"This is real personal. But to me, when you have God in there, it really makes you consider the position you're about to hold," said Director Lee Kemp.
Ruchman said he proposed the change during the bylaws review because a board colleague - past or present, he wouldn't indicate - had confided in him that it was uncomfortable. "I felt this was something we needed to discuss," Ruchman said.
But an official for Focus on the Family said calling on God is an integral part of an oath. "Without a reference to God, an oath is practically worthless," said Tom Minnery.
Source: Rocky Mountain News
The truth is, being forced to take an oath that makes you feel uncomfortable and in which you swear by a god you don't believe in is what truly makes an oath worthless. Such public oaths may, however, make Christians feel more comfortable by communicating to them that they are special, that others believe as they do, and that their beliefs are still privileged in government. Such oaths may also have the effect of discouraging participation from non-Christians who cannot honestly say the oath.
Keep in mind that it's precisely such attitudes, though, which prevented atheists from being allowed to give testimony in courts at one time. If we assume that Tom Minnery really believes what he is saying, then he is saying that no atheist can give an oath that is worth anything — and, perhaps, that atheists cannot be trusted to tell the truth as a general rule. That same would be true about theists who don't believe in Minnery's god as well as theists who do, but who object to swearing oaths to that god. This encompasses a significant portion of humanity which Minnery suggests he doesn't trust.
I think that Tom Minnery must know that the absence of any reference to his god doesn't make the oath worthless — after all, it's not required in courts of law and I haven't seen Focus on the Family complaining about that. This forces us to wonder what his real motivations for speaking out on the matter really are and whether any of the effects described above play a role in his position.
Americans United comments:
This is a transportation board. Its job it to make sure the buses run on time and that they are safe, clean and accessible. Where the board members worship, and indeed if they worship at all, would not seem to be relevant to this task.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood this. The presidential Oath of Office, found in Article II, Sect. 1, reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Notice what’s missing? There is no reference to God. George Washington added the phrase “So help me, God” to the oath, and other presidents have followed suit – but it isn’t required. Under Minnery’s view, the presidential oath, as originally written, must be “practically worthless.”
For some Christians, belief in a god has become a public, political matter which has to be announced as loudly and as often as possible. It's not enough to simply belief as part of a personal, religious belief system; instead, it's necessary to let others know that one believes because such announcements are thought necessary for maintaining membership in the community. If you don't believe, then you don't really belong — you also can't be moral, can't be trusted, and can't participate fully in public functions with everyone else.
Straight up Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Christian God if you do not believe in any of these fine why fuss and complain about swearing on a book that you don’t believe is true. To a being that you will not acknowledge. You should be able to swear on a stack of these old bibles and smile thinking that it truly means nothing to you. United States money means nothing to me but as long as I can buy things want/need I really do not care if there is a picture of playboys centerfold with script: Take this and shove it ***** as long as the stores accept it for the things I need same as what is on it now. If your safe with your choices there is no, I repeat NO, need for all this complaining.
Because it’s a lie.
This implies, without warrant, that the being exists.
This implies that atheists shouldn’t care if they lie and deceive. That’s both wrong and offensive.
It’s justified to complain when people say that atheists are incapable of giving meaningful oaths or telling the truth.
Its not only a lie Austin, its ridiculous. If it was “the ever-living marshmallow monster” would Christians ‘not complain’ because they are happy to use that phrase, safe in the knowledge that they don’t believe in such things? ridiculous!
Accepting the requirement to swear on the Bible fosters the misconception that this means more than an atheist’s affirmation that he/she will tell the truth (in court) or commits to fullfilling his/her duties (in the case of an oath.)
Perhaps it means something to believers to swear on the Bible, because they may fear God’s punishment if they commit purjery. But it does not mean anything to atheists. So, IMHO there should always be a choice.
To expand on Marc’s idea, it actually serves to undermine the oath and the oath-taker to put god into it, because it means that fear of retribution from a god is the only motivator to act appropriately, as opposed to fear of public censure or real reprimand. That puts the public’s interest on a lower rung in the ladder than god’s interest, and, consequently, compared to someone who is motivated by public welfare alone, a god-fearing oath-taker would be on a lower rung in the ladder of integrity.
Oaths are essentially worth only a) the honor of the person making the oath and b) the fear the oath taker has of punishment and c) the value the taker assigns to the importance of their function.
i made my oath of enlistment on the flag so there wasn’t a chance i’d break it because i was making the promise to my country, something i hold dear and above my own life. Plus, if i broke it i could go to Leavenworth, so again, no chance i’d break it. i respected my duties in the air force because i knew i was doing something good and important.
It is unconstitutional for a state to require people to swear on a bible because of that whole separation of church and state thing.
It seems to me that oaths are usually, if not always, taken in the presense of witnessess.
In that case, the oath does mean something. We don’t know if there is a God witnessing our oath, but we do know the human witnesses present are.
Basically, this is another Christian double standard: they accuse atheists of undervaluing humanity while claiming that a human witness to an oath is meaningless; there must be a being with supreme authority over us before we can take a truthful oath.
Amazing! As though people who take a religious oath are any more likely to keep it. Witness the folks in the Bush regime. At the very least, Dumbya and Dick took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the U.S. Constitution. Not only have they not done that, they’ve done everything they can get away with to destroy the Constitution. So much for religious oaths.