TK-8252 Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I haven't seen a thread in the Senate for this so I decided to spark some discussion on this... Now, when you're in court, you have to put your hand on "the Holy Scripture" (the bible), and part of what the baliff asks is "...so help you god?" But when some muslims were being sworn in and asked for the quran, they were denied. I don't quite get why with our separation of church and state that we need the bible to be the official "Holy Scripture" and why we have a state-sponsered "Holy Scripture" in the first place. What's the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 It seems to me to be just another example of American hypocrisy. 'Separation of Church and State'? Hah. I'm not 100% certain, but I think you're allowed to swear on your own holy text in England (and it's Qur'an, by the way. Quran is unpronounceable). Can I extend this, a little, and ask why you are expected to swear on a religious book at all? What would I, if I were ever to appear in court, swear on? Last time I checked, Atheo-agnostics didn't have a holy book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 I think only a few local courts in some backwoods states/localities still do the bible-swearing thing. The U.S. District Court, for instance, uses the following: "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Last time I checked, Atheo-agnostics didn't have a holy book. Can I swear on Spongebob? >_> Yeah it's rather silly that you have to swear on the Bible, but it's not that big of a deal to me. Probably is to people who actually have a religion (like those muslims TK said) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Read the Constitution: "Separation of Church and State" isn't in there. Anywhere. What the Constitution says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Using a Bible to swear people in in court is by no means the government establishing a state religion, and by no means does refusing to allow Muslims to swear on the Koran prohibit the free exercise of their religion. The idea of "Separation of Church and State" is nothing more than a quote by Thomas Jefferson that has been taken grossly out of context and blown grossly out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 So, then, how would you feel if you were forced to swear on the Qur'an, and not allowed a Bible? How can you say that the law forcing people to swear on a Bible is not sponsoring Christianity? And that first part of the constitution you mention is about the most ambiguous thing I've ever read. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'. What does that mean? That laws shouldn't be based on religion, or that laws shouldn't be made regarding religion? And are you saying you are against the separation of church and state? That is the same as condoning a theocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Using a mythological document to ensure the validity of someone's testimony before a court of law (a secular institution) is foolhardy. Furthermore, simply demanding that a person of an unknown religion accept this means of validation as legitimate ensures that this person has an "out" should they choose to lie. It would be better to use a simple affirmation under the threat of judicial punishment should they choose purgery over truth and be discovered. As to separation of church and state, the religious benefit the most from that idea and yet complain so vehemetly when it is enforced. What will happen when a community finds itself with a religious majority that isn't christian which wants to display the Koran or other religious icons in a courtroom or ensure that even the minority xians must greet with 'Assalamualaikum' when entering the classroom? Separation of church and state is implied in the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, it is an expectation in American tradition based on the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, many of whom where deists and agnostic/atheist. The religious "right" needs to stop crying over this and get past it. Religion has no place in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Frankly, if i was a muslim and they insisted I swore on the bible then I'd be well happy... would mean i could make up whatever i wanted and they couldn't get me for perjury... daft on the court's part though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Frankly, if i was a muslim and they insisted I swore on the bible then I'd be well happy... would mean i could make up whatever i wanted and they couldn't get me for perjury... daft on the court's part though... Hehehe. well, I guess that could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.24edface7c76d897543b1e05da64a97d.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.