On Swearing An Oath On A Bible

I was reading this article, which is basically about Newt Gingrich's response to President Obama no longer defending the Defense Of Marriage Act. For those of you who do not know, the Defense Of Marriage Act is a law enacted during Bush's presidency defining marriage federally as between a man and a woman. This is important for many reasons, which are neither here nor there, but basically it boils down to this. If you live in a state where gay marriage is legal, like Connecticut, you have the same spousal benefits as anyone else. In Connecticut. When it comes to those rights federally, you do not have them. You can't file taxes as a married couple, for instance. There are implications with estate taxes, too. While not what this post is about, it got me thinking.

At the end of the article there is this quote:

He is breaking his word to the American people. He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

This isn't the obvious, normal argument over swearing on a Bible and separation of church and state. I don't really know how I feel about all that, and I don't think it really matters much in the scheme of things. What got me thinking is, what about atheists?

I know, we are never going to elect an atheist anytime soon here. They poll worse than gays and Muslims for public office. And while I have no problem with either gays or Muslims, a lot of Americans do. This is a very important point to consider. In the entire history of the Congress, only six have been openly gay--one woman, five men. Not one of those six comes courtesy of the Senate.

So while gay rights have come some ways, there's still a way to go in terms of electing them to high, public office, and to elect a gay president is, I think, at least a decade away.

Then there are Muslims. Only two have ever served in Congress, both converts, which is, again, important. When most Americans think of Islam, they think of September 11. They think of terrorists with beards, dark skin, and automatic weapons. They don't think of this:

Then there's atheists. Atheists receive a lot of scorn, which I really don't understand. Religious people seem to get bent out of shape over others' beliefs (in this case, non-beliefs). Maybe it's because I'm not overtly religious, but I think if I was, it wouldn't bother me that someone else did not believe in my God. Being raised a Catholic and going to Catholic schools, I certainly never thought the ancient Egyptians or any other religious group which many deities were somehow heathens. Who was I to question someone else's beliefs? If I were a devout Christian, I wouldn't be so worried about other people's souls, I'd want to make sure mine was in tact first.

For the record, there is one atheist in Congress, which is surprising, until you consider that it's in California, at which point it's no longer that surprising.

So, if we could somehow, as a country, form around an atheist president, what would he or she swear upon? Certainly a Bible makes no sense. Perhaps they would just swear. Perhaps they would just promise, because, for an atheist, being held accountable by a God they believe not to exist is like asking a thirty year old to swear on Santa Clause or the Bogeyman. Where is the harm in breaking that promise?

In a more everyday sense, I wonder what atheists do in courtrooms and the like, where this sort of event occurs more often.

What's The Deal With Believers Hating On Atheists?

Holier than thou comes to mind.


Hate is a very anti-Godly sentiment. I'm not sure of any passages in the Bible that suggest Christians hate anything, or anyone. There is something about loving one another though. Actually, that's in there a whole lot.

Believers are Good because God requires it. Evil, or bad people go to hell, so believers are sort of scared into doing good deeds and being good. And apparently condemning those less good than they, ironic, no?

Atheists are good, not as an afterlife styled reward, but for a moral reward, for being fair and good to their fellow man, regardless of their creed.

Why do believers assume that atheists are bitter about death and not having a heaven? I would think not having a Heaven would lead atheists to lead fuller, happier, more meaningful lives. Believers don't believe their soul ends at death, the more meaningful life for them, therefore, is in the afterlife, in eternity. Human life, as we know it, is merely a waiting period to see if one is worthy of that afterlife. For non believers, though, this Earthly life bears much more consequence, and they are forced to live a good life. Not necessarily a better life mind you. Believers and non believers are no better than one another. just different in their opinions.

Believers find hope, joy, and meaning in God, in the Bible (His Words), and in His message. A message filled with wisdom such as "Be good to one another," "Don't hate," "Be honest, loving people," and so on. Nonbelievers find meaning in similar sentiments, they just aren't based on any type of theologic doctrine of any belief in a God or gods. Being good for goodness' sake, comes to mind.

Rewards aren't always the best catalyst for good deeds. Doing so likens us to animals-- getting treats for behaving and punished for disobeying. But we are more than just animals, wouldn't you think? We ought to think better of ourselves. Sometimes being good is it's own reward. If I'm passing by an accident and stop to help, should I be doing so to gain favor from God, or because those people really might need the help? (Of course, sometimes helping just gets in the way of firefighters, and other emergency responders, so do keep that in mind!)

Atheists don't even generally hate on religions or God as a whole. Yes, some do, and they're morons. I don't think your average nonbeliever looks at religious people with disdain or pity. I think that they generally accept religious people's belief system as one that gives them meaning and joy. Atheists don't snicker or belittle them, they just don't get anything gratifying from praying to a God they don't believe exists. I would think believers would appreciate that nonbelievers don't pray to a God they don't believe in. To me, that would be more offensive.

Pretending is far worse than not participating. I'm not a religious person, so I don't attend church or anything like that. But if my presence is requested at a church for a wedding or a baptism, I'm not going to say no. My presence there means more to those who invited me than my unease about being in a church. And that trepidation isn't that I'm scared of not having an afterlife or anything, it's because I don't intend any disrespect to those who fervently believe in that religion's teachings and beliefs. But I am respectful, always. I've grown up going to private, Catholic schools, so I know the traditions. I don't pretend to adhere to them when I'm at a baptism or wedding, instead I participate. In the event I'm invited to, not the religious aspects of it. If I were asked to be a Godparent to someone, I'd inform them of my beliefs, and make sure they understood that my being a Godparent, would not be religious, but physical. I'd be whatever was required of me.

Nonbelievers don't attack religious people, or believers in God (in general). They don't even attack God. I think the most angry, and vocal voices tend to be against how believers treat other believers. Atheists tend to argue against the establishment when the establishment acts, shall we say, less than humane. Often, this is a voice of support to those who might not get much, and it's probably from the last place expected. Televangelists who take advantage of their constituents, Muslim women who are mistreated and beaten, Catholic priests who get transferred after being accused of molesting children. These are all events that tend to incite the more fervent anger from atheists, not the fact that some people believe in a God atheists don't believe in.

We should all just be good people. Treat others well and with respect, and it will be returned. We don't need any of that holier than thou crap; it gets us nowhere.

Which Would You Prefer: God Or Science?

We all get sick. Some of us are fortunate and our sickness passes, others are not so fortunate, however. Often, when one is sick, they pray, or others pray for them; obviously this doesn't always work--people die prematurely on a daily basis. Are these people all atheists, surrounded only by other atheists? Would a God, all-knowing, refuse to save otherwise honest, good people simply for this small transgression?

On the one hand, there's God. People pray to God daily. Sometimes he answers, sometimes he doesn't. People always seem to say that when something tragic happens that, "God has a plan." If that is the case, then I would have to assume that praying doesn't do much good, no? If we are determined to live out a certain life, as if actors in God's great play, then why pray? And if praying really does do any honest, actual good, then what about the times when it doesn't work? Is that God picking favorites? Is it God punishing otherwise good people for something else?

Then there is science. Science has reason. Science can be explained. Eventually. Science always at least tries. Very rarely (I hesitate to say never) does science just give up and not try. If someone is sick, a doctor will try to save them. Science will try for a cure. Eventually, Science finds it. Science has, and will continue to, make great strides, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes, Science isn't there yet.

So I ask you this, which would you prefer:

A God who doesn't always answer
or
Science, which doesn't always have them