God for President in 2012

[bush_cheney2004]

One day, you'll actually have a debate with someone rather than just deflecting every time you're wrong.

....still waiting for that day....troll!

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that the protocol still exists at all makes your point irrelevant....optional or not (it is not always optional anyway). See US Code for judge oaths.

The fact that you were wrong makes my point totally relevant. Repeating again:

Then why do I have to affirm / swear to tell the truth "...so help me God" in most courts?

You don't "have to," especially in "most courts." As for the oaths judge's take, it's totally irrelevant to your comment. Your comment is incorrect, and your attempt to make it about something else doesn't change that fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't "have to," especially in "most courts." As for the oaths judge's take, it's totally irrelevant to your comment. Your comment is incorrect, and your attempt to make it about something else doesn't change that fact.

Yes I do....if only to prove you wrong...again.

[Guest American Woman]

bush_cheney2004, on 25 February 2010 - 06:10 PM, said: The fact that the protocol still exists at all makes your point irrelevant....optional or not (it is not always optional anyway). See US Code for judge oaths.

One day, you'll actually have a debate with someone rather than just deflecting every time you're wrong.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen if I were you. Whenever he's wrong he tries to make it about something else, so I never respond to his posts expecting "actual debate," but rather to simply point out that he's wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen if I were you. Whenever he's wrong he tries to make it about something else, so I never respond to his posts expecting "actual debate," but rather to simply point out that he's wrong.

Because you lost the debate long ago....as prescribed by law:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

[Guest American Woman]

Because you lost the debate long ago....as prescribed by law:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

link

Edited February 26, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

This is too funny

[Moonlight Graham]

The problem with saying "God's in charge" is that i don't know of anybody who isn't insane who has direct communications with God where God can tell them what do to. People can guess, or try to interpret the Bible and take a stab at what he may want in certain situations, but Bible interpretations are very subjective and disputed. But not as much with the New Testament, so maybe that guy should have said "Jesus is in charge!".

Or maybe Glen beck can talk with God or something & tell the POTUS what to do, who knows.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Or maybe Glen beck can talk with God or something & tell the POTUS what to do, who knows.

"God" has been a central concept throughout American history, for many reasons and purposes. Attempts at revisionist history are squarely met with Gingrich's Rediscovering God in America:

Rediscovering God begins with an introductory essay in which Gingrich lays out his case that American history and culture cannot be understood without an appreciation for the nation's distinctly religious character and heritage. Gingrich emphasizes the oft-forgotten points that many early Americans came to this country seeking religious freedom and that the religious revival known as the First Great Awakening (1730s to 1770s) directly influenced the independence movement that led to the American Revolution. Gingrich then quotes numerous Founding Fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others, who all believed that a republican form of government could not succeed without (in Adams' words) "a moral and religious people." While contemporary scholars have attempted to portray the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, as skeptics and/or atheists, in just a few short pages Gingrich demonstrates that projecting such modern attitudes onto these men, let alone onto the American people as a whole, is "historically dishonest."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/rediscovering_god_in_america.html

Edited February 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

No, because it's a meaningless passing reference to some God.

The reference seems weird in the context of what ToadBrother mentioned about government flowing from God to King to subjects. Notice our recognition of God's supremacy is inserted between the document that describes our government and the document that's supposed to protect us from that government.

Given the way our Constitution and Charter would have it government flows from Crown to God then the subjects. Imagine if subjects still believed God would protect them from any Divine right of King's that were abused?