Shaking the Biblical Foundations by Guest Blogger Dr. Bruce Prescott

FP -

You said the "Religious Right is assuring that the forever contentious debate about liberty of conscience and freedom of religion moves from the principled and reasoned discourse of the courtroom to the passionate and inflamed rhetoric of the public square."

Excuse me, but didn't you basically say that the common people cannot be trusted to make these sorts of decisions, but that only certain (generally non-elected) elites should have that power?

Wow. That was pretty blatant. Jefferson and other founding fathers welcomed "contentious debate", believing that the "marketplace of ideas" was a good thing.

The Constitution is not a "living document", but a rather piece of paper with words on it. Words that had specific meanings in the context of the time they were written. There is, however, a mechanism for changing the constitution. It's called "amending the Constitution", and has been done numerous times since the document's creation. If you don't like the Constitution, I suggest that you use that means to change it, rather than encouraging the appointment of the type of judges who will do it via some judicial fiat.

Who said anything about "changing the constitution?" Dr. Prescott's question here is the interpretation of the law in the light of the Constitutional prohibition on establishment of any religion. Does KSM mean to tell us that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document that can only be interpreted through the holy wisdom of an American Magesterium? I'd be willing to bet that KSM claims to be a follower of Jesus and sees no contradiction in awarding a human political document divine status. The Bible and the Koran call that idolatry.

The Bible is the Word of God. Islam is a false religion and the Quran is meaningless babble. Don't like it, leave the country.

Matthew 5:Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I find the idea that the Constitution is just a "piece of paper with words on it" and that those "Words that had specific meanings in the context of the time they were written" indicative of a very particular fundamentalist mind-set.

The conservative, evangelical religious right interprets the Bible in the same exact way; it must be taken literally, and is completely inerrant. It certainly isn't any sort of "living document!" So it doesn't surprise me a bit that they want to interpret all authoritative writings in the same way. They apparently aren't equipped to do anything else.

What bothers me about this is that the IDEA of having someone swear to tell the truth with their hand on Holy Scriptures is that they are less likely to break an oath to their God than they are to man.

So, how does having a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu swear on the Bible uphold this belief? Isn't basically asking them to perjure themselves as a condition of swearing to tell the truth?

KSM, there is only one way to avoid interpreting the Constitution. That is to use the current most common usage of all the terms. To use "original intent" is a form of interpreting, because you aren't using what it is understood to mean today, but rather are trying to interpret what those words meant to someone in the 18th century.

That stance also neglects the fact that the Amendments were purposely written to be vague.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Okay, so what is "probably cause"? There is no indication of "original intent" with regards to internet files or telephone calls or pretty much anything about modern life.

Even Antonin Scalia has stated that it is his job to interpret the Constitution. His position is that it should always be interpreted to limit the government (except, of course, when it suits his cause to rule otherwise).

Bill, your statement is simply ignorant. You claim that Islam is false and offer as a solution leaving the country? How many feet off of our coast must someone travel before it is no longer false?

Give it a rest. Thomas Jefferson assured the Barbary Coast principalities that the US was not a Christian nation and would not persecute their sailors if they sought shelter in our harbors or impede their trade. This country was founded on broad religious plurality. Nothing violates the spirit of America more than to try and restrict it now.

XT

Bill, you couldn't be more wrong, bigoted, or, in my mind, far from how God wants us to treat our neighbor. Ironically, the Puritans came to these shores seeking refuge from religious persecution, and then promptly began persecuting anyone who didn't agree with their religion. Its easy for us to persecute those who are the outsiders among us, or who look different than us, are attracted to different genders than us, or practice a different set of beliefs than us. And yet the Bible sends a consistent message that we are treat all these people with respect and compassion. Indeed, how we would want them to treat us if our situations were reversed.

As a Catholic, i would personaly require a Catholic version even going as far to request a Latin Bible (or older version). Why shouldn't we allow people to use the Holy text of their choice? There are 3 Faiths that come from Abraham, in the end it's the same God reguardless of text. It's part of being tolerant and respecting other faiths.

