Governor General refuse to swear oath on bible

[feelgood]

I can't find the article relating directly to the event in question but I did find a Letters to the Editor in the Calgary Sun today:

I am disappointed with Haitian-born journalist Michaelle Jean, Canada's new Governor General. Jean adamantly refused to be sworn into her position as the Queen's representative in Canada by swearing on the Bible. Heritage Department officials have stated that no previous GG have ever refused the Bible. The selection of radical "non-believer" Jean by Prime Minister Paul Martin appears in line with the Liberals' on-going agenda to purge religion from the public square.
--Paul Kokoski

What really irked me is that somebody out there believes that every member of the government regardless of their position, should absolutely take the oath on the bible. I don't understand why, it's necessary for the person to swear an oath on the bible to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in Section 2, Article A not state the following:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

Does that mean anybody in a governmental position is excluded from that particular section of the charter? Naturally, I emailed a letter to the Sun in respond similar to above and to be perfectly blunt, the bible has no place within our democracy. I see it as a choice made by the person in question and should not be forced upon.

What's your opinion and I'm curious as to what your government does in this kind of situation. I would imagine that by now, the Americans would have figured out to ban bibles from swearing-in ceremonies after a long history of banning any religious material from the justice system.

Edit: I did find this on wikipedia, strange enough CBC or CTV doesn't have anything on this.

Wikipedia Article

I can't find anything other than this fragment but this suggests she's probably an atheist or an agnostic, since she is not swearing in to the GG's post on a bible. Of note, "She's not going to swear on the Bible because she is not practising herself, so it would show a lack of respect to the people who have faith,"

[smooth]

Many places allow an "oath of affirmation" rather than swearing on the bible.

[highthief]

So some crackpout out in Alberta has a problem with it ... no big deal. There's millions more like them, but they aren't in power in this country and likely never will be.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by highthief

So some crackpout out in Alberta has a problem with it ... no big deal. There's millions more like them, but they aren't in power in this country and likely never will be.

Wish our country could say that.

[Charlatan]

I could care less about this and as much as I do care about it I applaud her ability, dispite her position to stand up for her personal beliefs.

And to those who would take the opposite position all I ask is that you consider what it would be like and how you would feel if the situation were reversed.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Wish our country could say that.

Really. I had a pang of jealousy when I read that.

Not the first time I've contemplated moving to Canada!

[BigBen]

I stated this before in a different thread (can't remember which one)

If you want to swear allegiance to the Queen, you do it on a Bible. That is the protocol and that is how the ceremony is written.

If you don't want to use a Bible the ceremony quickly, quietly and with a true sense of Canadian inclusion turns to a SOLEMN DECLARATION. That mentions no religion whatsoever, and now you Solemnly Declare that you will be faithful to the Queen and Canada.

Problem solved.

One new kid getting sworn into the Army didn't like the Monarchy, and just about refused to enter because of it. We made it perfectly clear that she was our Commander-In-Chief, and if he didn't like that he could fuck off. He quietly submitted.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Really. I had a pang of jealousy when I read that.

Not the first time I've contemplated moving to Canada!

Its not the first time I've contemplated you moving to Canada either.

[Daoust]

I take no pride in being a part of this Godless country. I believe its a national shame and something we should try to hide, not flaunt.

I take pride in being a Canadian, dont' get me wrong. But I strongly dislike our growing atheistic, gnostic state.

[the_tyipist]

She might be a Christian.

Matthew 5:34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I live in a Mennonite area, and know of many Jurors etc. who would affirm instread of swearing because of that verse.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Daoust

I take no pride in being a part of this Godless country. I believe its a national shame and something we should try to hide, not flaunt.

I take pride in being a Canadian, dont' get me wrong. But I strongly dislike our growing atheistic, gnostic state.

Daoust, I don't think you have it right. This nation is hardly a "Godless country". Look around. How many churches do you see? How many people send their children to publicly funded Catholic schools?

Our nation is not the unified Christian nation it was when it was founded. We are a nation of a multitude of religious faiths and cultures. Why have our governenment hold to anyone of these (or any for that matter)?

Governments should be secular. However, there is nothing to stop the individual politicians from expressing their faith. Most speeches I see, carry some mention of God or faith (Paul Martin is a faithful Catholic). The difference between here and other nations is that our politicians do not see it as neccessary to wear their religion on their sleeve. It may infuse who they are but it does not have to be all that they are about.

