July 27, 2019
Honorable Jerold Nadler
Chairperson Judiciary Committee US House of Representatives
Given
your position of leadership in the Democratic response to President Trump's
actions, you have a unique opportunity inherent in your chairman
position, specifically the administration of the oath of office. The
one to Mr. Mueller was viewed by tens of millions of Americans, yet it
was perfunctory, a preface to the hearings which were the main event.
You asked him to stand and raise his right hand, and you said,
"Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you
are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge so
help you God?" He responded, "I do."
You
were among the nine members of the House of Representatives to vote in
2011 in favor of the national motto of "In God We Trust" to be reverted
to the previous one. In 1956 there may have been a justification for
replacing "E Pluribus Unum" with one that differentiated us from
communism, which is atheistic, but our world has changed since then. If
there ever was a justification for this tacit religious indoctrination,
it no longer exists.
The highly respected Pew Research Center provides encyclopedic ongoing reports
on this subject that's is too extensive to summarize here. Let me say
their data shows that this oath of office that includes an allusion to
God is inimical to the spirit of enlightenment and our own first
amendment. I realize that our Supreme Court has consistently rejected
this view but never specifically on the swearing in of a witnesss.
Since this oath of office is part of a different and co-equal branch of government, I doubt they will attempt to adjudicate it.
The
exact words of the statement of a witness that places their testimony
under sanctions of perjury are not prescribed by law, which allows you
personally, to have an effect on legitimizing the expanding numbers who
do not believe in God, or who prefer to keep their views private.
One
taking the oath to testify should continue to have the right to convey
their belief that a false statement will be punished by a higher
authority. This can be achieved by the chairperson asking the witness "Do you (swear or affirm) to tell the truth etc..... The individual
may then answer in two ways. "I do, so help me God" or simply "I do"
Whether
you should use this suggested variation based on your own discretion is
an open issue. It may make sense to bring this up at a closed
Democratic caucus hearing, but I do not see this requiring a vote of
the entire House of Representatives. Belief in a higher
being has become a political football. Ironically, two demographics, African Americans and Southern White evangelicals are most dedicated to advancing Christianity. If my suggestion is to be considered the means of introduction should be
sensitive to the short and the long term political effects. My
suggestion does not deny any person so inclined to personally state
his/her promise to a higher being. Yet, it also, with no disruption to
the order of business, allows one testifying to publicly legitimize a
secular orientation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas California see notes that follow:
AlRodbell@Gmail.Com
AlRodbell.com -personal blog with links to elements of this message.
Recent refusal by the Supreme Court to accept case that allowed the motto to remain on U.S. Currency
This
is based on the view that such reverence to God on public places is
"ceremonial deism" which does not impinge on the establishment clause of
the constitution.
The
rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with
religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives,
and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the
truth; no special verbal formula is required. As is true generally,
affirmation is recognized by federal law. “Oath” includes affirmation, 1 U.S.C. §1;
judges and clerks may administer oaths and affirmations, 28 U.S.C.
§§459, 953; and affirmations are acceptable in lieu of oaths under Rule
43(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perjury by a witness is a crime, 18 U.S.C. §1621.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment pending approval