A poll worker in South Carolina says he’s being barred from doing his job unless he takes an oath to God. The only problem? He doesn’t believe in one.
In 2023, South Carolina resident James Reel completed all the required training to serve as a poll worker for the 2024 election. But state law mandates that he swear an oath ending with “so help me God” – a line that Reel refused to say, because he’s an atheist.
The state’s response? No oath, no job. Officials refused to swear him in unless he repeated the entire phrase, God included.
Now, he’s filing a lawsuit against the state, alleging religious discrimination and a violation of his First Amendment rights.
The Christian Oath
The oath reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God.
According to Reel, he called the Greenville County voter registration and elections office to inquire if there was a way he could say the whole oath, minus the last four words. They informed him that the oath cannot be changed, and he would have to recite the entire oath to serve as a poll worker. Reel refused, citing his deeply held atheist beliefs.
A Religious Freedom Violation?
Is that legal? The Freedom From Religion Foundation – which is representing Reel in his lawsuit – argues that public officials were “coercing a statement of belief in a monotheistic deity by requiring nontheists or those worshiping more than one deity to swear ‘so help me God’ in order to serve as poll workers.”
“Jim Reel, a veteran who wants to continue serving his community as a poll worker, should be congratulated, not barred simply because he is an atheist,” said Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This legal challenge seeks to put an end to this discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional practice.”
They point to Supreme Court precedent, which they believe is on their side. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Court ruled that religious tests cannot be required to hold public office. Although that case dealt with a notary, it’s been interpreted broadly to cover all levels of public service.
Yet when confronted by the FFRF, the South Carolina Election Commission director simply responded, “the County Boards must require [the oath] be signed before trained candidates are appointed poll workers.”
That response may as well read: “See you in court.”
“So Help Me God” Still on the Books
Religious requirements for public servants remain technically on the books in several states, though they’re rarely enforced. South Carolina appears to be testing that boundary, forcing a nonbeliever to violate his conscience simply to serve his community.
Some could argue it’s just four words, what’s the harm? Yet critics say it’s easy to imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed, and a devout Christian hoping to serve the public during election season were forced to declare another four word sentence, “there is no God.”
What is your response? Should freedom of religion also mean freedom from religion?
96 comments
-
Rev. BH
Danny, if one white lie defines a character, you've no doubt never lied, correct?
-
Danny D. Maynard
I learned a big lesson when I was 10 years old. My mother caught me in an outright lie. I vowed never to do so knowingly ever again. I am not perfect, but I do have my good reasons, with supporting data for all the things that I say and do. However, I know that is not true of North American Christians. They stop learning when they started reading the Bible (and listening to their religious clerics spout anti-science nonsense), written in a time when human beings did not understand the weather, much less a vast Universe of massive planets and stars that put this Solar System to shame. It would be a real shame that some nameless, silent, invisible and eternally-absent God needed such a vast Universe to misuse a mediocre (at best) planet for founding its empty mythology.
-
-
Guy E. Sanders Jr
I find it interesting that those who claim Christianity in the comments are offended by this when the scriptures they claim to revere say this in Matthew 5:34-37 (New International Version):
34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
This is the reason courts allow you to "affirm" in lieu of swearing, taking into account that some religions do not allow swearing and some people don't believe in God or organized religion. And, considering the amount of politicians that we have who swear on the Bible and routinely lie, and people who "so help me God" promise to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' in court but lie, I'm trying to understand why this is such an issue.
-
Danny D. Maynard
The issue is with hypocrisy for both sides, depending on the oath wording. Either one is an employee who lies by taking the oath and does not believe, or the employer wants to hurt those they do not like but have never met over ambiguous claims about an imaginary god. The phrase "so help me God" is designed to divide the population, and not in a good way.
-
-
Donato DiVirgilio
Some of you are on the wrong track. It is a job application for a position not a religious act.. If you cannot even comply with the requirements to obtain a position then go somewhere else. What else would the employer have to deal with down the line? So maybe the men want to use the women's bathroom, or undress in front of women and children or not wear proper clothing. If you can not be trusted to even properly complete an application for a position, I DON"T WANT YOU!
-
Michael Hunt
If it's not a religious act, why do you have to swear upon the wrath of God when making this oath?
-
Rev. BH
Donato DiVirgilio, Right, If I do not say "so help me god", I'm likely to undress in front of women at work.
