"So help me God" no more: Democrats give House traditions a makeover
31 replies, posted
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/politics/democrats-house-oath.html
In the House of Representatives, to the winner go the spoils, and Democrats, the new decision makers, control everything, including what legislation gets a vote and the minutiae of
procedural choices, such as whether witnesses must utter the traditional plea for divine aid. Democratic chairmen and chairwomen of several key committees have deemed no such
entreaty is necessary.
“I think God belongs in religious institutions: in temple, in church, in cathedral, in mosque — but not in Congress,” said Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. What Republicans are doing, he continued, “is using God.” “And God doesn’t want to be used,” he
aid.
In 2003, Republicans famously rebranded the French fries and French toast offered in House cafeterias “freedom fries” and “freedom toast” to express dissatisfaction with Gallic
opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq. When Democrats wrested control of the chamber three years later, they introduced compostable silverware and cups — a decision
Republicans swiftly reversed when they came to power in 2011, arguing that the utensils were too flimsy to properly spear salad fixings.
The Democrats in power now have yet to touch the culinary nomenclature of the House cafeterias. But they have introduced a number of other changes, each carrying its own symbolism:
Free feminine hygiene products are now made available to offices. Several committee leaders have excised the gendered titles of “chairman” or “chairwoman” for the neutral mononym
“chair”.
Considering the current political climate, I worry this is a bad idea. I can just imagine omitting things like "so help me God" would just tie into the Fox News narrative of the "War on Christmas!!!"
That said, that narrative would continue unabated anyway, but moves like this only further sway gullible swing voters over to the Republican side.
It's extremely important tbqh. The Republican Party is becoming more and more non-secular these past few years. Putting a foot down and showing them we aren't gonna tolerate that shit is the only way we can deal with their bullshit.
Fox News had a go at Obama for wearing a tan suit. Honestly, fuck those guys and their opinions. If they don't like it, let them.
They're not the ones I'm worried about appeasing. More that a lot of the "undecideds" just end up being a bunch of fickle idiots who need to be coddled and trod lightly around because they're drawn like moths to any so-called "controversy" and Fox'll take that opportunity to pounce and draw them to their own propaganda. I wouldn't care about it so much if not for the fact that said fickle idiots end up being the ones who decide every election because everyone else has already long made up their mind. God knows that last-minute release of the Comey memo the day before voting is what ultimately decided 2016 for Trump in the first place, like a laser pointer appearing out of nowhere and catching a cat's gaze... as it then hovers over the "VOTE REPUBLICAN" button.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/219126/cd32f0e0-42b2-4e59-baef-fcc151edeb4d/DA3957CB-6545-4C0B-A025-273C8F3F378F.png
The oppression of Christianity begins now!
The GOP cannot claim to be the party of god and also the party of donald trump.
Of course they can. Their voters don't care, they don't read the holy book anyway.
With the ever increasing "us or them" from both sides, its going to be incredibly difficult for liberal Christians in the future.
How so? Because Christians on the left fighting with Christians on the right, or because even liberal Christians will feel attacked by removing God and Christianity from government?
Both can happen, really.
I can only imagine GOP Christians calling liberal ones "fake believers" and I can already imagine far left calling out people of faith as not liberal enough.
All of this is so petty.
the god stuff?
All of it. The name of the food, the titles, the fussing over the oath, everything. It's all a distraction from the more important policy work that is overdue.
Absolutely nothing is passing by the Kentucky Turtle
Fuck em'
well, that's impossible to argue against (hence why i think it's a bit cheap), you can always point to generic 'more important' things that need to be worked on. personally, i think there are many questionable implications from mixing religion with politics, and i'm glad they're aiming for a more secular direction
"Don't make little changes like this, we don't live in a utopia yet"
Having "So help me God" in an oath is hardly making the US even an inch closer to a theocratic state.
I don't see how my latter point could be an excuse, and you didn't really address my latter point either.
Christian in-fighting is an age old tradition. Nothing you do will ever appease everyone despite them all being rooted in the same beliefs. Right Christians are probably some of the most detached from their religious roots. Whereas the left actually has the basis to "practice what they preach" without being hypocritical towards their political views.
