If I meet God in the afterlife I’ll believe and go to heaven then.
One God, many perceptions…
Let’s just say, you then look back on your life here on earth. Would you have done anything differently?
Why do you feel the need to believe something has power over you and must be bowed to? If that’s how you feel, that’s fine for you. Don’t assume I feel the same.
In the same sense that, from your perspective, God has power over the government, from my perspective I personally have that same power.
Seems the more authoritarian thing to do is make you swear to a god you may or may not believe in.
But that’s just me.
You seem to have changed the discussion point. I pointed out that our forefathers in government agreed there was a higher power than government. In this thread, people are disagreeing about God’s existence. Therefore I suggested instead of saying “Under God” or “So Help me God” they could replace it with something else. Since you apparently did not care for my earlier suggestions naming inalienable rights, how about, “One Nation, under the Constitution” or, “May the Constitution help me if I don’t.”
Somehow you took these comments and made it about me. Who cares if I see the sun as having power over me and I take time to be out in the sun to absorb some Vitamin D? Or, who cares if I feel love has greater power than I have, and therefore strive to bring more love into my life and the lives of others? Further, I don’t assume you feel the same way.
All I know is that you haven’t a clue as to how I am seeing things, and take, as a matter of course, I haven’t a clue about you.
Does your personal power over the government extend to power over me and others?
Why replace it with anything?
No. From my perspective, neither does God’s.
Why not just say “I affirm that my statements are the truth”?
basically some angels went to a city and some people were like “yo bring out those angels so we can rape them!” and Lot was like NOOOO that’s rude here rape my virgin daughters instead! And they were like NOOOO and then the angels were like that was awful nice of you Lot, to offer your virgin daughters up for rape on our behalf. We will spare you! But this city is donezo the end yay religion.
and now like maybe we will also be smoted as such because of some arbitrary wording in legal oaths or something.
How you look at it is certainly valid. However, the tradition/history of how it came into being has to do with reminding the government (and the people) that the current governing body is not the highest power. The question is whether this new/different perspective should now replace tradition? The best argument that it should stems from so many not even being aware of the tradition!
That would make sense. When reciting the Oath of Enlistment, the Service Member can opt to affirm rather than swear.
It does not have to be replaced. I was addressing what it might be replaced with.
It is good for the population (and especially the government) to remember that government is not the tip of the pyramid–that we all have birthrights the government is bound to honor.
I’m skeptical of people trying to make me believe in a higher power, one which they can then use for their own purposes.
Same with any oath of office in the United States, or in court.
I like what was suggested near the very beginning of this thread: Let ‘yes’ be my ‘yes’ and ‘no’ be my no. It is simple, straightforward, direct.
If someone is attempting to make you believe in a higher power so they can make use of you, they will be quite disappointed when you meet that higher power and go off in an entirely different direction from them.
And if I don’t anticipate meeting a higher power?