-
Danny D. Maynard
Exactly what do you think is "proper clothing"? Is the dress and tall hat the Pope wears appropriate clothing? Should women wear military clothing like men? Exactly which restrooms should they each use, and how can you tell who is who when they are wearing their full uniform AND an ICE MASK? Do you plan on heading the Police Force of Potsville?
-
-
Susan Frances Haid
You should not have to swear to God. It was also not originally on the pledge of allegiance or on our coinage; that is thanks to the McCarthy witch hunt. If the man was evil, he would just swear the oath then violate it. i think something like "i swear on my honor" would be better.
-
Danny D. Maynard
In the days when people could not write, they swore on their life or on their word, both of which are just about the same.
-
-
Keith D
Matthew 5:(34) But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: (35) Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; ...
Seems to me that it should be Christians above all opposing the wording.
-
Danny D. Maynard
You did not pick the verses they cherry-pick in South Carolina!
-
-
Brian Scott Hoff
The requirement of that oath being said exactly as written.. ridiculous. And seems likely to be un-constitutional.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Actually, NOT using the words "Under God" IS stating it exactly as it was originally written. Those words were not added until the 1950's.
-
-
Colleen McAllister
Freedom OF and freedom FROM are two different things. One does not guarantee the other. However since there is a separation of church and state, I believe that omitting those four words should be allowed.
-
Danny D. Maynard
I do not believe in any mythologies, including the Christian mythology.
-
-
Darrin Trim
The constitution does not support one religion and a person has the right to believe or not believe in any god. This is a clear violation of his right to not believe and request a different wording of the oath.
-
Michael Burton
Why not make it, "So help me by my God"....covers all the sins.
-
Lionheart
Yes, we all have things we like to worship…right? Even if it’s a nice glass of wine. 🍷
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart? More like Dionysus in disguise, right?
-
Lionheart
Yes, I think Jesus payed homage to Dionysus when he changed water into a nice fruity Merlot……or was it an aged Chardonnay? 🤔
🦁❤️
-
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
I do not believe in sin. Sin is an imaginary concept that was invented by religious fanatics to control their parishioners and steal their worldly goods!
-
Pastor George Day
Danny D. Maynard
Oh sure, and while we're at it, let's make jaywalking a national killing too.
-
-
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
"So Help Me Your God." That's just adding a word, not deleting words. It wasn't until a president was pressured to add "One Nation, Under God" that the Pledge of Allegiance included the wording "under God." That was not the original pledge. Speaking of pledges, when is Washington going to stand up for the oaths and pledges they took? They are breaking them every day.
-
James Douglas Beaumont
He has a very valid point. True freedom of religion would necessarily include the option to opt out. It is long overdue that the purported separation of religion and state is actually realized. It is the only way that we are actually going to have true freedom of religion (and that includes no religion if you so choose). To leave the system as it is, it effectively "weaponizes" the state "religion" against whatever other group they choose to target. And any nation that singles out and targets any of its members is, as the saying goes, like a calendar. Its days are numbered. Here's a suggestion, change that final bit to "On my honor." It is completely non-denominational and at the same time emphasizes that the true strength of anyone is his own integrity.
-
Danny D. Maynard
Religions seem to be leaning more towards what they do not like or do not believe, rather than what they do believe, how they love and how they live to show that love.
-
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
The three most significant “lies” that the USA spews from it’s public school textbooks are (1) the USA is a democracy— in fact, it’s a plutocracy; (2) There’s “freedom of religion” in the USA — when, in fact, as long as parents are religiously allowed brainwash (indoctrinate) their kids; freedom of religion isn’t possible; (3) The “theory” of evolution is merely a theory, when in actual fact, evolution explains everything that has ever happened in the Universe (including human origins) and that’s a matter of fact- evolution (via Nature) explains all that one needs to know. God and Nature are different aspects of the same thing. God, used by science “know nothings” and Nature, by those in the know.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Why don't you get someone to demonstrate how life creates itself? If evolution explains this then you should have no trouble showing me.
I'll wait for you to post the YouTube clip that documents sand becoming a living thing.
I'm really excited so please hurry.
-
Michael Hunt
Here's an explainer for you: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/from-soup-to-cells-the-origin-of-life/how-did-life-originate/
-
Pastor George Day
Michael Hunt
If one truly believes that all of this came into existence without an intelligent mind behind it, I am unsure of what the definition of ignorance would be. Respectfully.
