Four words. A prayer, and a promise. These words culminate the swearing-in of a Supreme Court judge.
Here's the complete text:
I, ..........., do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Chief Justice (or as one of the judges) of the Supreme Court of Canada. So help me God.
I recall seeing one of the judges sworn in. She uttered the last four words with obvious scorn, apparently eager to distance herself, in front of her peers, from the humility and dependency these words, if sincerely spoken, would convey. Apparently, she viewed herself as comfortably above the need for God's help.
Which is why Canada now needs God's help more than ever.
As for me, I'm going to try to continue to speak truthfully yet with kindness concerning the Canadian situation.
So help me God.
6 comments:
One of the fears expressed by Mr. Martin was that Mr. Harper would fill the court with conservative judges.
He figures that Mr. Harper will be just like him only on the other side. That must be the hidden agenda.
It will be interesting to see what happens since we have such an activist court. The Americans have a procedure for dealing with the problem. It may have some flaws but the judges are answerable to the politicians at least once.
Our judges seem to have as their only requirement that they have been friendly to the PM's personal agenda. This situation may have been ok in the past but not under the charter where they keep reading in stuff.
I'm just glad that in America we have no religious test for office nor is "so help me God" a part of any oath of office.
When Liberals appoint liberals, they don't see this as ideological, they see this as simply the natural and right thing to do.
When Conservatives appoint a conservative, it's seen as ideological.
The point is not so much a "religious test" as it is to point out that the current dogma that says that religious thinking has no place in public life and that laws must be interpreted in a strictly "secular" manner, is an obvious innovation; in the past, religious thinking permeated our culture, informed our views, and directed our path.
In the US, oaths are sworn as follows:
Members of Congress: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Supreme Court Justices: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
The Vice-President: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The President of the United States: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This latter oath is sworn on a Bible.
I stand corrected on the Congressional, Supreme Court, and VP oaths. However, these were established by statute law and not Constitutional law. The part naming God can be left off by the person taking the oath. Placing the hand on a Bible is customery and not a part of the Constitutional requirement for taking the oath.
The "wall of separation" between church and state is not as big or high or thick as secularists would like to make out. The intent of the law forbidding Congress to establish a religion was to prevent the federal government from impeding the free practice of religion at the state level.
Secularists have hijacked the concept of separation of church and state to advance their own secular agenda.
Post a Comment