Randy New Man wrote:Since nobody in this group is likely to be putting their hand on the bible while taking the oath
Shouldn't be such a bibliophic . . . . you know, just in case. Point was, it frees up a hand - sometime associated with oathtaking - to put behind your back and cross your fingers.spanky wrote:What does the bible, or lack thereof, have to do with your fauxth.
So we make the oath a smorgasbord?spanky wrote:I donÃ¢??t see this as a political issue as much as a practical one, from my p.o.v. anyway. Without the amendment you have one of two things: many committee appointees serving without signing any oath, or the subsequent removal of all these members because of their unwillingness to sign w/o the amendment.
Brenda Konkel wrote:Here's where the language should be. The link is currently flawed but hopefully fixed soon. The missing language says:
I pledge to work to eliminate this section from the Constitution and work to prevent any discriminatory impacts from its application.
Sponsored by . . . .Brian Benford, Austin W. King, Brenda K. Konkel, David J. Cieslewicz, Michael E. Verveer, Zachariah Brandon, Judy K. Olson
I have no clue why only my name was mentioned in the WSJ article, perhaps to raise the ire of the conservaties?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests