Republican wants religious element in oath for Iowa legislators

[47of74]

Ugh. Here's one of the latest examples of Republican stupidity.

A Republican member of the Iowa Legislature is proposing lawmakers should be required to say “so help me God” when being sworn into office.

Free-speech advocates say the proposal by Mount Auburn Rep. Dawn Pettengill goes against the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. American Civil Liberties Union legal director Randall Wilson says compelled speech violates the First Amendment just as much as censored speech.

Pettengill’s resolution would change the Iowa Constitution.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Des Moines says he will talk with Republican leaders and fellow Democrats to see whether there would be any interest in pursuing the matter.

I hope this push goes nowhere fast. It's obvious Pettengill never read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. You know, the part that says among other things no religious test shall be required.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Well so help me Buddha

If they do that, they will hearing from me. And what if a particular lawmaker chooses to obey United States law and not say it? Will he or she not be an official lawmaker, even though they were legally elected? Stupid motherfuckers. We are smack dab in the middle of one of the worst budget crises in history and they want to worry about phrasing and gay marriage? What is wrong with these Righties? Oh wait, never mind.

[Cairycat]

2. To me, that amounts to swearing an oath

and people in my denomination, and numerous other Christian denominations, do not swear oaths. Seems like Pettengill is not only promoting Christianity, but a particular kind of Christianity. But regardless, this sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud.

If I were a legislator and were beginning my term, I would say, "I so affirm" - why isn't that good enough?

[47of74]

3. I just thought of this part of Matthew 23;

That post about not swearing religious oaths made me think of this particular part of Matthew 23;

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.(Matt 23:16-22)

[progressoid]

4. AND they should have to swear they are heterosexuals.

Good grief, what a bufoon.

[Blue Gardener]

5. Another batshit crazy republican

I don't think she'll get far.

[Witan00]

6. That measure will go nowhere fast....

....since it is blatantly unconstitutional. But hey, when has that ever stopped the Dominionists?