I know you are a devout practicing Christian. I applaud you for convictions as much as I do the GG for hers. I should point out that, I may be an aetheist but I will be one of the first people on the front line if there is a fight to defend anyone's right to practice their religion.


Here's a question. What if the GG was a Buddhist, or a Jew, or Hindu? Why would she swear to a God in which she has no belief? I would rather have someone who was true to their beliefs than someone who merely paid lip service to a religion to please the populace.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its not the first time I've contemplated you moving to Canada either.

I'll bet!

Buuuut... I guess I'll stick around the ol' USA and continue to subvert the dominant paradigm.

[Daoust]

I hear what you're saying, Charlatan, and I respect that your opinion is different than mine.
I don't believe that the sheer number of churches in our country reflect on the number of God fearing, Christians-by-practice we have here. Just because our country may still have 'religious' affiliations does not make it any more morally grounded than if it were an atheist country... and I attibute that to the 'religious' people who have not defended their faith by living it out. I am sure that statistically, Canada would be called a "Christian" country, by virtue of the higher populations of those who fall under the broad spectrum of Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, than those who fall under the umbrellas of other religions and faiths. But we are NOT a Christian country by practice.
And you, and many others applaud that, and are glad for it. Our charter of rights permits us religious freedoms, and that's a good thing.
I guess my main issue was that people are gettign upset about our GG having to perform a political ritual on a religious item, and a Christian one at that. If it WERE a Hindu Bible or a Muslim Qu'ran, or a Multi Faith Encyclopaedia, I'm positive that the GG wouldn't have minded, and much less the Canadian people at large.
I just don't think we should call ourselves a Christian nation if by and large the people of this country want nothing to do with Christ.

[RAGEAngel9]

Originally Posted by Daoust

I hear what you're saying, Charlatan, and I respect that your opinion is different than mine.
I don't believe that the sheer number of churches in our country reflect on the number of God fearing, Christians-by-practice we have here. Just because our country may still have 'religious' affiliations does not make it any more morally grounded than if it were an atheist country... and I attibute that to the 'religious' people who have not defended their faith by living it out. I am sure that statistically, Canada would be called a "Christian" country, by virtue of the higher populations of those who fall under the broad spectrum of Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, than those who fall under the umbrellas of other religions and faiths. But we are NOT a Christian country by practice.
And you, and many others applaud that, and are glad for it. Our charter of rights permits us religious freedoms, and that's a good thing.
I guess my main issue was that people are gettign upset about our GG having to perform a political ritual on a religious item, and a Christian one at that. If it WERE a Hindu Bible or a Muslim Qu'ran, or a Multi Faith Encyclopaedia, I'm positive that the GG wouldn't have minded, and much less the Canadian people at large.
I just don't think we should call ourselves a Christian nation if by and large the people of this country want nothing to do with Christ.

I'm sorry but that's crap. You know damn well that having to swear on the Qu'ran or Torah or any other religious text would cause problems as well. People like to think they're persecuted, but you know what you will be fed to the lions any time soon.

[Charlatan]

Daoust... people are upset because she *didn't* use the bible to swear into office... that should tell you something right there.

Ordinarily, the GG would have sworn in on the bible and no one would have batted an eye. If she was a Christian and believed in the power of that religion she would do well to swear on a bible. However, if she does not believe in God, why would you want her to swear on a bible? Wouldn't that be a case of trivializing Christians? Again, I would rather have someone who is firm in their beliefs rather than someone who would make an oath on something they feel holds no sway on their life.

I don't think we really need to be a Christian country by practice (I'm not sure what that would mean exactly). What I think we need to be is a secular humanist country that allows freedom of religion. Good morality and good governance need not be tied to any one religion.

I think I understand where you are coming from but the best way to fight what you see as immorality and improper living is to provide an example of what is right. Whether someone takes an oath on a religious item is entirely beside the point.


As for your final comment, I think you are mistaken... if she had have sworn on some other religion icon, there would have been an outcry that would have drowned out the noise made by those who claimed she was a seperatist.

[Daoust]

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

People like to think they're persecuted, but you know what you will be fed to the lions any time soon.

Can you clarify the meaning of this statement, please?

Also:
"She's not going to swear on the Bible because she is not practising herself, so it would show a lack of respect to the people who have faith."

Did Jean's rep say this?

