This raises the question, naturally, of exactly *why* they're prohibited. Presumably because Atheists don't have any "morality"? I was thinking both how essentially nonsensical this was, plus the fact that it would never exist in the UK or the rest of Europe - for the simple fact that it would never occur to do this plus our Anti-Discrimination wouldn't allow it - then I remembered that this is how we, in England at least, used to treat the Catholic minority. Until recently, around the middle of the 19th century, Catholics were not allowed to run for office nor head any of the branches of the Civil Service or the Military - nor indeed VOTE in General Elections. I also remembered reading about an elected MP who refused to swear his oath of office on a Bible sometime around the end of the 19th century. That caused problems for some years, if memory serves, until MPs changed the rules and were allowed to affirm rather than swear. I'm guessing that this had a knock on effect in legal trials were the witness used to have to swear on a Bible but now swear on multiple Holy books or affirm.
7 comments:
I don't think these laws are actually enforceable, but it's sad they exist.
As far as swearing on the Bible... I believe Jesus actually taught against such things. :/
I did wonder about the Constitutionality of the whole thing. I mean, isn't their a religion clause?? I guess that taking them to court over the issue wouldn't do someone any political favours though!
They don't have to swear on the Christian Bible, and there's no law that says they have to. And it also doesn't say swear, but affirm. I saw a video on this recently with Jake Tapper from CNN interviewing a very ignorant member of, I believe, Congress. He was saying Muslims can't serve because they can't swear on the Bible and Tapper was like...that's not a law. They can swear on whatever they want. The dude literally glitched and just slow-blinked for a good five-ten seconds.
I'm pretty sure there's an explicit no religious test clause. I'm not sure when these laws were created, but the thinking would be that which is expressed in Brothers K: if there is no god, all things are permissable. We've certainly seen evidence of that in the godlessness of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc etc etc), but even those who believe and fear God evidently think all things are permissable, given the deep-rooted protection of pedophilia and sex abuse in the RCC, the pedophilia practiced by the Taliban, and the impressively depraved acts of Ravi Zacharias revealed after his death. People are problematic critters.
@ Sarah: Nice! I'm not 100% sure what you can or can't swear on here. I think its a fair list though - plus affirming.
@ Stephen: I don't think that a disbelief in or fear of God has anything to do with atrocities or genocides. It's about power, pure and simple. Oh, and its always confused me that an all LOVING God should be *feared*.... Or is that just a toxic mix of Old & New Testaments? Which to be honest has also always confused me. I mean, if there's a New Testament why do we still need the Old one. Isn't a bit like a new contract superseding an old one and no longer applying?
I'm not sure when the terms OT and NT derived, but there's a fairly broad consensus in Christianity that Temple (and later, rabbinic) Judaism was about The Law, whereas Christianity is about grace. There's a lot of argument in Christianity over which parts of the OT should be honored by Christians and not -- people create categories about moral law, ritual law, etc. So murder remains bad, but wearing mixed fabrics and eating shrimp is OK.
Fear isn't so much about the scary. There's...another feeling. It's wonder, awe, dread, trembling, adoration all in the same moment. It's the human response to encountering something....inexplicable, something that makes its presence known. Would be interesting to see how the brain is lighting up at that moment. I grew up with the psychotic Pentecostal god who wanted to be worshipped and would burn you forever if he didn't get it or if you didn't follow all the rules, violently rejected him, and later encountered something.....else. Something I didn't and still don't understand, something that my skeptic brain still walks the long way round, but something that part of me feels needs responding to. I'd say it's a bit like stumbling across magnetism (realizing there are hidden...forces?) but magnetism is repeatable and mystical experiences aren't. Mine was enough for me to take seriously, but I understand that my experiences are not others' and everyone has to walk their own path.
Thanks for that. Growing up in a non-believing (or at least not talked about) household and going to Church of England schools my whole life, my knowledge of Christianity is... limited. Although it does seem that Christians essentially 'cherry picked' from the OT to suit themselves.
I think they've done MRI scans of people having what are generally perceived as 'religious experiences' - either brought on by drugs or electrical stimulation. Or in some cases DEEP meditation. Interesting stuff. But then again its the human brain, so pretty much interesting by definition.
Oh, you should *always* take your own path seriously. It's really the only one you have. I think part of the reason I rejected the idea of religion early on (admittedly from the place of profound ignorance) was that I *really* don't like people telling me what to think or believe about things. I'm certainly capable (or at least believe that I'm capable) of doing my own [real] research and coming to my OWN conclusions. I *think* I have least have a handle on things - the really BIG questions - but I'm still doing my research and I'm open (again I *believe I'm open) to being proved wrong or even just a little 'off-beam'.
Post a Comment