From
theseamster who got it from
kessadebra:
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
---Jamie Raskin, testifying Wednesday 1 March 2006 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in response to a question from Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs about whether marriage discrimination against gay people is required by "God's Law."
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
---Jamie Raskin, testifying Wednesday 1 March 2006 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in response to a question from Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs about whether marriage discrimination against gay people is required by "God's Law."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 07:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 04:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 05:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 11:12 pm (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 03:37 pm (UTC)oh, wait.
Scary.