News-Record.com

Seems cumbersome. Which is what you'd expect in dealing with a society that isn't religiously monolithic. But it is far from sensible.

The most sensible thing to do is to do away with oaths and simply switch everyone to use the same, secular affirmation that doesn't touch on religion. A legal affirmation is what the whole business of the ceremony before legal proceedings is about to begin with, not a religious one.

I wonder if anyone has ever brought up seperation of church and state on this issue since so many people insist on the bible as the only "holy" book that is acceptable?

Poor naive, blind Americans - couldn't see the Trojan Horse of Islam if their lives depended upon it. You can bet your plasma flat-screen Bin Laden and company are loving it! Islam’s coercive initiatives in the courts, in neighborhoods, airports, schools etc. are all designed for the progressive and eventual take-over of our culture. They see the spiritual void left by humanism and secularism, and are all too ready to fill it with their oppressive legalism. All one has to do is read just a bit of their literature, online or anywhere and their goals are clearly outlined.

Other religions have never taken such bold and aggressive steps in so short time to receive special treatment, here and in Europe. The English and the French have already had to deal with it, and are wondering what the heck to do. Now the Islamists want to build a 40,000 capacity super-mosque in central London. But we are still living in the liberal, PC Lalaland of multi-cultural delusion. The ACLU and other leftist groups are more myopically intent on providing a rival to Christianity than protecting our freedoms and cultural heritage. We have become so unbelieving and ignorant of the treasures of Jesus Christ and the Word of God that we will seemingly fall for anything and everything.

My belief is that God is chastening America and the West by allowing the invasion of Islam for their apostate departures from the biblical Faith, even as He did Byzantium for its failure to inaugurate a truly biblical social order – even as He did Israel for her apostasies. “Be not deceived: God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” We have sown our rebellious unbelief and sin, and are reaping the disintegration of our once great Christian nation. We are mocking God by trashing his moral Law, filling our media with depraved and stupid movies and shows, calling good evil and evil good, and wallowing in perversion. We have sown to the wind and will surely reap the whirlwind – unless we repent and turn again to the God of all mercies. If he spared Nineveh, He will graciously spare a repentant America.

That we should have come to the place where a heretical book like the Qur’an would be substituted for the holy and infallible Word of God shows just how far we have fallen from honoring that God in our life and culture. If they succeed in the courts of N.C. it will be just another step in the advance of Shari’a in our nation. They see it clearly; we’re blind as a bat. In the end, it’s the Church that is most culpable our demise for having fallen into liberalism, sentimentalism, materialism, heresy and indolence. And our only hope is the Church - revived, enlightened, biblical and committed to the Gospel of grace and the expanding Kingdom of God.

God's name is Allah.

Would the extremist Christianists prefer people took oaths to a god they don't believe in, on a book they find false--- or at least incomplete? What would that produce?

Lies, right from the start. Not that swearing an oath has ever kept anyone from lying, ever. The force of law to punish perjury is what keeps people from lying. Or conscience.

Not words said in exactly the "legalistic" formulae accused of whichever group one doesn't agree with.

Freddy, you are right, of course, in saying that just reciting words over a book will not prevent perjury. It is, however, an added element of force and conscience; in that the person is publicly stating before man and God, the supreme judge of all, that he will tell the truth, and answer to both if he fails to do so.

I am very sadly aware that we have allowed this nation to become a mish-mash of religious and secular pressure groups, and that there is no longer a general fear of God, nor a commitment to the Messiah - the way, the TRUTH and the life. Hence, conscience is at a premium these days, and we apparently care nothing about abandoning the glue that has held this society together lo these past 231 years - in favor of the moral nihilism of multi-whatever humanism.

Because our courts have been in the vanguard of this "apostasy" and legal approbation of moral degeneracy, I have no doubt they will eventually allow people to place their hands on everything from the Koran, Mao's red book, a Scientology manual – and maybe even a copy of Playboy. What difference does it make if we have disavowed and disenfranchised the true and living God? Whose name is not Allah! It is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God, world without end; truly and fully revealed in His Son, the LORD Jesus Christ, the God-man and Savior of the world.