Why not attempt to splash fresh colors onto your wall and observe the outcome? You know... you might create the Mona Lisa!
-
Michael Hunt
How does the existence of live require an intelligent mind to create it? We're not talking about something coming into existence over days or months but hundreds of millions, if not a billion or more years. Evolutionary theory is based on data and research, not faith, and scientists have shown how the building blocks of life can be created. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained
To help you with defining ignorance: it's a lack of knowledge or information. I think absorbing the knowledge and information available to me thanks to the scientific method is the opposite of ignorance. Following a book without question despite evidence which contradicts it, and continuing to claim the intellectual high ground fits the definition of ignorance better, respectfully.
-
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
Don't you often wonder why monkeys don't have human babies, and why some of your children are not monkeys? Perhaps their Mom and Dad are monkeys!
-
-
Pastor George Day
Bishop William Dusenberry,
No, evolution does not account for the essence of life and intelligence.
-
-
Rev. BH
I agree with all the no "so help me god" comments. Too much religion forced into all our daily lives. But if it were me, I'd have no problem just mouthing the words, like saying "no, officer I wasn't speeding" when I was.
Saying "so help me god" is not a commitment.(Especially if you're an atheist!) It's only words. Say 'em, get the job. Your beliefs remain your own..
-
Danny D. Maynard
That "telling lies" does not vouch for a person of good character. It can cause one to be release from the job later for prevaricating.
-
-
Ahmed Abduljabar Al-Hujazi
There can be no compulsion in religion, otherwise, you are just a hippocrite. And for all of those out there who believe they are doing God's will I have one question: Does God need your help?
-
Danny D. Maynard
To further support your comment, I also find it strange that these religious fanatics seem to think that the mind of an infinite god can fit in their puny human skulls.
-
-
Walter Abington
A religious based oath has no place in America. We pay taxes, not tithings. And just what god are you swearing to?
-
Cam Kirmser
I would say the phrase remains as is. It does not force any belief system on the oath-taker.
-
Brandon O'Malley
Except in this case it does because it refers specifically to the Christian God. Why should someone have to say “so help me God“ if they do not believe in a God? God is not part of our constitution, nor is it part of the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document. If it is not a requirement in the court system to swear on the Bible, then it should not be a requirement to swear to a God you don’t believe in to be a poll worker. Keeping the line is forcing someone to swear to something they don’t believe in, which is forcing any or all belief systems that they do not support onto the oath taker, but in this case, it’s the Christian God.
-
Pastor George Day
Brandon O'Malley
Identify the specific comma that explicitly conveys what you assert. Otherwise, your argument is based on assumption. This is akin to saying: God as I interpret him/her/it/them to be.
-
Brandon O'Malley
The use of the single word “God” is commonly known as and referred to as the Christian god. The capitalization of the word “God” indicates it being the name of the deity. What I said is not an assumption, it is based on the common use of the word as a name for a specific belief system, not as a broad term used to refer to any of them. Especially considering the use of “God” is monotheistic and refers to that specific god, and most indigenous and ancient cultures are polytheistic, and even Christians acknowledge the existence of other gods. But “God” is most commonly associated with Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Jews also call their god Yahweh. Allah for Islam. It’s not an assumption, it’s based on common use of language and where the term is being used. You are simply looking for a reason to make the oath seem interpretative, when in reality it is not. You simply do not understand what is assumption compared to common knowledge. If I were taking the oath I would not say, “so help me God,” I would personally say, “so help me Tuatha Dé Danann,” which are the god-like race in Celtic mythology before the Milesians arrived in Ireland. Notice how I used the two versions of god. I used “God” and “god” because God is a name used in monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, or Islam), god is referential or used as a common noun. So to summarize, what I said is not an assumption, but basic understanding of language and common use world knowledge.
-
-
-
Louis Edward Zitnik II
But if you are an atheist, and you claim to be telling the truth by swearing "so help me god," aren't you in fact lying at that moment? Do you want a liar, someone who will say anything, true or not, to get a job working in an important position? The applicant should be willing to put something on the line. Cross my heart and hope to die, might be a good replacement. Please excuse the levity.
-
Rev. BH
I like the above "on my honor".
But if someone lies to land a job, that does not mean he will lie about everything all through his working employment. He may do a fine job Qualifications are what truly matters. A job is a necessity of life, not a commitment to some god or another to avoid eternal damnation. Shall we be required to say to our partner "I love you, so help me god"?