[BigBen]

Originally Posted by Daoust

...I just don't think we should call ourselves a Christian nation if by and large the people of this country want nothing to do with Christ.

Nobody calls Canada a Christian nation.

Maybe in the past, maybe in certain parts of the land and in certain social circles, but Canada is certainly not a Christian nation.

I have never called it that, and I have never heard it referred to that, before this post. Where do you get that statement from?

We are multicultural, plain and simple. With that comes multidenominationalism (wtf? Did I just invent a new word?).

I don't think we should call ourselves a Christian Nation.

[RAGEAngel9]

Originally Posted by Daoust

Can you clarify the meaning of this statement, please?

Also:
"She's not going to swear on the Bible because she is not practising herself, so it would show a lack of respect to the people who have faith."

Did Jean's rep say this?

*sigh*
Sorry. I typed to fast and didn't proofread.
My point was that you will not be fed to the lions anytime soon, so lose the persecution complex. I understand if you do not like the fact that x form of Christianity no longer has as much direct control of government (frankly you can still argue this point, but that's more of a special interest group arguement).
Why don't you look at it like this... The GG is neutral to all religions. No one has any true advantage, but more importantly no one has an immediate disadvantage.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'll bet!

Buuuut... I guess I'll stick around the ol' USA and continue to subvert the dominant paradigm.

What happens if your thought becomes the dominant paradigm?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by BigBen

Nobody calls Canada a Christian nation.

Maybe in the past, maybe in certain parts of the land and in certain social circles, but Canada is certainly not a Christian nation.

I have never called it that, and I have never heard it referred to that, before this post. Where do you get that statement from?

We are multicultural, plain and simple. With that comes multidenominationalism (wtf? Did I just invent a new word?).

I don't think we should call ourselves a Christian Nation.

Because there was never a need to.

Its only when Christianity comes under attack like it has been that you see people get defensive about it.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Because there was never a need to.

Its only when Christianity comes under attack like it has been that you see people get defensive about it.

Was the Governor General's refusal to swear on the bible an exampe of Christianity under attack?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by sapiens

Was the Governor General's refusal to swear on the bible an exampe of Christianity under attack?

Yes..........(now its long enough)

[silent_jay]

I for one am glad she stood up for what she believed in, who really gives a rats ass if she gets sworn in on the bible or green eggs and ham, it's a book, not every member of government is going to believe the same thing. As for this being an attack on christianity, give me a break, I'm sick of this over sensetive world we live in where people piss and moan over every little thing. That is the end of my rant.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes..........(now its long enough)

Do all expressions of belief different from Christianity qualify as examples of Christianity under attack?

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes..........(now its long enough)

Care to expand on that? Saying her actions are an "attack on Christianity" is like saying, taking the vow with a Bible is an attack on Islam.

Bit narrow don't you think?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by sapiens

Do all expressions of belief different from Christianity qualify as examples of Christianity under attack?

Yes when done so publicly, and purposfully as this was done.

Note I speak nothing of the justification of the attack, only that it was an attack. I think it was stupid grandstanding to not swear on the bible, as an exchristian and atheist I would without hesitation, and I would take my oath seriously as well. There is something to be said for tradition, especially harmless ones (or does the bible burn her fingers or make her feel unclean?). An attack can be truthful, it can be justified, it can be as simple as not swearing on a bible, but it is still an attack on both Christianity and the traditions of Canada.

For me, Canada gets what it deserves, its socialist experiment has started to fail and I will laugh at them when it does in slapstick humor fashion, pat them on the figerative back when they get back on their feet, and continue to love them.

[highthief]

I have no idea why anyone would want anyone else to take an oath on something that doesn't mean all that much to them. It's plainly silly and hypocritical - I'm glad she was smart enough to see that, even if some of the Sun's readers aren't.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

For me, Canada gets what it deserves, its socialist experiment has started to fail and I will laugh at them when it does in slapstick humor fashion, pat them on the figerative back when they get back on their feet, and continue to love them.

I feel the same way about the US crazy far right experiment! We'll still supply you with oil, water and all the other natural resources the rather portly US population consumes when you abandon your third world ways.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

For me, Canada gets what it deserves, its socialist experiment has started to fail and I will laugh at them when it does in slapstick humor fashion, pat them on the figerative back when they get back on their feet, and continue to love them.

Yes I know... we poor hapless Canadians are such a joke! We appreciate all the condescension you can muster.

