Separation of Church and State

  • News
  • Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date
  • #1
3,042
15
I was watching Law & Order and I realized a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

(1) When you swear to tell the truth, you put your hand on a bible.

(2) When you talk to a preist, they are legally allowed to not repeat what you told them in confession, even if you admitted to a crime!

You have the right to remain silent if you are the one under prosecution, but if someone else is called to the stand they must tell the truth.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,819
14
3, It says in god we trust on the money
 
  • #3
3,042
15
3, It says in god we trust on the money

But 'In God we trust' is secular.
 
  • #4
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
(1) When you swear to tell the truth, you put your hand on a bible.
You don't have to. You can ask for a non-religious oath if you are atheist.

But, hey, if you want to be President, Congressman or Governor, you're going to have a hard time (at least from Republicans) if you don't take the oath of office on a Bible.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MEPKIG0&show_article=1
 
  • #5
3,042
15
You don't have to. You can ask for a non-religious oath if you are atheist.

But, hey, if you want to be President, Congressman or Governor, you're going to have a hard time (at least from Republicans) if you don't take the oath of office on a Bible.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MEPKIG0&show_article=1

Oh, I'm sure when your on trial for murder and you take the stand and say I don't believe in god, the jury is going to LOVE that.
 
  • #6
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,819
14
But, hey, if you want to be President, Congressman or Governor, you're going to have a hard time (at least from Republicans) if you don't take the oath of office on a Bible.

I thought christians weren't allowed to swear on the bible?

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
 
  • #7
3,042
15
I thought christians weren't allowed to swear on the bible?

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I don't know. But I'd like to know if a preist really is allow to keep quiet if he has information on someone that confessed to comitting a crime. Or can he be prosecuted for not talking under oath? If he can keep quiet, this is a serious problem.
 
  • #8
306
1
A priest testifying about your confession to him is hearsay.
 
  • #9
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
Oh, I'm sure when your on trial for murder and you take the stand and say I don't believe in god, the jury is going to LOVE that.
I think you can arrange that in chanbers or whatever - I think I learned that from Law & Order too. But hey, if you want to be tried by a jury of your peers, you better make sure your lawyer gets that straight during jury selection. In any case, the state does provide for a separation, but there's only so much separation you can hope to get in a deeply religious country/state/county.
 
  • #10
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,291
276
[PLAIN said:
http://www.ffrf.org/timely/igwt/tiernan.php]The[/PLAIN] [Broken] complaint in this case alleges that "In God We Trust" as our national motto and on U.S. coins and currency violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an establishment of religion.

It alleges that "In God We Trust" has no secular purpose, that its effect is to endorse religion, and that it unreasonably entangles government with religion.

The defendants, U.S. government, et al, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The trial court correctly held that, in ruling on the motion, it must assume all the allegations in the complaint to be true.

It then ignored its own ruling.

The trial court held that "In God We Trust" has a secular purpose, that its effect is not to endorse religion, and that it is not a prohibited entanglement. It refused to let us introduce evidence on any of these crucial issues.

I still don't understand how it's secular... could someone please explain?

Here's the argument against it being secular from that site:

It is our position that "In God We Trust" has no secular purpose. The government argues that it does; that the objective is to have a national motto and that this objective makes it secular. This is fallacious. The motive is to have a national motto; the purpose is to have a law mandating "In God We Trust" on coins. The first is secular; the second is religious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
3,042
15
A priest testifying about your confession to him is hearsay.

Is it also hearsay if it were a friend he had told also?
 
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
20,956
7,561
(1) When you swear to tell the truth, you put your hand on a bible.
That isn't required, so there is no violation.
(2) When you talk to a preist, they are legally allowed to not repeat what you told them in confession, even if you admitted to a crime!
Could you explain why you see that as a violation? The same priveledge exists for doctors, lawyers, shrinks, and even reporters.
You have the right to remain silent if you are the one under prosecution, but if someone else is called to the stand they must tell the truth.
Is that your reasoning? No one is saying a priest needs to lie. They just don't talk.
 
  • #13
3,042
15
I still don't understand how it's secular... could someone please explain?

Here's the argument against it being secular from that site:

It's secular because it simply says 'In God We Trust".

Not, "In Jesus we Trust"

Not, "In Abraham we Trust"

Not, "In Muhammad we Trust"

Not, "In Visnu we Trust"
 
  • #14
3,042
15
That isn't required, so there is no violation.

It doesn't matter if its required, no one should be put in a position to have to refuse. If I'm in the southern bible belt being convicted of a crime judged by my good christian peers and I take the stand and say 'oh, no thanks' to the bible, I'm screwed.

Could you explain why you see that as a violation? The same priveledge exists for doctors, lawyers, shrinks, and even reporters.

I think I remember a reporter that went to jail because they were told to reveal their source and decided to stay quiet. It was probably about a year ago. I cant remember exactly what it was though.

In any event, why do they get special passes either?


Is that your reasoning? No one is saying a priest needs to lie. They just don't talk.

If you are called to court and you are asked a question and you refuse to answer, isn't the judge supposed to throw you in jail? You sware to tell the truth, not to tell what you feel like saying.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
20,956
7,561
Could you explain further please? It sounds like you think that secular means not referring to a specific religion. Secular means not religious or spiritual. How is a reference to god not religious or spiritual?
 
