punish you and its not in man’s hands, and can’t people make promises just because without bringing God into it? Are we saying that the person taking the pledge is answerable to God first, then the people? And that when the person dies, that he/she will answer for breaking the pledge? And if the person doesn’t believe in a Judeo Christian God, isn’t it just for show? Sometimes symbolism is so phoney it is useless…what other countries promise on a religious document to uphold the legal laws of the land? I can guess</p>
<p>The same reason we put “In God We Trust” on our money and say “one nation, under God” in the pledge of allegiance, tradition and it’s just the way it is. Why do people always want to change things because it might offend someone. NEW RULE: If it doesn’t offend more than 49% of the people, then it stays the same.</p>
<p>You cannot protect the rights of the minority if that includes taking away the rights of the majority. Well I guess you can, but that’s not the way it should be.</p>
<p>I would guess that it was traditionally felt people could easily lie to other people or a judge, but if they thought they faced eternal damnation because they’d made a promise to God, they might be more truthful. Kind of like a ‘death bed’ statement or confession.</p>
<p>I think the practice of placing your hand on a Bible (for witnesses) has long been abandoned in most courts in this country, although the oath does mention God. There is an alternative “affirmation” that does not mention God for believers who think its wrong to swear before God or those who don’t believe at all.</p>
<p>Presidents and Supreme Court justices use a Bible when they take their oath because it’s a public display, photographed in the old days, broadcast today. It would be interesting to get a look at the actual copy used, to see if it had ever been opened.</p>
<p>Hot topic in Charlottesville, as we’re in Virgil Goode’s massive district.</p>
<p>The current practice IS just holding up the right hand and taking the oath of office. If a representative wants to hold a book in their left hand, they’re permitted to. They have to bring the book.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that for the formal swearing-in there is no book used at all. Everyone raises his or her hand and swears to uphold the Constitution. Later, if the representative chooses a <em>private</em> ceremony as well, they are free to use any book they like or none at all. Here’s what one article says:</p>
<p>Basically, its tradition - there is no other reason. And yes, like you said, it is meaningless. But it doesn’t really amount to state-advocated religion because it is not required. As the West Wing so cleverly pointed out, the president could be sworn in on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition if he wanted to.</p>
<p>But I agree that it is stupid and shows a penchant sticking with pointless things simply for tradition’s sake. It also demonstrates (as Joev so helpfully showed) that most people don’t understand the basic concepts that this country was founded on, such as the ideal that the minority view is not to be silenced or trampled on simply because it is the minority. Just because we have a Christian majority in this country does not mean we should have Christian ideals writen into our law. Unfortunately, however, this is the case. IMO, we should have a completely secularized government… maybe one day, when reason and rationality finally gain a foothold in this country.</p>
<p>Joev, you need to go back to history class. The pledge has only had “one nation under God” in it since 1954. The “In God We Trust” has been on and off money since they first got the idea in 1867. It used to be a tradition that black people couldn’t drink out of white people’s drinking fountains. Should we have kept that law because it was a tradition?</p>
<p>I know it’s not a syllogism, but this loose linkage of “tradition” with “meaningless” caused my scalp to itch. Traditions are imbued with meaning, or else they don’t become traditions, right? I’m trying to think of a significant counter-example.</p>
<p>I suspect that the Islamic world feels they have equally valid reasons for scepticism about Judeo/Christian traditions. If I recall, there are some historic tensions there.</p>
<p>No, most of our laws do NOT come from Judeo-Christian anything. First off, most of the basic Jewish laws one can find in various books of the Torah come from much older law. One can find the same laws in various Sumerian, Egyptian,Akkadian, Canaanite, Hittite, Hurrian, and other tablets. The most famous is probably the law code of Hammurabi, but there is also a nearly complete Hittite law code. Basically, the laws we know of that preceeded the Jewish laws all had in common taboos against murder, theft, lying, being disrepectful to parents, heresy, female adultry, and the like.</p>
<p>The same is true of the Romans, who gave us trial by jury, the use of a prosecutor and defender, the right to a trial, etc. If you can demonstrate that Roman law is somehow derived from an obscure sect on the far eastern edge of the Mediterranean, you would be the first to do so.</p>
<p>And then there’s Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian pre-Christian tradition to deal with.</p>
<p>Sure there is tension. After becoming established on the Arabian peninsula the very next move of Islam was to conquer the Judeo-Christian Middle East. Christians and Jews are rightly concerned about the reestablishment of the Caliphate.</p>
<p>the new Muslim congressman wants to use the Koran to make his pledge and some people are pretty upset</p>
<p>tradition doesn’t make it right, btw</p>
<p>and if we have to use fear of damnation for them to keep their promises, wow, does that mean man’s laws are pointless, and that all that really matters is going to H)(#@…if people will only do the right thing out of fear and not because of their fellow man, we need to look at who we are electing…if eternal damnation is all that works, we are in deep dodoo</p>
<p>so, should the Congressman be allowed to use HIS book?</p>
<p>Of course he should, since it would be during his own private ceremony. No books at all are used in the official swearing-in, so I frankly don’t see what all the fuss is about.</p>
<p>Boy, do I agree with that! An even deeper question is, are we a nation of religious freedom or not? If so, we shouldn’t care about this. If not, then maybe we’re just a nation of religious freedom for certain Christians.</p>