Every concession we grant Muslims is just another step in the process of attrition, moving toward eventual domination. It is the very nature and avowed intention of this false and dangerous movement. The Communists were (are) Teddy bears compared to the jihadists. Gary Powers, after all, did not have his head cut off.

Those who are warning America of the Muslim advance are like Churchill warning of Hitler's true intentions in the face of the naïveté of the deluded Chamberlain. All one need do is simple deductive reasoning in view of consistent Muslim actions thus far, in America and arouond the world. Duhh! What on earth is it going to take????

That doesn't answer my question, Nikos? Would you prefer Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, et. al (not to mention Jews) swear on the New Testament? If they say " Iswear so help me 'God'..." and that god is clearly identified then because their hand was on a Christian bible as your Messiah, aren't they lying from the start? Do you wish to force people to begin their testimony immediately with an outright, understood lie? What good does that serve?

Is your reply going to be, "If they are forced to swear in the name (but not in conscience...because Jesus isn't in their hearts) of the one true god, and then they follow that lie with another lie, they will get the punishment in hell they are already likely headed for..."? Again, why does that matter for the CASE for which they being asked to witness/testify? No one's conscience has been improved, only undermined.

I am afraid there is really no logical leg to stand on here, Nikos.

Nikos said:

"I am very sadly aware that we have allowed this nation to become a mish-mash of religious and secular pressure groups, and that there is no longer a general fear of God, nor a commitment to the Messiah - the way, the TRUTH and the life."

So it sounds like your view is that America USED to be 100% Christian, and it's just a shame that non-Christians are allowed to exist here, let alone participate in the life of the nation. Are you saying that you'd prefer all of us to go away and leave the nation to TRUE Christians, Nikos? If not, what is your view? I'm just curious.

Nikos tends to over due things a bit, but his basic premise is correct. One thing we should remember with our muslim brethern and sisters is that their religion is a very political one. Bringing in the Koran while we ring out the celebration of Christmas in our schools (Shristmas songs are not sung less they offend someone),sends a message that we have a faith and historical culture not worth remembering.
I read a essay by an American convert entitled: Is America a Muslim Country? I was amazed-bu not surprised-how he compared Islam and Mohammed to the founding fathers and our constitution-to him they all represented the best of Democracy. To the author Islam would bring justice and equality and food purity (hold on to your bacon here folks). Strange, that the religion which brought you honor killings, stonings, beheadings and covered women, claims to be egaliterean!

I realize that my perspective seems “extreme” to relativistic and humanistic types, but I’m only being consistent with the Scriptures and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, your points are well taken, guys. It does pose some sticky dilemmas for those who do not acknowledge the authority of Holy Scripture and the Messianic claims of Yeshua. But just try to put pressure on a Muslim government to allow people to use the Bible in place of the Quar’an in any public manner; you can just imagine the response. For all their legalism and error, they at least honor their founder and faith, and seek to build a thoroughly Muslim social order. In this they are much more consistent than modern liberalized and compromising Christians.

My view that we should maintain the Bible alone in our court oaths is simply an attempt to address the eroding spiritual focus of our Christian nation; not that it will MAKE people always tell the truth. I realize that, in terms of numbers of professing and active Christians, America might not be designated a “Christian nation” today. But the residual effects of biblical principles that permeated every aspect of our developing culture over the past couple of centuries, still defines and drives much of our common life: the moral Law, civil respect for others, benevolent enterprises, freedom, appropriate justice (lex talionis), and much else. All of the great movements for freedom and justice had strong Christian rationale and impetus; though many of the more recent moves have been unbiblical departures from this precedent.

So, I am seeing this issue as symbolic of our demise as a cohesive spiritual environment. There are Christians (Anabaptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as the pre-Christian Essenes) who refuse to take oaths because of certain Scriptural interpretations: “Let your yea be yea . . .” (Matt. 5:33-37) The idea of this passage, however, is that true people of God must not take their oaths lightly, and if they have a habit of doing so, should not do so at all. In ancient Jewish culture, the binding power of an oath depended on the involvement of the Name of God. There were all kinds of variations and degrees, and ways of abbreviating one’s oath taking. Therefore, in situ, Jesus is calling for simple truth in individual morality, rather than casual oath and vow breaking.

