Why is it that religion and the Estate can´t be toghether, and yet, when you go to court, you are obligated to swear under oath before the BIBLE that you´ll tell the truth?
2006-08-29 13:34:54 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That's a good question. Why isn't it standard for people to affirm, and swear on the Bible at their discretion, rather than the other way around?
And just so you know, you don't have to swear. You can affirm, as I said above.
(Note, from the answers I've read below, I guess my impression that swearing on the Bible was the norm is out of date)
2006-08-29 13:38:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They actually don't, in most courts.
And no court can compel you to swear an oath on the bible, or any sort of religious oath at all. The only thing the court can require is an affirmation that the testimony will be truthful, and that you understand the consequences of perjury.
2006-08-29 13:38:13 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Because the Bible is the only source we have that talks about judgment for liars, along with the fact that it is all truth. Religion and Estate is a completely different topic.
2006-08-29 13:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by poochies girl 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most courts stopped using the Bible years ago - because of that "church and state" separation. Unfortunately, it's a misread, because the constitution was prohibiting a state run church, like the Church of England (which actually made and implemented laws), not trying to keep religion out of the nation. (once nation, under God).
2006-08-29 13:38:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
They might on TV, but in most of the real courtrooms you won't find a Bible.
2006-08-29 13:40:14 · answer #5 · answered by tax_hater 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
yep
2006-08-29 13:40:38 · answer #6 · answered by raomega8 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