-
Danny D. Maynard
A Boss who is a Religious Fanatic will not hire the Atheist if that becomes known to the Boss.
-
-
-
-
Jeffrey J Quade
The First Amendment is pretty plain. The state shall sponsor NO religion. The phrase gets booted.
-
Tom Herman
I have to agree with other posters on this one. The oath does not require it to include the word "God." He could end the sentence with the phrase, "so help me." The fight for religious freedom or lack thereof must continue until all groups uphold the Constitution as it was written and intended.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
He has a point. Freedom of religion means you cannot force any one religion on someone, and "God" is already pretty specific, even if some people think it's generic. Anyone who would absolutely lose their mind if it was changed is one whose religion is being forced on other people. Majority isn't a factor in this--this is not a majority rules situation, it's our country's founding ideal. You cannot have freedom of religion for just some people and call it good, it has to be freedom of religion for ALL people, and that means not having a specific religious ritual as a qualifying part of a government procedure.
What happened to swearing on one's personal honor? Or better yet, for this day and age, swearing on MONEY? That's the true majority deity anyway.
-
Jennifer Roussel
They should leave the line out. There is supposed to be separation between church and state.
-
Ronaldo
Anyone who follows a religion that involves a god would probably take the oath as administered, knowing that their god will accept the term 'god' rather than their specific name. What I don't understand is why anyone who does not believe in any gods would refuse the oath if they want to do the specific task. What supernatural or secular entity is going to punish or condemn them for taking that oath? Our physical currency actually has the word God on it, so do the people who refuse the oath also refuse to handle cash because it violates their interpretation of the First Amendment?
-
Brandon O'Malley
The money situation you’re talking about wasn’t implemented until Dwight Eisenhower when he was trying to counter Russia by saying that Russia is a godless state, so our paper money has to have in God we trust. It was also minted to coins officially as well. Under God was also included in the pledge.
Now, in the case of the oath, why is a non-religious person having to be forced to say “so help me God“ if they don’t believe in one? The judicial system doesn’t force you to say that you swear on the Bible or God. The reason? Because it’s forcing a belief system onto someone who may or may not believe in that system. When you take an oath, you are swearing by that oath, you believe in that oath, and that it holds meaning. If there’s any part of it that doesn’t hold any meaning to you, and you are forced to say it, by association you’re not following the rest of the oath. An oath is to be followed Word for Word. If a person doesn’t believe in any God, then having that be the last thing that they say is them saying that God is watching them. If that person doesn’t believe in God, then that holds no meaning, so the rest of the oath holds no meaning to that person. This is about the freedom to believe in what you wish, not to be forced to use God in any capacity if you do not believe.
-
Pastor George Day
Ronaldo
I bet this guy needed sunglasses to just look at his paycheck!
Well said!
-
-
Sally Jeanne Altobello
I think the best way to push people away from a religious faith is to demand one. Think of the petulant child who wants to assert their independence. What is our initial reaction to being told we MUST adhere to something that has nothing to do with our job? Rewrite the oath!
-
Jeannine Stephanie Dinges
People should have the right to eliminate the "God" portion just like the option is given to people being sworn in around the country for all sorts of positions and elected offices. South Carolina is forcing religious beliefs on all people by this practice. I hope he wins.
-
Toni Bushong
I’m in agreement with many of the comments posted here. Bravo for Mr. Reel stepping up to the plate and applying for a job not many are willing to do these days. The oath he was being required to recite should definitely be rewritten as it is prohibitive and divisive, not to mention outdated and probably illegal. Thank you for your service Mr. Reel!
-
Steven Ferrell
I think he is being petty.
-
Mike Stand
Steven, if you were asked to take an oath ending with "... so help me Crone [a title sometimes given to an older and experienced witch]" would you refuse? If so, would you say that you were being petty?
-
-
Joseph Grieco
That is an Establishment Clause violation. Every federal "Oath" has an option for people who do not believe in G_d to affirm their agreement. If the Oath of Enlistment for the US Armed forces can allow this, so can the States.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Aparently, every state but South Carolina.
-
-
Dilip M Nene
If that individual really wants to be a Poll worker he should take the oath because it is a rule. Doing so it does not make him subservient to the God he does not believe in.