As for call outs on not being liberal enough, I don't think anyone of sound mind would do so. So long as that other person's beliefs don't impede on others. That's kind of the whole premise.
Separation of church and state is not petty, it's fundamental to the founding ideas of the country. Everything the that Republicans have done is petty. Eco-friendly dinning utensils and feminine hygiene products are hardly petty.
Having "So help me God" in an oath where any citizen in the country is supposed to be able to serve, regardless of their background or religion is hardly "separation of church and state", and is clearly biased towards Christianity.
You may have some counter to that being harmless, or "god" not being the Christian god, but being anything that person worships. Or that separation of church and state isn't actually written law and only an ideal. To that I would direct you to the US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And I would consider asking someone to swear before God to be a religious test.
seriously? you think having religion as a part of a governmental oath on how your duties, as a public servant, should be performed, doesn't erode separation of church and state?
also "it's not the worst thing we could be doing, so we should keep at it" is, like chonch's "removing it is too much effort", not at all an argument that explains why it should be a thing in the first place
I feel like changing the oath to not say "so help me God" isn't pettiness. It's taking a distinct ideological stance on the separation between church and state, a question americans have been fighting over since the birth of the country. Democrats aren't explicitly slapping Republicans in the face with this, they don't own the concept of God.
The freedom fries thing was 100% grade A pettiness though.
We really need a different name for this fuckface. Turtles are friggin awesome man. Strong hardy creatures that can propel themselves incredible speeds in water. Besides they're cute. I would suggest instead the nickname "Cunt" but that might be too strong for some people. We just needs something that truly conveys how much this cunt is destroying America without going too overboard.
No one was ever denied their office for refusing to say "So help me God". This isn't a religious test in any capacity.
If it doesn't matter at all I guess there's no harm in removing it. ;-)
No, there isn't. As much harm as there would to keep it.
Except the fact some states require it in their oaths, and setting the federal precedent will help solve that issue.
And asking someone to swear themselves to your diety is what one would consider a "religious test". This very topic has been fought in court using that very clause.
Right, so having a prayer be part of an oath, the omission of which can lead to controversy in a highly religious country where Christian symbolism in the political sphere is omnipresent, and can have a significant effect on the popularity of the representative taking the oath, is not a religious test at all?
An individual's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are a private matter. Nobody should, under any circumstances, be forced to disclose them. An oath containing "so help me God" forces the person taking it, if they follow a non-Abrahamic religion or are non-religious, to either betray their own beliefs or publicly disclose them.
Even voluntary appeal to God by politicians when discussing non-religious matters, which is extremely common in the US, could be considered to be a violation of this principle, as they enforce the norm that Christian politicians will constantly reference Christianity in their speeches and debates, which in turns gives an indication as to the religious beliefs of politicians that don't. Taking religious symbolism out of political oaths and decorum really is the bare minimum if you want true separation of church and state and actual religious freedom.
Anybody who lives in a remotely secular country will tell you that the US political sphere looks insanely religious from the outside looking in, especially when you consider that it claims to champion freedom of religion. You may not realize it because you're either used to it or don't really notice because this symbolism caters to your own beliefs as a Christian, but if you belief that this overabundance of religious symbolism in politics has no impact whatsoever on Christian influence over the state or freedom of religion in general, then you're either delusional or one of those "fuck you got mine" types.
It's kinda weirdly dishonest sounding when religious people argue that the presence of religious language or symbolism (usually from their own religion) in government process isn't a big deal.
Imagine if we reversed the roles here a little, now several oaths end with the phrase "By the way, there is no god".
Surely it's not a big deal right? After all, we already established that having to disavow your personal beliefs and endorse the beliefs of another group is just a big non-issue that doesn't mean anything.
You might not face any legal consequences for omitting lines that are explicitly religious when taking an oath, but this still establishes the idea that the correct way to recite the oath is the christian way.
just give god a break and spare him the petty political shit ok
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.