  • #16
3,042
15
Could you explain further please? It sounds like you think that secular means not referring to a specific religion. Secular means not religious or spiritual. How is a reference to god not religious or spiritual?

I guess it depends on how tight you want to make the definition. I thought secular means no particular religion.

In other words, the framers allowed for the mention of God, but not any specific God/Gods/Spaghetti Monsters.

I.e. God: Yes.
Religion: No.
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
20,956
7,561
It doesn't matter if its required, no one should be put in a position to have to refuse.
Since a high fraction of people would do it, it makes sense to prepare as if people will do it. A person who knows they will be called to testify should tell their lawyer beforehand, rather than refusing on the spot. It works the same for people doing oaths of office. I see no violation.
If I'm in the southern bible belt being convicted of a crime judged by my good christian peers and I take the stand and say 'oh, no thanks' to the bible, I'm screwed.
How is that different than being convicted due to racism? That's not the govenrment discriminating on you, that's the members of the jury. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
I think I remember a reporter that went to jail because they were told to reveal their source and decided to stay quiet. It was probably about a year ago. I cant remember exactly what it was though.
To a priest? That would surprise me.
In any event, why do they get special passes either?
What do you mean? What "special pass"? Do you understand why anyone has confidentiality?
If you are called to court and you are asked a question and you refuse to answer, isn't the judge supposed to throw you in jail? You sware to tell the truth, not to tell what you feel like saying.
No. Haven't you heard of the 5th Amendment? And obviously, confidentiality exists and is incorporated into the legal system. There are special rules that apply to different situations. Ie, if the situation is not covered by confidentiality and you are not capable of incriminating yourself, the court can compel you to testify.
 
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
20,956
7,561
This I didn't know:
I have been in law enforcement professionally for more than 20 years
and though in every case I have seen people routinely required to
raise their right hand, I have never seen a Bible actually used in
court ? not even once. This may still be a practice in some
jurisdictions (or on television and the movies) but where I am from it
is considered an archaic and politically incorrect practice. If a
person chooses to affirm rather than swear, there is normally no
hesitation on the part of the court to honor that personal choice.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=503591
So there's that answer.
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
20,956
7,561
I guess it depends on how tight you want to make the definition. I thought secular means no particular religion.

In other words, the framers allowed for the mention of God, but not any specific God/Gods/Spaghetti Monsters.

I.e. God: Yes.
Religion: No.
Dunno, sounds to me like you're manufacturing your own definition. How are we supposed to have a discussion if people just make up words on the spot?

More to the point, the people who designed "separation of church and state" used the dictionary definition. And even more to the point, "In God we trust" is a recent addition that is intended to promote a christian god. It is most certainly a violation of separation of church and state. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_gov_motto.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #20
3,042
15
Since a high fraction of people would do it, it makes sense to prepare as if people will do it. A person who knows they will be called to testify should tell their lawyer beforehand, rather than refusing on the spot.

It does not matter. The jury is going to notice. They will go hmmmmmmm, he never swore to tell the truth on a bible. Isnt that peculiar............ it should not be allowed, period. So no one knows one way or another if they were or were not going to sware on a bible.


It works the same for people doing oaths of office. I see no violation.

In that case, you don't sware on a bible. You sware on a copy of the constitution.

How is that different than being convicted due to racism? That's not the govenrment discriminating on you, that's the members of the jury. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

Because the government put you into that position by its practice of having people sware on a bible.

Do you understand why anyone has confidentiality? No. Haven't you heard of the 5th Amendment?

Confidentiality is something between a group of people. It should have no bearing in a court of law though.

As far as I am aware, the 5th amendment has to do with incriminating yourself. If you are a witness to a crime comitted by someone else, you can't sit there and cry the 5th, can you?
 
  • #23
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,291
276
I guess it depends on how tight you want to make the definition. I thought secular means no particular religion.

In other words, the framers allowed for the mention of God, but not any specific God/Gods/Spaghetti Monsters.

I.e. God: Yes.
Religion: No.

Well, I suppose you could claim that God is a secular word in the deist sense, but It's kind of a reach considering how many theists vs. deists there are in the US. Most people are going to interpret the theological meaning of it.
 
  • #24
Doc Al
Mentor
45,175
1,491
I guess it depends on how tight you want to make the definition. I thought secular means no particular religion.
I would disagree. Perhaps you're thinking of nondenominational.

In other words, the framers allowed for the mention of God, but not any specific God/Gods/Spaghetti Monsters.
The "framers" had nothing to do with putting "in god we trust" on currency. That was done during the McCarthy era (1950s). The framers went out of their way to minimize mention of god--in fact I don't think the word appears in the constitution at all. (An incredible achievement!)

I.e. God: Yes.
Religion: No.
A step in the right direction, but not quite secular.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Danger
Gold Member
9,647
251
Up here, we can simply swear an oath. That's what I did when I registered to become a locksmith. If I were to break into something that I shouldn't, I'd get nailed for 7 years for break-and-enter, plus 14 years for swearing a false oath, consecutive, no chance of parole. If I'm called to court as a witness, I will not go close to a bible.
I have noticed now that I'm watching Perry Mason every day since my unemployment, that even in the days of black-and-white TV, they just raised their hands and swore to tell the truth etc. with no bible or 'so help you god' at the end.
 

Related Threads on Separation of Church and State

  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
W
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
81
Views
9K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Z
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
B
Top