So help me God. . . .
So this case in North Carolina, about the Muslim who was refused the privilege of swearing on the Qur'an, caught my eye. To cite the Constitution again, (Art. VI), "no religious test shall be used for any trust or office under the United States." So the whole notion of requiring an oath on the Bible is incontestibly unconstitutional (and, again, "the rights of the citizens of each state shall be the same as the rights of the citizens of the several states", so this NC court is federal jurisdiction). Case closed.
Unfortunately, at least from the standpoint of maintaining my righteous indignation, witnesses aren't required to swear on the Bible: a secular oath is just fine in court. The question, then, is whether "Holy Scripture" is a matter of subjective opinion, or of state definition.
Stating it that way, the solution is evident to any rational human: the state cannot define "Holy Scriptures", so each individual may define it himself. But the simplest solution is to require a secular oath: "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Because, really, who is culpable for violation of the oath -- God? Trick question: it's the oath-taker, of course. Our courts are based on the notion that an individual is responsible for his actions, and we generally accept evidence over divine revelation -- so why do we persist in this fantasy that we can count on God to make someone tell the truth? Dispense with any reference to the divine or "Scriptures". The legislatures of every state should define an oath that is not based on a presumption of God, and is therefore appropriate to a trust under a state that respects all beliefs equally.
There's no real valid counter-argument. But feel free to expose your own stupidity if you disagree.
Unfortunately, at least from the standpoint of maintaining my righteous indignation, witnesses aren't required to swear on the Bible: a secular oath is just fine in court. The question, then, is whether "Holy Scripture" is a matter of subjective opinion, or of state definition.
Stating it that way, the solution is evident to any rational human: the state cannot define "Holy Scriptures", so each individual may define it himself. But the simplest solution is to require a secular oath: "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Because, really, who is culpable for violation of the oath -- God? Trick question: it's the oath-taker, of course. Our courts are based on the notion that an individual is responsible for his actions, and we generally accept evidence over divine revelation -- so why do we persist in this fantasy that we can count on God to make someone tell the truth? Dispense with any reference to the divine or "Scriptures". The legislatures of every state should define an oath that is not based on a presumption of God, and is therefore appropriate to a trust under a state that respects all beliefs equally.
There's no real valid counter-argument. But feel free to expose your own stupidity if you disagree.
posted by heavynettle at 21:24
2 Comments:
The NYT ran an article by Verlyn Klinkenborg today that kinda gets to the heart of the whole religion-in-the-public-sphere bit:
"Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education."
Hmm. Something of non sequitor, Pirate Prentice. The individual is responsible for educating himself, using all the resources that are available in the "worst" schools. Ignorance is forgivable; deliberate adherance to ignorance is not. And that's what we see in the adults who ignore all the evidence that Creationism (or, saints preserve us, Intelligent Design) can not explain -- or who somehow feel a Bible or the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is in keeping with our political traditions.
Post a Comment
<< Home