Church and State

[PhilomathSloth]

some think seperation of all church and state, but what about incorporation of all the different churches? what do ya guys think? link.

[JoshK]

No. You cannot encompass the beliefs of everybody. Faith isn't limited to a set of known formed religions. Seperation of church and state means that the state stays out of matters of faith and leaves that between people and their respective higher powers.

 

My proposed solution to those that do not feel comfortable swearing upon a bible? Allow people to swear upon a copy of the US constitution.

[Dechristo]

No. You cannot encompass the beliefs of everybody. Faith isn't limited to a set of known formed religions. Seperation of church and state means that the state stays out of matters of faith and leaves that between people and their respective higher powers.

 

My proposed solution to those that do not feel comfortable swearing upon a bible? Allow people to swear upon a copy of the US constitution.

My proposed solution is to have people swear upon whatever text they hold closest to their heart. Could be:

 

E. A. Poe

Freedom of the Hills

Harry Potter

Chaucer

Locke

J.R.R. Tolkien

The Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening

Hustler

 

...whatever...

[Fairweather]

My solution: Prosecute those who commit perjory under oath. Does anyone come to mind??

[Crux]

My proposed solution to those that do not feel comfortable swearing upon a bible? Allow people to swear upon a copy of the US constitution.

Actually, that's not the issue. In the topic Greensboro story ("Judges question use of Quran in taking oath"), it's pointed out that persons who object to swearing on the Bible already have the option to simply raise their hand and give an affirmation to tell the truth.

 

The issue is over the request that people be granted the choice to take the oath upon the Quran, while the Carolina judges proclaim that use of any book other than the Bible would be against the law.

[Crux]

My proposed solution is to have people swear upon whatever text they hold closest to their heart. Could be:

 

E. A. Poe

Freedom of the Hills

Harry Potter

Chaucer

Locke

J.R.R. Tolkien

The Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening

Hustler

 

...whatever...

The ancient book of obvious gullies.

[foraker]

My solution: Prosecute those who commit perjory under oath. Does anyone come to mind??

 

Well, if you include any president who has lied to the public when asked a direct question, we could pretty much include all of them. Makes life a lot easier....

[Dechristo]

My proposed solution is to have people swear upon whatever text they hold closest to their heart. Could be:

The ancient book of obvious gullies.

 

The Fuqowwee Book of The Lost

[cj001f]

My solution: Prosecute those who commit perjory under oath. Does anyone come to mind??

How about those who willfully pass false information to congress and the public?

[Dru]

Can you swear upon a website? Books are so 20th century.

[catbirdseat]

Dru, what concrete object you put you hand on? The screen, the CPU, or the keyboard?

[Dru]

I'll put my hand violently against your face if you keep asking dumb questions!

 

[catbirdseat]

You never did find that can of whoopass that you had misplaced a couple years back.

 

I figured it out only after I posted. In court you'd have a laptop. Problem solved.

[Dru]

Here's a coupon for you. Print it out and redeem it anytime.

 

[Dechristo]

Everybody look out...

 

cbs is gonna bitch-slap Dru's hand with his face.

[archenemy]

Men could go back to the original method of swearing in. They held their balls in one hand and swore their oath. The word "testimony" and the word "testicle" are from the same root word.

 

Women, of course, would get to chose whose balls they would want to hold whilst swearing.

[minx]

The word "testimony" and the word "testicle" are from the same root word.

 

from the same root word meaning "full of crap"?

[catbirdseat]

It's a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[Latin, witness, testis. See testify.]

Word History: The resemblance between testimony, testify, testis, and testicle shows an etymological relationship, but linguists are not agreed on precisely how English testis came to have its current meaning. The Latin testis originally meant “witness,” and etymologically means “third (person) standing by”: the te- part comes from an older tri-, a combining form of the word for “three,” and -stis is a noun derived from the Indo-European root st- meaning “stand.” How this also came to refer to the body part(s) is disputed. An old theory has it that the Romans placed their right hands on their testicles and swore by them before giving testimony in court. Another theory says that the sense of testicle in Latin testis is due to a calque, or loan translation, from Greek. The Greek noun parastats means “defender (in law), supporter” (para- “by, alongside,” as in paramilitary and -stats from histanai, “to stand”). In the dual number, used in many languages for naturally occurring, contrasting, or complementary pairs such as hands, eyes, and ears, parastats had the technical medical sense “testicles,” that is “two glands side by side.” The Romans simply took this sense of parastats and added it to testis, the Latin word for legal supporter, witness.

--Dictionary.com

[minx]

good dog CBS-- you certainly can suck the fun out of a topic.

[catbirdseat]

I thought her post was funny as hell. She was right in a way.