In court one is involved not simply with one’s personal oath-taking, but is part of the overall stability of the entire legal system. The third and ninth Commandments were both primarily legal affirmations, insinuating that perjury and deception were of such a grievous nature that God’s curse fell upon those who broke them. The same idea holds in the courtroom; therefore the sanctions in regard to perjury.
Without justice, a culture eventually crumbles. Without juridical truth, there is no reliable justice and order.

George Washington said in his farewell address: “Let it simply be asked, ‘where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?’ And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

So, the vicissitudes of personal truth-telling are NOT the central issue here; but rather the upholding of the divine source of truth and justice, and the key importance of doing so before the true Judge of all the earth – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and His Messiah.

To include any other God, by any other name, is a national apostasy and an affront to Jehovah. The attempt to corrupt and change our religious affirmations is a clear and deliberate attempt by Muslims to replace Him and His Law/Word with a false god and a false scripture; and would be just another heretical straw on the camel’s back of God’s impending judgment. What a spiritually blind and ignorant people we have become.

The PC elite will go sailing down the toilet singing their praises to relativism and multi-culturalism, as the jihadists gaze incredulously at their naïveté, pulling out the burkas (sp) and chopping blocks. How huge does the handwriting have to be!!!

Oh Man!

Maybe I should reconsider that earlier "God's name is Allah" posting.

Since I really get off on uncovered women and Biscuitville sausage biscuits sounds as if I should consider Christianity!

But Nikos, you have not answered my question: Do you agree, first of all, that mandating everyone swear on a Christian Bible will clearly mean you will be forcing many witnesses and defendants to lie from the start? And secondly, if that is true, what good is the oath perfroming, as it thereby automatically invalidates the testimony's complete truthfulness before it begins? It seems you would rather have the entire court system become soke sort of weird exercise in double-binding and irrationality than to serve the cause of justice by eliciting truthful testimony. This is not logical.

Apparently you did not read my piece very well, Freddy, because I went to great lengths to answer your question. Anyway, I’ll try again. How about debating some of the many burning issues I raised, rather than fixating on one side issue.

The oath/book issue is primarily about acknowledging the God of Truth to be the source of truth and justice; that this nation, and its judicial system, owes all concepts of justice and law to His Law/Word. And that perjuring one’s self before Him, by breaking a solemn oath, will call down not only His judgments, but that of the state that serves Him. Preserving the oath preserves this high view of truth and justice, and maintains the fact that we are a Christian nation (regardless of the current unbelief and apostasy).

The issue of causing people to assert untrue things of their personal religious beliefs is therefore secondary at best – actually irrelevant. The fact that some do not acknowledge the true and living God is their problem. And since atheists do not believe at all, it should be water off a duck’s back – I mean, we all have to put up with things we neither like nor believe in life – all of us. For those who DO believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Christians, Jews, Muslims) they’ll just have to be happy that they can call God as their witness in telling the truth. Who gets all they want anyway.

I admit that Christians get the best deal because both their Testments are included; but then they ARE in the majority. Jews have the O.T. And Muslims believe, to a degree, in the God of the Bible by their own Koran and dogma. They just want their Muslim book (and law and religion) to become the book of America. I say, heck no! This nation has a Christian heritage.

Muslims have their nations in the Middle East, and elsewhere. If they want to use their book, go there. If they want to live in a Christian nation, then submit to its national faith standards. But you and I know (or should) that this is neither their goal nor intention in all this. If they care about righteousness, they will tell the truth regardless, before Allah – if they really fear Him. They call us the “people of the THE BOOK,” so they should at least be able to respect the Bible and be thankful it mentions the God that Muhammad claimed to worship and serve. But the fact is, this is just another one of their ploys to infiltrate the culture and eventually take over. Liberals, on the other hand, just enjoy championing anything and everything that disses God and His Son, regardless of the consequences down the road.

