Why would a Christian not want to swear to tell the truth??

[BOSSHOG]

We all know, and are told constantly, that bush is the most honest, most christian, greatest President ever. One would then surmise that he would surround himself with like kinded and minded advisors. No doubt before every meeting in the white house, they all swear to tell each other the truth as they each read passages from Leviticus.

And we all know that if perchance, the meek and mild rove or harriett accidentally admit to a heinous crime against the constitution it will only be because they were tricked to do so by evil sodomite liberals in congress.

So what's the big deal? I might whip off a letter to the editor and ask that question. No doubt it will all be explained to me by whatever comes out of the hornets nest (or not printed at all.)

[texpatriot2004]

1. Damn good question nm

[demnan]

2. Well I know that Quakers for instance

are against swearing an oath of any kind, but Methodists (like Bush) aren't held to the same constraint.

We all know that Bush did something wrong, even he knows that, ass that he is.

[eShirl]

6. Quakers are still sworn in, with the change on a single word

They raise their right hand and "affirm to tell the truth" rather than "swear to tell the truth."

[BOSSHOG]

11. Interesting

Members of the armed services have that option in their enlistment contracts.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution.

Its even etched on reenlistment coins.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Got an old copy of my Deputy Registrar card. It reads...

Do you swear (or Affirm) that you are an American Citizen legally qualified to vote and not registered elsewhere?

[annabanana]

3. His big excuse has been faith based after all. . .

"All of MY people are honest God fearing folk. You can trust them. They would NEVER misuse their power."

[Eurobabe]

4. Because they are FALSE Christians?

Liars, war-mongers, cheats, thieves.

Even Jesus is smacking his head over this one.

[papau]

5. Matt. 5:33-37 - "Do not take an oath at all. … Let what you say be simply yes or no" - or

perhaps only the Muslim members of the administration should take an oath since the Qur'an says ""God does not take you for what is thoughtless in your oaths" (5:89). So it seems one can say whatever, and if you go and help the poor or fast, you're expiated.

Jesus stated "Do not take an oath at all. … Let what you say be simply yes or no" (Matt. 5:33-37) which follows the Law of Moses: "If you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin" (Deut. 23:22) - all of which was the rule for early Church leaders like Irenaeus and Tertullian

Of course we follow Augustine's interpretation that Matt. 5:33-37 means only do not make frivolous vows/oaths in the Lords name - take what you are doing very seriously. So today we make taking an oath - which oath need not be to God as you well know - the beginning of the crime of perjury, should you purposely lie about a material fact.


Did you really want an answer to "Why would a Christian not want to swear to tell the truth?" - or was it just more flame bait tossed at Christians on DU?

[BOSSHOG]

9. You make an excellent point

Swearing based on religious beliefs is irrelevant in the land of the free. The good christians of the white house should swear to (promise) members of the committee that they will be open and honest. Christians tell us all the fucking time how honest, straightforward and godlike bush is. Is christianity a way of life or a mask to hide behind while committing god knows what in god knows who's name? Obviously swearing to tell the truth is not sitting well with those in the white house and I've yet to hear a peep of a religious angle in thier objections.

[papau]

12. Your point that the honest Bush is a media sold lie, proven by "no oaths" is well

taken.

The media continues to sell the validity of "executive privilege" because no "crimes" are suspected.

Well I suspect crimes - and that should be enough to force under oath testimony IMO :-)

[BOSSHOG]

13. I might overthink

the enemy but it seems that republicans and their supporters put a great deal of value in "under oath." In other words, what I hear (interpret) from them is that if they are not under oath it doesn't matter whether they tell the truth or not.

No crimes suspected. The same with libby. To me its quite simple. If there were no underlying crime why did libby HAVE to lie?

Peace, teammate.

[Dr Fate]

18. All mainstream Christians recognize that "under oath" is a valid American tradition.

As is "swearing on the Bible"

This thread is the first place where I've ever heard the suggestion that mainstream, American Christians would honestly object to being legally bound by an oath.

[papau]

19. Only a few have problems with "oaths" - and that problem does not stop them

from being "legally bound" as it is a standard easy change to the word "affirm" if and when there is an objection (the change is even in the Constitution!). Indeed two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, chose to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations.

Many tiny religious groups have objected to the taking of oaths, but the two rather large groups, one called the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the other Mennonites, are the ones that come most quickly to mind. Indeed a few Quakers now believe that there is no real difference between an oath and an affirmation, other than the word used, and therefore they refuse even to affirm.

[Dr Fate]

21. Let Bush go on TV and make that excuse. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

17. Let Bush make that lame excuse. If he is an honest Christian, he would have Rove go under oath.

Go ahead and let Bush come out and suggest that "swearing on the Bible" is not a mainstream Christian/American tradition.

No one is flame-baiting Progressive Christians- we are saying that Bush is a hypocrite when comes to morals such as honesty.

[papau]

20. On that point - Bush is a hypocrite - we can all agree :-) n/t

n/t

[mmonk]

7. Easy. That way they won't have to officially lie with a hand on the bible.

[rock]

8. Let's rephrase the question

Why would a person that calls himself a Christian not want to swear to tell the truth?
Now the answer is a bit more obvious.

[izzie]

10. I think they use a different basic for the truth.

I have met people my whole life like that. What ever they say is the truth. Never let any fact get in the way.

[Bake]

15. Thou. Shalt. Not. Bear. False. Witness.

I think that was one of the Big Ten, as I recall.

If they've got nothing to hide, as the Pukes love to say, what's the problem? If they're going to tell the truth anyway, what's the problem with the oath? If they're going to tell the truth, why not let the whole nation hear it.

Somebody once said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free." If the Pukes are such fine, upstanding Christian folk, they should know who waid that.

Bake

[Dr Fate]

16. Good luck getting a DEM to repeat that BRILLIANT talking point on TV.

Not that they would even entertain it for a second (too creative)- but if they did, the usual hemming & hawing wimps in our party would think it it is "too aggressive" or "too radical"- when in reality, it hits the ball out of the park.

Swingvoter/Moderate/Apolitical type:

"Darn! That's a good point- Bush is supposed to be a good Christian-I heard it on the TV hundreds of times. Why wouldnt a Church-going type let his employee just answer a few questions under oath-what's the big deal?"

[AtomicKitten]

22. Cuz Jesus hates lying sacks 'o shit.