You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #47: Friends (aka Quakers) would have refused to swear [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #31
47. Friends (aka Quakers) would have refused to swear
One of their basic views is a refusal to swear an oath. They see this as both a violation of the commandment not to take God's name in vain, and as a personal insult that the word of a Christian is insufficient. That is why many oaths say, "I swear (or affirm)," which allows the person taking the oath to use either form. By the same token, most Friends would refuse to say "So help me God."

And yes, this is the illegal establishment of religion, pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC