"God Somebody Save Our Gracious Queen."

Why not give people a choice of oaths, rather than simply insulting religious believers by referring to an invocation of the Deity as "archaic"?

From a Christian perspective, this is perfectly correct and in obedience to what Christ Himself said. The reference is in the book of Matthew chapter 5 paragraph 33

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Why not give people a choice of oaths, rather than simply insulting religious believers by referring to an invocation of the Deity as "archaic"?

Exactly what the U.S. Constitution did-- it always provides for "oath or affirmation."

>Exactly what the U.S. Constitution did-- it always provides for "oath or affirmation."

Well, Britain, of course, doesn't have a Constitution, but I read once that in whatever documents _define_ the government over there, it is defined specifically as a Protestent country and the Crown is obligated to "defend" Protestent beliefs. I'm not sure if they can, legally, (for what that's worth these days) separate church and state the way the liberals have in the US...

Mark W.

THANKS, Madelyn Murray O'Hair, for perverting the First Amendment (you know, the one about religious freedom?) to mean that an atheist never has to hear about God in public. Thankfully the anti-God movement hasn't been as successful here as it evidently is in Europe.

The Court of Appeal, which produced the report recommending the change, wrote: "A combination of archaic words invoking God as the guarantor of proposed evidence and the perfunctory manner in which they are usually uttered detracts from, rather than underlines, the solemnity of the undertaking."

If the Court considers the words "archaic" and "perfunctory," one has to wonder about the integrity of the Court. One assumes that in a Monarchy with an established Church, which the Government has vowed to defend and uphold, you do not become a Judge without taking some sort of solemn oath before the Almighty. If this Court does not consider such actions to involve serious commitment, how can you trust anything else about the Court.

Any one who cannot see the relationship between Socialist Government and the moral breakdown of Society, at all levels, has a serious problem with the perception of reality. Before the Fabians took over most British thought processes, this article would not have even been believable.

William Flax Return of The Gods Web Site

We can choose our own? Cool.

"I'm not gonna tell the truth. And you can't make me. Nyah, nyay, nyah, nyah, NYAAAY!"

It that appears absurd, then are the arguments in support of moral relativism really any better?

Any one who cannot see the relationship between Socialist Government and the moral breakdown of Society, at all levels, has a serious problem with the perception of reality. Before the Fabians took over most British thought processes, this article would not have even been believable.

This need repeating.

I guess now they will also remove the "God save the King/Queen" saying also?

They did that when they killed Diane, didn't they?

Your comments reflect the nature of many (but certainly not all, so don't attack me for this) of the objections to public generic delcarations of faith. Many people of faith who speak out against the removal of prayer in school do not mention that Engel v. Vitale was a case of a Lutherian parent whose faith told him that prayer was to be an important communication between an individual and God, not a generic group incantation. Many neglect to mention that the Santa Fe stadium prayer lawsuit was filed by a Mormon and Catholic family.
Likewise, the oath to God -- both in the US and other countries -- may well be offensive to Christians who find such an oath to violate their religious principles and do not feel it appropriate to "swear before God".

The English oath given to witnesses (our predecessor) circa 1685:

I charge thee, therefore, as thou will answer it to the Great God, the judge of all the earth, that thou do not dare to waver one tittle from the truth, upon any account or pretense whatsoever; . . . for that God of Heaven may justly strike thee into eternal flames and make thee drop into the bottomless lake of fire and brimstone, if thou offer to deviate the least from the truth and nothing but the truth.

Without God, the oath means nothing.

It does not matter what the motive of the litigants, whom the ACLU recruit, may be.

Our law was not based upon any one individual's interpretation of theology. It simply was never intended to ban religious sentiments from the Public School system. (Moreover, no one would suggest that participating in a simple non-denominational prayer in a public school in any sense discharges any individual's moral or theological responsibilities.)

We can agree to worship God in 200,000,000 different ways, and still recognize that the ACLU and its British equivalents are operating from a Fabian mindset that means to destroy rather than defend. (See Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.)

Public prayer in America was never seen as a generic group incantation, but simply as a civic acknowledgement of our many Blessings--acknowledged over and over again by those who won our Freedoms--and our ultimate dependence. No one suggested that it was a substitute for, or fulfilled the same role as any individual's private devotions. The Lutheran parent of whom you write, was fighting a demon that is not out there. He was being used by the ACLU for very different purposes.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

No flames here.. The bible declares that 'because of ignorance, My people perish'. Before anyone questions exactly what 'ignorance' is, it is only the lack of knowledge of a particular subject or think. Using the term that someone is ignorant is using an extremely broad brush implying that they know nothing at all. In the spirit of the true meaning of the word, it must be said that most Christians are ignorant (not aware) of the Lords teaching and commandment concerning the taking of oaths. In his eyes, it is the same as blasphemy because the person making the oath is implying that he is also capable of guaranting it's accuracy even to the extent of jeopardizing someone elses property or reputation. It also implies that God almighty is inagreement with the oath taker and that God supports the oath takers pledge and that the oath maker is in capable of failure.

In truth, the only ONE incapable of lying is God Himself, because of the power of His words alone he can speak things into existance. When He speaks, even if a thing is not currently in existance, by His command it will be. That is the thing about prophecy from Him, even though something is not in existance when the prophecy is given, or it may delay in arriving, it is sure to come in His own desired timing. To swear an oath is to imply that one possesses the same power and authority as God Himself, and that is Blasphemy.

God is extremely tolerant (long suffering) when it comes to the sins people commit because He is not willing that any should perish, but the one and only sin that He will not forgive is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is because the Holy Spirit has ALL the atributes of God Himself and to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme God Himself.

Throughout the bible, it declares that HE (God almighty) shares His glory with no one. He jealously protects it and won't let anyone attribute to themselves or diminish it.

The bible clearly teaches that Christ is the only way to God. Salvation is gained or lost solely by the acceptance or rejection Of Jesus. To swear an oath to throw away what Christ purchased by His own blood is to make that sacrifice of no value, null and void. That can never be, therefore that oath itself is null and void because it can never deliver what is promised. That Oath also becomes a rejection of what Christ has provided by placing that persons own works or lack thereof above the completed work of Christ.

I have no delusion that the swearing of an oath guarantees truth. If you reread my posts, you will see that Christ forbids the swearing of an oath and I fully agree with that prohibition.

I havn't had the occasion to refuse the swearing of an oath since I have become aware of this prohibition, but if ever called to take an oath in court, I will refuse to do so and quote this passage in Matthew as justification for my refusal.

It would be very hard for any court to violate ones religious beliefs in this matter. They under law can't assume that I am either lieing or not just because I refuse to take an oath because the bible prohibits it. They, either the judge or jury, would have to decide for themselves if my statements were true or not and they can not punish me just because I refuse to take an oath.

I imagine that rejecting my testimony solely because of my religious beliefs could constitute a hate crime in some peoples eyes. At the very least, rejecting my testimony solely because of refusing to take an oath would cast extreme doubt on the fairness of the judicial procedings and would create just cause for appeal.