As highthief points out, we will still be here when the US's neocon experiment finally collapses upon itself... granted the following economic collapse will likely drag us down with it... nothing to laugh about there.

As for not swearing on the bible being an "attack"... What hyperbole. The only reason this is even being talked about is because some increasingly conservative voices in Canada have chosen to make it an issue. It would have otherwise been a non-event.

In case you missed that, the only ones doing any "grandstanding" are those who have brought this to our attention. I stand by the belief that if you are going to take an oath you should swear on something meaningful to you othewise the oath is meaningless.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As for not swearing on the bible being an "attack"... What hyperbole. The only reason this is even being talked about is because some increasingly conservative voices in Canada have chosen to make it an issue. It would have otherwise been a non-event.

In case you missed that, the only ones doing any "grandstanding" are those who have brought this to our attention. I stand by the belief that if you are going to take an oath you should swear on something meaningful to you othewise the oath is meaningless.

Yes, its always the conservatives fault, we know that

I wonder if she would be willing to say the bible is 'meaningless' and she needs something 'meaningful' to say an oath on. That would be a hoot

[pan6467]

I for one appreciate Canada, it is a very beautiful country with extremely great hospitable people. It used to be we weren't that much different but things have changed, greed controls this country now.

If the new Governor General chooses not to be sworn in by the Bible, she has the right I guess. I see nothing wrong with it as long as she does the best job she was chosen to do. Her judgement comes between her and God, I was not placed on this planet to judge anyone's actions that do not harm me or my family, personally. Some of the greatest hypocrites I"ve ever seen were people who claimed to be "Christians" and could recite Bible verses while they badmouth, condemn, judge, steal, and do everything they can for the almighty dollar.

[Ace_O_Spades]

I would never take an oath on a bible. I'm not christian

A tradition like swearing on the bible was born from the assumption of religion being the ultimate meter of morality. Religion and government don't belong anywhere near each other, unless you're saying "religion doesn't belong in government."

She has the right not to swear on a bible... not everyone is christian *GASP!*

As for Canada's socialist experiment failing... how about we stop giving you all that awesome power, oil, and water... Then we'll see how long you guys can stay on your feet... Canada is prospering.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I wonder if she would be willing to say the bible is 'meaningless' and she needs something 'meaningful' to say an oath on. That would be a hoot

That would be within her rights under the charter. Albeit a foolish one, seeing as she is the head of state.

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes, its always the conservatives fault, we know that

I wonder if she would be willing to say the bible is 'meaningless' and she needs something 'meaningful' to say an oath on. That would be a hoot

she might not be willing to say it, but if she's not a christian, then the bible is meaningless. well, not meaningless, but it's a book no more meaningfull than something like aseops fables. it's got some stories, morals, but that's it.

i don't believe in jesus being the messiah. to me the bible is a book. and for the most part a highly fictional book. so would you want me swearing an oath on it? it'd be the same as you swearing an oath on harry potter and the sorcerers stone or some such book.

and that would be much more of an attack on christianity than refusing to swear on the bible.

[Daoust]

Sort of taking this thread in a new direction, although it's been touched on slightly:

Should we do away with the swearing on the Bible? Should we do away with swearing all together in courts? Should be swear on Green Eggs and Ham, as has been suggested? What do you think?

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by Daoust

Sort of taking this thread in a new direction, although it's been touched on slightly:

Should we do away with the swearing on the Bible? Should we do away with swearing all together in courts? Should be swear on Green Eggs and Ham, as has been suggested? What do you think?

yep. we should definatly get rid of swearing on the bible. i relize it is tradition, but it is a tradition that really doesn't, or shouldn't, have a place in a secular govt.

[Charlatan]

This came up in another thread, where some asked about having to swear on the bible in a court. I checked with my friend who is a trial lawyer and he confirmed that there are many ways to swear an oath -- you can swear on a bible, you can affirm an oath, he even mentioned one case where a Chinese person requested a traditional form of swearing an oath in China, it involved live chickens... and there are more.

The point being that this sort of thing happens *all the time*. People make oaths by swearing by things that have meaning to them.

Again, the only people making a big deal about this are those on the right who wish to disparage Paul Martin's choice of GG. Remember there is an election in our very near future.

By the way, I haven't seen this story anywhere on the news. I did a Google News search and didn't find anything either. Could it be that this was on only covered in the Sun?