-
Brandon O'Malley
But saying something in an oath that you do not support essentially renders the entire oath meaningless. That’s the whole point of taking an oath, you believe and support every word that you are speaking.
-
Mike Stand
Dilip, if you were asked to take an oath ending with, "... so help me, Satan," would you be comfortable doing it because it is a rule?
-
Pastor George Day
Mic Stand
Saran isn't divine. This is hot air!
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Is it the oath, or were they just using the refusal of the oath as an excuse. Either way, the county was wrong in not hiring the person for refusal of saying an oath in the name of God. The pollworker has a case for discrimination due to religion. I'm not sure the lawsuit will gain much, because this is a seasonal position that is just a few hours a year, but then there are punitive damages. Whoever set the standard for the oath should lose their job for requiring something so unconstitutional.
-
Joseph Grieco
Doesn't matter. By not offering an alternative, they are in violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
But if they didn't want to hire the person becasue they didn't like their attitude, or he didn't come to the interview dressed appropriately, or someone didn't like his little dog, they should have said that, rather than use the oath, which would have opened them up for a discriminatiom claim. Ususally employers will use a "legitimate" excuse, like there was a more qualified candidate, than "if you don't say it exactly as written (which is unconstitutional), then there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out." It must be hard to find those type of excuses for a seasonal worker like this, and I'll just leave it there.
-
-
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
In my “Secular Humanist Pantheist” denomination, of the Universal Life Church, we acknowledge the only provable God, which also happens to be Nature. So even I (an ordained ULC minister) with a provable God, wouldn’t be able to acknowledge a supernatural God, because every supernatural God, to date, has been, and still is, incapable to bring proved. As to agreeing to “asking Nature for help” I personally don’t ever ask Nature to do so, ergo, I wouldn’t be able to do so; so, as expected, South Carolina should rid itself of this legislative anachronism (as it already did, when it ended its requirement that candidates for governor be required to believe in God), Nature shouldn’t be feared, prayed to,— just respected — based on what the best science tells us, by studying Nature and what such Nature’s studies suggest that we do — for human betterment.
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
So help me, your God.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Freedom of Religion should also mean Freedom from Religion. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. And, as the article says, Article 4 bans religious tests for public office. I suppose that would include “so help me God.” If we truly believe in the freedom of religion, then we must also recognize the freedom from it.
-
Cam Kirmser
Actually, the Constitution, in the First Amendment, states "Congress shall make no law[.]" So, the original intent was to prevent the FEDERAL government from making laws on religion. States are quite free to do so via the Tenth Amendment - the one so often thrown out the window by alleged "supporters" of the Constitution.
-
Brandon O'Malley
The Supreme Court of 1940 fully disagrees with you.
“Cantwell V Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the first amendment federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the due process clause of the 14th amendment and so applies to state government too.”
What does this mean, the 10th amendment doesn’t excuse states from this. So nice try. The Supreme Court of the United States holds the final say on what the constitution says. And the Supreme Court said you are wrong.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
States cannot pass laws that infringe on the United States Constitution. The Constitution guarantees those rights to all Americans—regardless of which state they reside in.
-
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
The Christian religion as practiced in 2025 is not the religion of the past. But both forms are designed to divide the world into those who they claim are "saved from sin" and those who are "sinners". Well, that is an arbitrary divisive line, like a line in the sand. The religious fanatic will move the goals posts depending on what is wanted, as seen through their religious-colored glasses. What this proves is that religion is a mythology, and there are no supernatural beings. If they existed, their real visible presence would have been overtly and repeatedly detected by scientists before now.
-
ServantOfJudgement
A man can camouflage himself on a turkey hunt and literally grab the turkey by the neck. Undetectable by the turkey man does this. A creator will have no trouble coming and going as he pleases without the creation realizing it.
I do agree Danny that men move the finish line according to their whim.
Let the atheist promise his own oath for he is the only God he knows. Let the religious man promise against whatever higher being he chooses.
-
Rev. BH
SoJ, I never have the slightest idea what you're talking about, so help me god.
-
Danny D. Maynard
A "creator" that comes and goes without being detected is really a thief in the night. Thus, ghosts do not push much around.
