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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Separation State
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of swearing on a Bible in court and its relation to the separation of church and state. Participants explore various aspects of this issue, including legal practices, religious beliefs, and societal norms, with references to specific legal cases and biblical texts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that swearing on a Bible in court constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state, while others contend that it is not required and thus does not represent a violation.
  • There is a discussion about the legal privilege of priests to keep confessions confidential, with some questioning whether this privilege should extend to confessions involving crimes.
  • Participants reference the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, debating its secular versus religious implications, with some asserting it has no secular purpose while others argue it is a neutral statement.
  • Concerns are raised about the societal pressure to conform to religious practices, particularly in regions where Christianity is predominant, which may affect individuals' willingness to refuse swearing on a Bible.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definition of secular, debating whether mentioning God can be considered non-religious.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the implications of swearing on a Bible, the nature of religious privilege in legal contexts, and the interpretation of secularism.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions regarding legal practices, societal norms, and interpretations of religious texts, which may influence their arguments but are not universally accepted.

  • #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 separately 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
10K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
22K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K