I will tell you what you can do with Separation of Church and State

If there is supposed to a separation between church and state why do we swear on a Bible if we testify in court? Why does the Potus swear on a Bible? Why does anyone have to swear on a Bible for anything? Do you really think the higher power gives a crap? So what happens to me if I go to court and refuse? I get held in contempt for my lack of religious agreement with swearing on a Bible? So, I am a liar if I don't swear? This process is so hypocritical it is mind boggling!

Are you going to tell me that everyone who swears on a Bible is telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Exactly! History is littered from sea to shining sea (ocean to ocean) with the carcasses of lies strewn about by so many elected officials and clergy members that we could start a bonfire the size of Jupiter!

Still where is this supposed separation?

Okay, it was explained below by Jefferson that this has to do with religious freedom and the government would allow those to practice whatever religion they choose without interference.

So, tell me why then do I or anyone have to swear on a religious context that is is far from the virtuous collection it claims to be administered by anyone of any faith period? I promise you all, in fact I swear on absolutely nothing man made whatsoever that if I am ever asked to place my hand on a Bible or any other religious concoction I will NOT!

If they arrest me and put me in contempt or refuse me my rights to separation of church from state....I will sue those jerks and win in a court of law without having touched a single Bible and I will represent myself along with my higher power!


en.wikipedia.org...

Jefferson and the Bill of Rights

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[21]

I've often thought of the issue in the same light. It makes absolutely no sense for this condition to be in existence whatsoever!

Now, All I need to do is commit some crime so serious that it's nationally televised, then show the world that this practice is ludicrous.

All jokes aside though, I do agree 100%. Tear the bible from the courts!

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

No one is required to swear an oath on the Bible or to God that they are telling the truth anymore. You can instead affirm that you know the difference between a lie and the truth and promise to tell the truth.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The Bible itself tell the faithful not to swear at all,
in fact that quote is attributed to Jesus Christ.

...but no worries, no one does that anymore.
yes, the POTUS did it as his swearing in but
everyone knows it was done for show. They
got it wrong in public and did it again in
private but again...

Means nothing... less than nothing.

They don't use bibles in court anymore. Keep your church out of my state.

a reply to: Kali74

This is news to me...do you have anything you can post that says this?

a reply to: Shakawkaw

Well every show I see with a court involved ask people to raise their right hand and swear or I am just blind? What are they swearing on a Maytag Manual?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
If there is supposed to a separation between church and state why do we swear on a Bible if we testify in court?

We don't.

Why does the Potus swear on a Bible?

Tradition and and it is not mandatory.

Why does anyone have to swear on a Bible for anything?

They don't.

a reply to: wasaka

Why do it at all if there is supposed to be a separation? Seems to be an obvious contradiction...doesn't it?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Well every show I see with a court involved ask people to raise their right hand and swear or I am just blind?

They are not swearing on a Bible, only swearing that they will tell the truth which, if the do not, they can be held in contempt for perjury.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do people still swear on the Bible in court?
Answer   No. You may be sworn in by taking a sacred oath that binds your conscience, for example by swearing on the Bible, or you may affirm or promise to tell the truth

Okay...I have not been in court for a long time, but just exactly what sacred oath are you supposed to be swearing to? and if not on a Bible they are still asking you to swear to something imaginary....why now just say , hey do you promise to tell the truth and if you lie will you be honest about your lie?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay so if Potus swears on a Bible and then gets caught telling a lie they should be held in contempt right? or tell me again how that is separation of church and state for them to even do that when being sworn in as Potus to begin with?

a reply to: Shakawkaw

Perhaps not, but many court documents say "I pray that the Court....". That reflects religion or "church" in court or "state".

The Congress opens with prayer, money prints the word God, and marriage is a joining under God but divorce requires no religious separation.

Go figure.

a reply to: Ultralight

Exactly! There are many instances where it does not require a Bible to be an overlap of church and state! Just using the words In God We Trust on our currency is a violation of this premise!

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Okay...I have not been in court for a long time, but just exactly what sacred oath are you supposed to be swearing to?

Sacred oath? Where did this come from? You are swearing simply that you will be telling the truth in your testimony.

and if not on a Bible they are still asking you to swear to something imaginary....why now just say , hey do you promise to tell the truth and if you lie will you be honest about your lie?

And if you are found to have been untruthful you are liable for a criminal offense.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Okay so if Potus swears on a Bible and then gets caught telling a lie they should be held in contempt right?

I hate to break it to you but the President has Executive Privilege and you would have a rather diffcult time proving they were lying, witness Bill Clinton.

...or tell me again how that is separation of church and state for them to even do that when being sworn in as Potus to begin with?

Do you even understand how the First Amendment works? It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If the President wants to be sworn in on a Bible, Koran, a Betty Crocker cookbook or nothing that is their perogative and has no impact on your First Amendment rights.

originally posted by: Ultralight
Perhaps not, but many court documents say "I pray that the Court....". That reflects religion or "church" in court or "state".

The Congress opens with prayer, money prints the word God, and marriage is a joining under God but divorce requires no religious separation.

Go figure.

None of which has been found to violate the establishment clause as they are found to be traditional and secular.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: wasaka

Why do it at all if there is supposed to be a separation? Seems to be an obvious contradiction...doesn't it?

Correct, it was always a glaring hypocrisy. But have come
to expect nothing less in this upside-down world.

I visited a church this Sunday with a friend, and they all
read this affirmation which said, "We thank you God that
we are a 100% tithing church and there are no robbers here."

Now that is exactly the type of prayer Jesus said not to pray.
In fact, Jesus called the religious leaders of his time "hypocrites" for
praying a pray just like that.

Go figure.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Which is simply looking away from the blatant violations of the separation of church and state.

originally posted by: Ultralight
Which is simply looking away from the blatant violations of the separation of church and state.

How does any of that establish a state religion?