(Yea, yea, I know – it’s gotten long again. Sorry.)

I DO hear what you’re saying. It’s just that I see larger, more pivotal issues than individual truth dilemmas. If they don’t fear God, they should certainly fear the heavy state sanctions. If they’re liars, they’ll lie anyway. If they’re not Christians they’ll focus almost immediately on the pressing legal matter at hand; at least, they have in the past. Nowadays it’s ALL ABOUT grandstanding and getting as much out of the effete old secularist pig of state as they can.

What do you atheists really think of Islam? Do you like what they think of non-believers, or what they do to them? Do you really think they’re all sweetness and light, and want nothing more than serve the secular state and vote Democratic? If they should gain control of the Supreme Court, how will they vote on public prayers, gay rights, abortion, WOMEN’S RIGHTS, or Jewish issues? Do you ever pause to think about such things?

"What do you atheists really think of Islam?"

Qualitatively, it's the same as all other religions.

"Do you like what they think of non-believers, or what they do to them?"

I don't think that Muslims have any worse view of atheists than many Christians I've encountered. As to what believers "do to them," I'll just say that barbarism is a common feature of many cultures when they deal with the unknown and the outsider.

"Qualitatively, it's the same as all other religions."

Do you mean by this, Eric, that you just lump all religions into the same mold, in that they believe in a “higher power” of some kind, and leave it at that; not discerning and differentiating policies, dogmas and worldviews that might adversely affect your national entity, or others? Sure there is more to be seen and said that your simplistic statement suggests. I respect your opinion, although I do not agree with it, and would like a little more copy.

I do agree with you that religions, groups, political factions, etc. do not reveal their best side when under duress. I also understand that not all Muslims are rabid jihadists, and that the mass of Muslims want the same peaceful, civilized lifestyle we all want in order to raise our children and live out our lives. But, that being said, the religion itself, unfortunately, has inherent in its holy book, history and public statements a world-CONQUERING (the physical, military type) MO.

And whatever the ill-conceived and oil-based policies various nations around the world have had towards some Muslim countries, there is no excuse for a so-called God-fearing religion to perform (and allow) the hideous acts they have on innocent people. And it did not begin with European intervention in the Middle East: it is long-standing and endemic in their ideological makeup.

It can be seen as, and indeed IS, a clash of spiritual worldviews – between Christianity and Islam, quite divorced from 9/11 and jiahdism. Both lay claim to the earth (Matt. 28:19 & 20), but in entirely different ways. Even the modern liberal, neo-Marxist progressivist movement is taking major steps to both spread their liberal worldview and change governments and cultures. True NT Christianity proclaims a Gospel of love and grace, that changes the heart within, which then brings forth “the peaceable fruit of righteousness.” The cross is unique, so Christianity is also unique and incomparable – certainly not to Islam and modern humanism.

While it is true that Christians want to spread the Gospel throughout the earth for the blessing and betterment of all mankind, the MO of true, N.T. Christians has never been, and never will be violent, military conquest; regardless of what some national entities have done in the “name” of Christianity – colonialism in particular. But Islam began that way, continued that way and is that way today. It is a grace-less form of legalism, impelled by the old sin nature to force it’s religion on all. Apart from the new birth, all human thinking and endeavor is born of the fallen sin-nature, reflecting its spiritually-darkened and rebellious impulses. It compulsively promulgates everything from gross acts of sin and violence, to the formulation of respectable “religions,” political movements and humanistic philosophies.

So, in spite of your facile assertion, all religions are NOT the same, and have widely differing essential precepts and worldviews. You really need to study true, grace-based Christianity, rather than perpetuating your prejudicially negative viewpoint. Stop looking at the caricatures on TV, and study genuine, scholarly proponents of the Faith. Sound Christian proponents and exegetes have been virtually shut out of the liberal media and higher educational environs. They are all of course imperfect, and have varying views on certain aspects of doctrine, but they are cogent and well-thought-out expositions of the orthodox Faith: Chrysostom, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Aquinas, Chesterton, Schaeffer, Schmemann, Rushdoony, and many others.

