There's something screwy here in America in its judicial system. The United States is touted as a Christian nation, but this is bogus. First of all, it is not the place of any government to regulate religion since today there are thousands of different religions. So what is the purpose of using only one religion that upsets the apple cart of diplomacy and equality?
Dear Ones,
Considering that the torturous Christian Inquisition was enforced by the Catholic Church, many people are still afraid of confessing they no longer believe in this persuasion. This is energized by 1. fear of god-revenge from historic violent and terrorist ideology of the past, 2. dominated decision by a spouse or 3 not wanting to disappoint traditionalist parents. Christian statistics can never be reliable. There are a multitude of recovering religionists who don't want their identity known. Some people call them hypocrites lying about their faith on survey forms.
Meanwhile, many thoughtful people both in the United States and the United Kingdom are questioning why in the court of law people can still swear on a Hebrew Bible. The book of Matthew 5: 32-37 states "Jesus instructed against taking holy oaths."
It was only in modern times that the words "in God's name" were added to money, the Pledge of Allegiance, thr national motto and Congressional prayers. However, in the 1960s a person was no longer enforced to swear on the Bible.
But religion is still rooted in traditional habits. And the U.S. Constitution states no religion can be established in the state. Inserting "in God's name" has established swearing on the Bible, now an option.
But not swearing on "holy words" after centuries of fear through sheep following sheep, anyone watching even the president swear on a Bible conclude that a person has to carry on an outdated archaic custom.
Many voices today want to eliminate government swearing of pious biased thoughts (hand on Bible) with the statement–"I swear that if I lie or commit libel, I am liable for imprisonment." The present swearing has no adverse consequence other than imagined archaic dogma of a law religion.
It is precisely because eighteenth century Americans were a religious people divided into many fighting sects that we were given the constitutional mandate to keep church and state completely separate.
–Justice Hugo L. Black, dissent 343 U.S. 318, 319
Mame,
heleesmith1.blogspot.com founder of WORLD ENLIGHTENING NEWS BLOG and author of ERASE RACE ! essay and 50 published books based on history and the arts
