News Is Swearing on a Bible in Court a Violation of Church-State Separation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Separation State
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around perceived violations of the separation of church and state in the U.S. legal system, particularly in relation to the use of religious elements in court proceedings and government practices. Key points include the practice of swearing on a Bible in court, which some argue is a violation of secular principles since individuals can request a non-religious oath. The legality of priest confidentiality during confessions is also debated, with concerns raised about whether priests can withhold information about crimes disclosed in confession without facing legal repercussions. The phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is contested as a potential endorsement of religion, with arguments made that it lacks a secular purpose and entangles government with religious sentiment. Participants express differing views on the implications of these practices, questioning whether they reflect a broader issue of religious influence in a predominantly secular state. The conversation touches on historical context, the framers' intentions regarding religion in government, and the evolving interpretation of secularism in contemporary society.
  • #61
Wow... I hope that they drop the hammer on all of them. My understanding of US politics is a bit shaky, but isn't conspiracy an even more serious offense than the act that they are conspiring to commit? May they all rot in prison.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Danger said:
Wow... I hope that they drop the hammer on all of them. My understanding of US politics is a bit shaky, but isn't conspiracy an even more serious offense than the act that they are conspiring to commit? May they all rot in prison.

Conspiracy itself can usually be charged seperately if the aim of the conspiracy was not successful but it is generally used more to increase the penalty for the crime. I don't think penalties for conspiracy charges in and of themselves are usually quite as harsh as those for the intended crime. It may depend on the crime and circumstances.

Edit: that is, in this case the crime itself may be fairly minor but to claim that it was born of a conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of the victims could well increase the penalties dramatically.
 
  • #63
Thanks for the clarification, Stats.
 
  • #64
If you could see God, will you go on with scientific research ?
 
  • #65
Marie Cury said:
If you could see God, will you go on with scientific research ?

And if a bullfrog had wings, would it bump its a$$ so much?

edit: Okay, when the hell did the censor software tune into 'a s s'? I've always gotten away with that one before.

edit #2: Have replaced 's' with '$' to bypass censor programme.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
9K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
13K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K