Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Judicial reform

So there's this whole controversy over swearing on Bibles in court. One side says that oaths on the Bible violate the Separation of Church and State, or some such liberal propaganda. The other side says it's just symbolic, and it doesn't violate nothin'.

Now, I'm all for symbolism. I love symbolism. In fact, I look at the entire English language as a collection of symbols. I choose any words I want to mean any thing I want - at least, when I'm at school.

But anywho, the point is, this whole debate is silly. If the Bible is symbolic of anything, it's symbolic of a drug trip. What people should be swearing on is a dictionary.

No, an encyclopedia!

Hell, how about a whole set of encyclopedias? This way, the swearing-in would take up half the trial:

"…Uh, yes, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me A Thru Annoy…Garden Thru Gun…Sardine Thru Swell…oh, fuck it, I killed him."

Oh yes, much more effective than swearing on a Bible. With a Bible, there's no incentive not to lie; it's not like God's gonna smite you if you twist a few details. But with good 'ol Britannica, you can just whack the witness periodically. You know, instill some respect of truth in him.

…You know. Abuse.

5 Comments:

At 5/02/2006 8:26 PM, Anonymous zpc said...

hahahah

 
At 5/03/2006 5:25 AM, Blogger Enil Edam said...

It's a good point. Swearing on the Bible does seem to violate separation between Church & State.

But apart from the Encyclopedia, do you have a practical replacement suggestion?

The problem is, nothing is as widely read or known as the Bible is. I mean, one could have people swear on hardbound copies of the Constitution, but majority of Americans don't even know what's in that. Unfortunately, the Bible seems like the best answer we got since more people know about the Chirstain Bible than their own secular rights.

 
At 5/04/2006 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore, the bible explicitly instructs Christians not to swear oaths. (Matthew 5:34-37)

Verse 37 is especially cool, because it tells Christians to say yes when they mean yes, and no when they mean no, and that anything more than that (ie. oathtaking) comes from evil.

So you're swearing an oath on a book that tells you not to do exactly that.

And that basically fits with my opinion on the subject - the guy first in line to take an oath on the bible is most likely to lie.

 
At 5/04/2006 9:31 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

Anybody that tells you that they are about to tell you the truth about anything, is probably lying. The only exception to this is something like a swearing-in, where the declaration was not the person's own idea.

Consider: Why would I tell you that I am about to tell you the truth, except to prejudice your own judgment? Evagelical Christians, I note, bray that word "Truth!" all the time.

As for swearing in court, if I am ever presented with the necessity, I will request to swear on a candy apple on a stick.

 
At 5/04/2006 9:33 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

PS: As any old fart from the 50's might tell you, it's usually spelled "anyhoo".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.