First item is the fruit of Pat Robertson's labor, placing some 150 Regent-trained lawyers in this Bush administration.
"At Regent, Goodling was drilled in the importance of unflinching loyalty to the Republican program. Once in the Justice Department, she proved an able cog in the Bush administration's political machine, meeting with Republican activists in 2006 to help plot the firing of New Mexico's prestigious US Attorney David Iglesias, a fellow Republican who 'chafed' against administration initiatives.
But as scrutiny of her actions intensifies, the evangelical Goodling resorts to the 5th Amendment -- man's law -- to avoid breaking the biblical commandment against lying. Only the goodly and godly Pat Robertson could have prepared her to make such a decision."
Certainly proof that people like Robertson and Falwell can have an impact--but also more than a suggestion that their thumper-factories are bad for us all.
*****
Andrew Sullivan points us to a couple of stories about public religion. This first is an issue I have thought about before. Why is it that while Jesus sharply rebukes public prayers that call attention to self, that religious conservatives love to pray as loud in public as they can? I remember someone interviewing Falwell and asking him that question. The Jabba seemed to have misunderstood the question because he both agreed with the sense that Jesus chastized self-righteous public prayer AND then said when he and his family ate out, he prayed "as loud as he could" to make sure the other patrons heard him.
Sigh.
The second one is rather intriguing and one I did not know about. I am curious what the theologically trained among us can add to this conversation. One of Sully's readers suggests that the "under God" in the Pledge violates another of Jesus' commandments against swearing oaths.
""Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.""
I don't think I have heard that verse before. This reader clearly saw the Pledge as problematic.
Even if we make room for the necessary "civil" oaths used in courtrooms and other legal matters, it's plain Jesus was recommending that his followers dispense with any voluntary, self-initiated oath-taking. So why the constant agitation over the Pledge? Answer: It's not really Jesus that matters.Interesting.
12 comments:
Matthew 5:33-37.
This is one of those times where tradition smacks against Jesus' commands harshly. Most folks don't see it as disobedience to a command simply because it is ingrained in the patriot's psyche. Nevertheless, saying the pledge has always troubled me because of this scriptural injunction.
Jesus was talking about taking vows toward God, particularly as outlined in Deuteronomy 23:21-23. The Deut text as well as the Matthew claims that vow taking is at best unnecessary, but can lead into sin if not kept.
The point is that the word of a Christian ought to be beyond contest. One should not have to take a vow, oath, make a promise, pledge, etc. in order to be considered credible.
Nevertheless, the texts seem to be taken as oaths made toward God and not country. My brother recited the Soldier's Creed when he went into the army; I don't see that as a binding oath toward God. They pledge loyalty to the army, their fellow soldiers, and their country.
The question then is the pledge really an oath toward God or country? Perhaps an able historian can help us out with this question...
One note on the side is the pledge to the Christian flag, which bothers me even more than the pledge of allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands.
One brotherhood, uniting all Christians,in service and love."
We recite this in vacation Bible School. I do know some ministers instead of saying pledge, they say "affirmation of loyalty."
Oh and btw, you really should not insult Jabba the Hutt that way.
I will address the issue of the Pledge later, but this made me laugh unexpectedly:
Oh and btw, you really should not insult Jabba the Hutt that way.
Point taken. :)
I think the Pledge comes out of the late nineteenth century rise in super-patriotism. It is not, initially, a pledge to God--that phrase is added in 1954, I believe and is clearly motivated by the anti-communism movement than anything godly. I would suggest that since then, it has morphed into supposedly linking country to God and therefore might be problematic for Christians.
Elected officials, and many other people hired by the gov't, are required to take an oath that states they will support and defend the Constitution. When you testify in court, you "swear to tell the truth...," but this is mostly done so you understand that you need to tell the truth and that if you lie, are committing purjury.
steve s,
Is the oath taken in court simply a "swearing to tell the truth," or swearing to God?
Streak,
I felt like we would be on the same page on this one, too. Some do say that since, in the pledge, the words "under God" are recited, it links God and country; still problematic to me. Does the clause legitimately serve that purpose, or is it simply descriptive?
I would hazard to say this is where a lot of the "Christian nation" rhetoric arises from, albeit misinformed.
It is swearing to tell the truth. I don't believe most courts swear to God anymore, nor could they make anyone do that.
I forget who is the attorney (is it Steve S?), but it's my understanding that it's illegal to lie in court whether you swear or not- would that not be a safe bet? I know this is a side point on this post.
Streak the historian- what's the derivation of the phrase "under God"? I've challenged some friends in the past on the theology of "under God" i.e. are we physically "under" God, why not "one nation, indwelled by God's Holy Spirit", etc... Most of them have responded that it really isn't a good term theologically but it's just good to have God in there. I think what most would like to see is "one nation, chosen by God". Sorry- feeling a little pissy today:-). Later- BB
BB, I think your take on it is closer than most would like to admit.
BB, you are correct. That would be perjury, but it has to be on a material matter. The oath is mostly done so that the person giving testimony realizes that they have to tell the truth and that they will be in trouble if they do not.
"on a material matter."
Could you expand on that?
BB here- I'm not on my computer and can't remember my google username.
Steve- while we're on the tangient- in addition to giving us a remedial course here (i.e. material matter) could you also explain the distinction concerning testifying before congress "under oath" or "not under oath"? Again, would it not be illegal to lie in this case, too, or is it that they more free to not answer questions at all if they aren't under oath? OR is it just a rhetoric smoke screen dance? Later- BB
A material matter speaks to the heart of the case and has an effect on the outcome. If a witenss were to lie about something that is irrelevant to the outcome, then it is immaterial.
As for testifying before Congress, I am going to have to step outside my expertise. Perjury applies to testimony given under oath. If you lie to the police, there may be some circumstances where you would be guilty of obstruction of justice, but you would not be guilty of perjury. There are other circumstances where a statute says some false assertions are perjurous. If you lie on your 1040, you may be guilty of perjury.
I don't know if there is any statute that deals with a lie to Congress. If there is not, and you are not under oath, I would say that it would be easier to lie and not be sanctioned, but I'll have to poke around to see.
Post a Comment