It is the best selling book of all time, the most respected, most criticized, the most translated, and most conterversial but mostly it demands respect so why is it's diginity botched in the system of justice. I am reffering to the usage of bible in the court to swear an oath to tell the truth...when anything but is told. Isn't that a disrespect to the holy book? Christians are ready to vehemently defend their faith and its tangible form; the bible, so why do they allow this disrespect to go on? Gangsters, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, peadophiles, theives all place their hand on the "Holy" book and swear to tell the truth when everyone in the room knows that a lie upon a lie will be told with no fear of any god or eternal damnation because at that moment only fear of incarcination reigns king....So why go on with this joke? Why bring down the value of their faith by using their holy book as a device to undertake some useless act?
Personally, in the event that I'm ever sworn in court, or in the unlikely event that I must take an oath of federal office, I would prefer to put my hand on a document that means something. I'm an American. Bring me the Supreme Law of the Land. I will stand for, on, under, behind, and in the name of that. But the irony that a hooker can read the Bible while servicing a john in a motel and then again when she's sworn in to testify against her pimp . . . .
There would be nothing wrong with prostitution if it wasnt for the pimps. They should legalize it and let real buisness men take care of the whores instead of drug dealing thugs who like to slap them around and cut up people who dont pay. I do believe that there is even biblical support for prostitution, so it must be good, right?
The point of the oath in court is to swear by something that you believe in strongly that you will tell the truth, the whole truth etc. It used to be the case that most people (in the USA, anyway), believed in God, and swearing on the bible was taken seriously. These days, people believe in all kinds of things. If you're a non-Christian, it is possible to swear on another holy book, or simply to make an affirmation, which is essentially staking your own reputation on your honesty. Of course, none of this prevents people from lying in court. Some people simply have no personal integrity.
I suppose the biggest reason we do this is tradition. Back when the bible was law you were sworn to hold yourself truthful towards god and its servants by placing your hand or praying to the bible before a trial. Tradition is a very hard thing to change and I suppose this tradition has stayed the same, whether or not the criminals actually uphold this promise.
well i like the bible and all, it's good literature. i'm not going to lie anyway because lying is shitty. but swearing on it would mean nothing to me. even many self proclaimed christians don't give a flying horseshoe about the bible and there are enough non-christians to make the whole practice pointless. they should have everyone swear on the constitution or something that actually means something in a secular court.
It's tradition........plain and simple.... in british parliament the two opposing parties sit with a space two and a half sword lenghts long to seperate them. This is so they don't reach for their long swords and stab each other. The distance hasn't been changed because people like traditions.
Oh we all know that the greatest book of all-time (whether you actually like the book or not) is Lord of the Rings by good old Tolkien. Not a single part of it is original, which makes it so good because he's drawn off over 100,000 thoughts, ideals, poems, myths, legends and modern movies even. Pretty fine.
I thought that all thee of them were prertty dry and boring. He had a really bland writing style, put me right to sleep!
I found The Hobbit delightful and easy to follow. The next three books were a bit of a chore to wade through, although I enjoyed them. I probably ignored at least a third of what was written and could not keep track of all of the characters. I had the same trouble with the bible. While I enjoyed the Ring movies, I thought they did a bad job of portraying the Hobbits. The movie Hobbits were not close to what I imagined from the four books.
It is all the more hypocritical since Jesus states, beginning in Matthew 5:33,(paraphrasing) ...take no oaths, let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. the whole text: 33Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; 35nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
"I do believe that there is even biblical support for prostitution, so it must be good, right?" uh, do u know how many people (including babies) are killed in the bible, alot "I thought that all thee of them were prertty dry and boring. He had a really bland writing style, put me right to sleep!" GET OFF MY WEBSITE!! i can see why you would say they are boring, this is because the language in LOTR is too high above what you are used to. (no offence intended) i agree with dinasaur mostly, they all are their for comic relief in the movie, in the book they actually do things the first part of movie 1 did them credit, but as soon as they got to Rivendell it lost it. it was only 1 book, until the publishers decided to change it into 3, the first editions are only 1 book
i think that swearing on the LOTR would make me want to tell the truth, swearing on a bible would just remind me of all the dodgy tv shows id seen in which people did this
Alain:That one book must have been a monster. They might have decided to make it into three books because some readers could not lift the single book.
I guess people swear on the bible cause all the crimes man can perpetrate, are so well drawn out, in it. Its quite horrid in some parts
No, serously dry as kindling. It's as though a C programer set out to write an epic. I'm no stranger to reading, it's not that it's "Above me".
I doubt a C programmer could cram so much stuff into o a book that obviously comes out of high level humanities classes, but I dig what Mystech is saying. Its like a particularly dull text book. A text book about a fantastical other world in a dire situation, but really really dry stuff. Ive heard some people expound on how real and relatable Tolkien made the characters, and wondered if they were reading the same LOTR as I was. Maybe that’s just the only positive criticism they know to give a book.