-
-
-
Robert Gagnon
Someone else trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If something that is a requirement for a certain job offends you so much, then seek another job. I suppose the pledge of allegiance caused this guy convulsions in elementary school, and U.S. currency makes his hand cramp. Jury duty may be troublesome also. I am not religious, but I respect other peoples beliefs, including the right not to believe. I believe the employers conditions for employment should be respected the same way. I wouldn't employ an oversensitive trouble maker that would next complain that Jesus bumper stickers offended him in the parking lot. This is an obvious case of a radical whiner looking for a cause. Guess the scam call center didn't work out for him.
-
Joseph Grieco
This is NOT a job. This is an appointment as an election worker for a government agency. In this case, the local board of elections under the authority of the Secretary of State office for South Carolina. You are NOT allowed to have a religious litmus test on any position associated with any level of government, except for official Chaplains positions. It would be the same thing in a court situation. Instead of swearing in, they are affirmed in.
-
Rev. Deborah L. Halstead
Jesus bumper stickers do not offend me as that is someone expressing their personal faith/prayer for safe travels. The huge billboard on the highway near my house, however, does offend me as I feel like others' belief systems are being pushed on me. Maybe getting grounded for a week every time I refused to go to church as a kid has something to do with it. The applicant isn't a "trouble maker", he's refusing to perjure himself and standing up for what he believes.
-
Liz W.
Even in the United States military they gave us the option to omit mention of god from our oath to the country and constitution. This man is standing up for the rights clearly laid out that he served for. His backbone is intact and he is standing up for what he believes in, because the more ground we give, the more they will take. This is discrimination and as a veteran myself I am proud of this man.
-
-
Najah P Tamargo
Najah Tamargo-USA
I believe in many things. But religion (or non religion) has no place at work. You are supposed to get a job based on your skills....not what your spiritual belief, or non spiritual belief is! Remember "separation of church and state"???
-
Hank Stanco
When doing a solemn affirmation, which this is, the last sentence is changed to “So help me upon the pains and penalties of perjury and false statement.”
See those words in parentheses, (or affirm) changes it from a solemn oath to a solemn affirmation.
Any basic Notary Public, let alone state officials, should know this.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
As a pagan, and just to mess with them, I’d have to say, “which one”? Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, as well… I have to agree with lion heart on this one. Wow!
-
Mike Stand
Exactly what Richard Darwin would suggest. Way to go, Paula!
-
Mike Stand
Yikes! I meant Richard Dawkins!
-
-
Pastor George Day
Reverend Paula Copp
This is just a picky debate. There are way bigger fish to fry in the sea!
-
-
Lionheart
Yes, freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion.
Do Islamists say, So help me Allah? And if they did would that disqualify them? 🤷
🦁❤️
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Allah means God in Arabic, so yes
-
Pastor George Day
Robert James Ruhnke
An El or Elohim in Hebrew? Well, that's a divine yes once more!
Bingo!
-
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Yes they do. I swear to Allah they do.
-
Stephen R Smith
If you don't believe in God then why would you feel bound by an oath to one? So.that leads me to the idea that he's making a stand. The job would therefore be secondary in value, otherwise the swearing of an oath would not be primary. Perhaps he has to much time on his hands and has given himself a new job of victim
-
AWSII
Yes. Hes taking a stand.
If he were to swear an oath to a god he doesn't believe in he would be presenting a falsehood, a deception on his part, to the employer. Then, if/when his true beliefs came to light, his character could be called into question for swearing a false oath and he could be fired from the job.
He's taking a stand for the sake of his integrity.
-
Danny D. Maynard
I agree. Anyone who so blatantly lies should not be hired.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Stephen R. Smith
Well said!
Atheists couldn't care less about God. End of story!
-
Lionheart
Well, if there really was a god, they possibly would care, but being as no one has ever proved any exist, it is what it is. 🤷
Religionists couldn’t care less about fairies. Why is that? End of story! 🤭
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
No I wouldn't. In the many insights to that was revealed to me by he who is the great I am, the purpose to this in modern times was explained to me like this, If a man does not have the will to admit to a higher power than himself, be it God or any religion period, then that man has no capacity to respect authority at all. Those who do not respect authority will inevitably become catalysts of chaos and disorder and will not admit to their mistakes, because of pride. So no I would not change anything about their stand on that issue and would support it if that was their reason behind it. Another thing, on the day when everybody was gathering to the eastern wall in Jerusalem and about 4 weeks before that I saw this image appear before me in my mind and I knew the hopes and struggles of the people there. Then on that day I saw the same symbols appearing literally on the wall . יהוה