[pan6467]

What if she's Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Maoist, as pointed out above very eloquently by "The Typist" Mennonite and refuses to swear on a Bible or one with the New Testament? Has she said she is atheist or are people just assuming because she refused to swear in on the Bible.

Her answer was very good, as lifted from the thread starters post =

"She's not going to swear on the Bible because she is not practising herself, so it would show a lack of respect to the people who have faith,"

Personally, I dislike the idea of any of my leaders swearing on a Bible. It shows that they are biased to one religion and therefore there's no true seperation of church and state. It does in fact show the opposite that the state only recognizes one religion, that of the Judeo Christian Bible.

Also, to me it shows far more honesty by saying, "I don't want to swear on the Bible, because....." than having someone take the oath swearing on the Bible and it truly didn't mean anything to them, it was just show to appease people.

I don't see this as an attack on Christianity, I see it as the opposite...... I see supposed Christians condemning her and a country for following their heart and staying true to thier (the GG and the country) beliefs. Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount,

Originally Posted by Matthew 7 -1&amp

"Judge not lest ye be judged, for with the judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again."

And here:

Originally Posted by Matthew 7 - 21-27

Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven..... Many will say unto me in that day Lord Lord have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have we cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?..... And then I will profess to them. I never knew you: depart from me ye that work inequity..... Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise manwhich built his house upon a rock......And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not;for it was founded upon rock..... And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon sand..... And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon the house and it fell and great that fall was."

So some should worry more about the beam in their own eyes than to worry about the splinter in their brothers or sisters eye. And televangelists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and politicians and radio talking heads should take more heed of what Jesus truly said than to pass judgement on others and feel their crap don't stink cause they prophesied His word..... even though they do not know his words.

BTW why would you want to swear on something supposedly so holy to do man's work. Countries were not made by God, governments were not made by God, 99.9% of laws were not made by God nor for God...... so why would I swear to my God to do the work not for him but for something man made that should have nothing to do with God or how I believe in HIm.

[BigBen]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...For me, Canada gets what it deserves, its socialist experiment has started to fail and I will laugh at them when it does in slapstick humor fashion, pat them on the figerative back when they get back on their feet, and continue to love them.

Interesting how when certain words are put together, emotion can be triggered.

Spoiler: My first reaction was a curtain of rage blinding my view of the computer monitor. Such arrogance, such hipocracy. "And continue to love them..." Words like that show no love. The next emotion was embarassment, that someone could spin me like that. Finally, I regained composure and realized that the same view applies to our neighbour to the south. Their experiment is not in good shape, IMHO, and when pots and kettles start debating the colour differences in charcoal and soot, things go badly. I would lose self respect in responding to that attack on my nations values. Instead, I leave it to you, the reader who has taken the time in reading this reply, to understand that words like the ones I have quoted above can have a profound effect on the reader. Please be careful what you write.

I am of the view that a Canadian citizen should be allowed to bring any religious article they want into a ceremony to make the solemn event personally meaningful to them. I have never heard of live chickens being used in an oath, but I think that would be cool. Our First Nations people often use Sweetgrass and tobacco, and I thought that was memorable.

I am going to have to agree with others on this one. This is a non-event.

[rideough]

This is the only article I found on it: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092603.html

OTTAWA, September 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s Governor-general designate, Haitian-born Canadian Michaelle Jean, said she will not be sworn into her position as the Queen’s representative in Canada by swearing on the bible.

Her press secretary said she would instead use a solemn affirmation, arguing that as a non-believer, the action would “show a lack of respect to the people who have faith,” according to a National Post report.

The Canadian Heritage Department confirmed that, at least in the 25 years they have kept track, “this would be the first time” a governor general would be installed without swearing on the bible.

The selection of “non-believer” Jean by “Catholic”, in good standing with the Church, Paul Martin, appears in line with the Liberals’ on-going agenda to purge religion from the public square.

Ben I had the same reaction, I had to make sure I hit the back button before I made a snap post and got myself into trouble, then after thinking about it, I figured the person who posted that wasn't worth my time or my effort to reply.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by rideough

This is the only article I found on it: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092603.html


Ben I had the same reaction, I had to make sure I hit the back button before I made a snap post and got myself into trouble, then after thinking about it, I figured the person who posted that wasn't worth my time or my effort to reply.

Shit, that wasn't rideough who posted that, it was me, I'm babysitting his kids and using his computer, I must look at who I am logged in as before I post...lol.