North Carolina Debates Use of Koran

You would be fortunate to receive a fair trail.

Should we corrupt our beliefs and practices to accommodate others just so that they would do likewise for us? Rather we should hold true to our beliefs and practices to the extent possible in both cases.

It would be preferable to excuse a non-believer all together from making a oath and discount their testimony than to corrupt the system by permitting them to make an oath with reference to a false god and count such as good.

 

I think we should hold to true to roots of nation which were based around Christianity and continue to recognize that all the things we enjoy - including are freedoms - are by the grace of God. For over 150 years were well served by requiring persons to make oaths with the Holy Bible and by asking God to cause them to tell the truth or faithfully fulfill their duties of office. We have forgotten what the original intent was. We have replaced it with more recent thinking. At one time many States even required officials to proclaim their belief in the Holy Bible as a condition of office. None of that infringed upon the religious liberty which was key in establishment of our nation. We do not have a national church - Church of England - but we have had a national belief in the one and only true God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - that is evidenced throughout our history. Even the rulings of the Supreme Court once recognized these things. Islam has no place in the conduct of our public affairs including administration of oaths. A person is still free, in the interest of preserving our liberty to practice Christianity, to choose to worship such false gods. Our society need not embrace, support, condone, nor accept such beliefs. We can tolerate the existence of it but those who practice it must accept they live in a nation that, as a majority, does not belief as they do. Only in the past 50 years - and especially in more recent times - have we become obsessed with striking any reference of God Almighty from our public life and at the same time supporting the replacement of Him with any number of false gods. By doing this we will not continue to enjoy our freedoms because they will based in civil law that is void of God's underlying law. We stand to loose the very blessings which we have enjoyed for so long through our own confusion between liberty to assemble and worship God as we see fit and inclusion of all religions into one homogenous mix of diverse and equal beliefs.

 

No, everything I wrote was completely true! I'll pass on a tit for tat response. I'll say that one of the first mistakes some make is to assume the only government we have is the federal government and hence all the quotes about the oath of President of the USA and the US Constitution but none about all the requirements of many of the States. We forget that we have State governments and constitutions. We forget that the US Constitution does not address what is reserved to the States and the people. We forget that people wanted - and should still want - their state's to provide their first line of government. We forget that oaths for witness and oaths of office are largely administered by state, county, and city courts. We've forgotten that the purpose is to attest to honesty and faithfullness by the highest and only absolute Truth. We've forgotten from whence we came and how we got here. We don't understand the difference between eroding and preserving our liberty. We are actively permitting others to misuse the very safeguards we established to destroy our liberty and we're too lost in political correctness to even discern that it is happening. The Bill of Rights were added to the US Constitution to provide some additional written protection for the inherent rights that people had with respect to their new federal government. It was established by people who were mostly of Christian belief and who understood that all they had - including their new government - were gifts from the one and only true God. They wanted to be sure that the government could not establish a state church such as the Church of England so that they would remain free to worship God. None of this was done to permit followers of Islam, or other false gods, to use our law - including the Constitution - as a means to force the acceptance of their beliefs by forcing the removal of our own. It was done with an allowance for the fact that not all would believe in God and that no government could force such a belief and a church set up to accomplish that would be corrupt. Tolerance is very different than acceptance. An oath made in the name of Allah is as worthless as the words of the Koran and if we permit it to be used we are saying that it would be equal to the name of God and the words of the Holy Bible. Nothing in or out of the US Constitution changes that fact. We'd best remember how our nation was so blessed to be able to have a Constitution. If the "national beliefs" change away from God then it won't matter what was "written down" in the Constitution. Perhaps a reading of the Declaration of Independence would be helpful since it begins which a clear acknowledge of God Almighty. That's what we've forgotten and what we no longer understand.

 

The God acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence is not Jefferson's "god" but, rather, God Almighty - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[SIZE=+1]

The Bill of Rights were, among other things, written to record the prohibition against the federal government establishing a state church. It did not override what the States could do. In fact, at least one State continued to have an official state church until about 1830. The federal government never forced an end to that because it had no power to do so. It was not written to "give liberty to minority religious positions" or, for that matter, to majority positions. The right to believe, organize, and worship was considered inherently the prerogative of the people and through them their States. That freedom exists because God blessed our nation and lead the founders and the citizens to establish a more perfect republic than had ever existed before. This nation was founded because of Christianity and the desire of Christians to be free of the likes of the Church of England. They wanted to make certain that the new federal government could not establish a new replacement church in the new world. It had nothing to do with divorcing God from government nor of the unthinkable concept that oaths could be made by another reference to a god other than the one true God or that the fundamental beliefs of Christianity could not be taught in the people's schools or that nativity scenes could not be displayed on public property or that the Ten Commandants could not be displayed in a state or county court yard. This are all disgraceful corruptions of the original intent. The US Supreme Court at one time even formerly recognized in their rulings that this was a Christian nation. Countless utterances of the importance of God and Christianity in the business of governance were made for generations before, during, and after this nation was founded. Only in the last 50 years has the Supreme Court, and it alone, driven our nation away from the common sense understanding of the roots of our Constitution towards an all inclusive dilution of what we, as a nation, once held sacred. Now, thanks, in part, to Godless government schools we have at least three generations of Americans who have no understanding of the role God and Christianity played for generations before and who believe that "separation of church and state" - a pure myth - is required by the Constitution and mandates the exclusion of any reference - even the slightest - to God in any aspect of our governance at any level from federal to city. Allowing a Muslim to take an oath of truthfulness, loyalty, or faithfulness in our land by reference to Allah or the Koran is an absolute disgrace that surely greatly displeases the one and only God who has blessed our nation so long. It would be better they abstain altogether from such oath than to corrupt what we have had for hundreds of years prior. Our citizens and our leaders once understood this but now, regrettably, have lost that understanding and bought right in to the corrupted interpretations based solely of the judicial legislation of a Court working against the best interest of our nation.

[/SIZE]