Democrat From Kentucky


Democrat from Kentucky
We promote fair and honest political discussion from all sides of the ideological spectrum While my own opinions and my contributors tend toward a more progressive view, that's not always the case. I ask people to comment freely and openly to promote fair discourse.
Top US stories
 


Previous Posts


What's on the brain this morning
New Poll - Sirhan Sirhan
Old Poll - Dubai Ports World
Job Application...
Isaac Hayes Leaves South Park
Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Make Personal Attacks...
Feingold Wants Bush Censured
Late night thread
Milosevic Dead
UK Lost

Google


Swearing On the Constitution Wednesday, March 15, 2006

A friend sent me this link from Gather. It's quite amusing. I've reprinted the comments here:

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis
at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie
Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested
to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator
Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your
oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did
not place your hand on the Constitution and
swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.


Damned funny.



Technorati Tags: ,


posted by Stithmeister @ 12:55 PM
 
1 Comments:

Links to this post:

<\$BlogBacklinkControl\$> <\$BlogBacklinkTitle\$> <\$BlogBacklinkDeleteIcon\$>
<\$BlogBacklinkSnippet\$>
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>

At 6:19 PM, Blogger Tim Kanwar said...
While Raskin's barb is amusing and well-taken, it exposes an even deeper fault-line in the supposed wall between church and state in this country. Why do we continue to permit and encourage witnesses (along with government officials, both appointed and elected) to swear an oath on the Bible? What kind of wall is it that affirms the most important instrument of our democracy by reference to the most important instrument of the religious majority of this country?

As an atheist the witness oath is of particular concern to me. Were I ever to take the witness stand, I would, of course, choose a non-secular affirmation rather than one of the religious "so help me God" variety. But I would worry very seriously, especially if I were in the unfortunate role of testifying defendant, that my failure to swear an oath to God would prejudice my testimony in the eyes of some jury members. These days our law is supposed to be blind to the religious beliefs of those that come before it. Which begs the question of why we allow, as their first act to the court, witnesses to either affirm not only that they will speak truthfully but also that they subscribe to a fundamentally religious point of view?

http://farragonews.blogspot.com/2006/03/did-you-hear-one-about-bible-and.html
 

Post a Comment

links to this post << Home


Name:
Location: Harrodsburg, Kentucky, United States

I'm currently working in the telecomm industry but one of my passions is still politics.



Weekly Poll


Drop Me A Line

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Atom Site Feed





<

Kentucky Blogs



National Blogs



Kentucky News



National News



Powered by Blogger
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com