Requiring the oath ona Christian Bible by someone not a Christian automatically invokes, according to this doctrine, heresy and sin, evil and lies. It has to. So, you have immediately invalidated their testimony's complete truth, which would have been possible if they had been allowed to use another text. You find this a side issue. I think it cuts to the heart of the entire argument. Why would you prefer to pervert the practice of justice so you can force everyone to touch a book and raise their hand to say words that have either no meaning or a completely different one to them than the book you are insisting upon?

And no one can break an oath they cannot make to begin with: if a non-Christian mouths words and touches a Christian bible, it is not an oath. It's a pointless exercise in illogic.

"So, in spite of your facile assertion, all religions are NOT the same, and have widely differing essential precepts and worldviews."

While religions may have widely differing precepts and values, I see little difference in world views. All religions I've ever heard of view the physical world as one of two, and few (if any) view the life we currently have as worth beans compared to the one they expect after death.

"You really need to study true, grace-based Christianity, rather than perpetuating your prejudicially negative viewpoint."

I've had quite enough lessons regarding "grace-based Christianity" to last me for a while, thanks.

It isn't water off a duck's back to require non-theists or believers in other faiths to go through an oath which purports to be the beginning of a wholly true statement that in its very utterance is lies to someone. The non-theist, particularly, who said an (especially unamended) oath (really, an oath makes no logical sense toa non-theist) would not have much honor. The best option for him or her is to simply affirm the statements will be true. Unfortunately, there are plenty of jurors, instructed otherwise by judges, who would then be biased against the non-theist's testimony. This effectively robs the conscientious non-theist of an opportunity to a free and unbiased jury of peers. Catch-22.

If one could amend the oath to say "so help me...: metaphorical conscience, or avatar of Vishnu or Brahman, (etc.) which is called
the Christian God or Jesus", it may not be a lie for some non-believers. But the dangers of provoking bias are still there, if slightly ameliorated.

As for the dire future should extremist fundamentalists get hold of our courts and Constitution (a certain brand is geting closer all the time), I would be first in line to defend my country by all means necessary. The Constitution cannot be amended or thrown out by majority vote, no mater how many extremists get elected. And an extremist President cannot dissolve Congress.
The current President has done more than most to stretch his powers and thereby thwart the Constitution, however, so the precedent exists for future abuses.

And I am aware of the ideas propounded from certain interpreters of the Qur'an about the nature and dissolvability of oaths. Some Muslims might believe they can break oaths with impunity because Allah will not hold them to what would be considered non-binding since they were not done on a Qur'an or in the name of Allah. But they will not likely forget the repercussions in our civil and criminal courts for perjury. As you say, that should be enough to impress upon many who would lie in court.

Freddy, I don't think we are connecting. I will try again sometime soon. Right now, work calls.

Eric, you are correct in saying that Christianity also includes a vision of the afterlife, but certainly OT Judaism was not "otherwordly" in its primary directives and worldview. It is unimaginable to foist that on them.

In the NT there is greater emphasis on it because (gosh, I really should shove off here) anyway - because the One who would be the door of heaven was present and active on earth, and provided a greater assurance of both a NOW relationship with the Father, and a heavenly rward as well.

Nevertheless, the true NT Faith was a plan for victory, benevolence, joy, culture building, Kingdom establishing, personal redemption, etc ON EARTH "Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven." I utterly reject the rapture escape program falsely conceived by some, and opt for the post-mil view that constrains Christians to work for both the present and future good of all
men. Your idea is not well-studied or cenceived.

My mentioning of grace was another attempt to emphasize the fact that Christianity is unique and incomparable when the grace acheived by the Messianic atonement is taken into honest account.

Whoosh - out the door ......

Perhaps I have misunderstood, Nikos. I thought you were insisting that all people say an oath to the monotheistic god of the Christian Bible, with no allowance for affirmation by non-theists; for statements that would make the alliance to how a Hindu, for instance, might well understand such a godhead but as a form of Brahma; or other ways to let the person giving testimony avoid lying for the sake of their own conscience, if not for the whole integrity of the judicial process.