"The Bible is the Word of God. Islam is a false religion and the Quran is meaningless babble."

You are entitled to that opinion.

I do not believe you are entitled to live under the rule of a government that agrees with you.

It is not the right nor the responsibility of the government to determine what constitutes the Word Of God.

Are you a born again Christian? The reason I ask is because I have met a number of BAC who believe Catholicism is a false religion or is at least way off base.

If you are a BAC how would you feel if the judge in this case had determined that the Catholic Bible and only the Catholic Bible constituted "Holy Scripture?" and that which ever Christian Bible you considered authoritative thusly was not "Holy Scripture".

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Please.

When I discussed this with my brother and my wife, the both brought up the case of the atheist.

What possible good is having someone swear on a Bible when they don't even believe in God?

I also believe that the Bible actually condemns making easy oaths and says, "Let your no be no and your yes be yes."

I know that when taking the Oath of Enlistment, you are not required to swear on a Bible. In fact, you are not even required to swear, but can instead "affirm" your commitment.

XT

I would like to explore what XT said about Hindus and Buddists - it would be meaningless to ask a Christian to swear on a sacred text of the eastern religions because a Christian does not recognize them as sacred so presumedly a Christian could lie without consequence (except it is not ethical to lie). The same is true when asking a Hindu or Buddist to swear on the western holy book (the Bible in this case). If the goal is to convince someone to be more honest beyond their normal ethics we should chose the book most likely to achieve the desired effect. Muslims respect the Bible and consider it a Holy Book - the Quran is an extension of the Bible so I would ask a muslim religious scholar to issue a Fatwah concerning the various effects concerning swearing an oath on the Bible - this would have a much stronger effect in the Muslim community.

The constitution is the document we have chosen to help us live together on earth. It provides for us to chose our own laws on earth. Some States decided to put the Ten commandments in their State Constitution and then voted on the State Constitution making it the law of the land.
I don't think the constitution is vague - it provides for rights and then we the people decide the limits of those rights - there is no way anyone could sit down and itemize "probable cause." Each generation decides this in the courts. What the constitution does is puts the Law above the Government. This is the tradition of English Common Law. Roman Law (common in Europe) puts the Government above the Law. (This may have changed in the last century I'm not up on my European Law).

How come we christians never quote from Proverbs? I like Prov 18:15 "Intelligent people are always open to new ideas. In fact they look for them."

XP,
Your statement was very ignorant. If laws are based on a moral code then what or whose moral code do we use?? Christianity is the law of God. Our laws are based essentially on the Bible - not the Koran, etc. Islam is a false religion whether you believe it or not. As usual, you liberals deliberately twist what I said. The truth is the truth.

If our laws were truly based on the Bible, the oath would be unnecessary to begin with. Our Lord specifically told us not to swear or take oaths.

I say, just let the poor woman use the Koran. It may be a 'false' religion, but it is her faith. This is America, not the Soviet Union; we're not in the business of telling people they have to believe what we believe, or else.

How then are our laws based on the Bible? Is it simply the idea that the Bible teaches right and wrong, ultimately? The Constitution certainly was not based on the Bible. Just because it came from our Foundng Fathers and they put the word God into some of their writings does not make it Christian nor based on the Bible. Let the woman swear on what she must to ensure that the court proceedings can proceed with the most integrity.

I think it's terrible that they forced that Muslim woman to swear on the Bible!!! It's like the Crusades all over again!!!

Doug Brown

My statement is ignorant? Perhaps you would be so kind as to lend your great wisdom to show which part is incorrect?

Please use the Amendment I quoted as an example of how the Bible is the blueprint for our law. I can't seem to find the chapter of my Bible that deals with unreasonable search and seizure or search warrants, or any other part of it, for that matter.

Failing that, perhaps you can show that any of the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly, no quartering of soldiers, no requirement to testify against your self, etc. - has a Biblical precedent.

I'll be patient. Go ahead and prove your statement.

XT

The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God & the Bible (or authors of the books of the Bible) point to where we can find the Word of God. There is an important difference here that should not be glossed over.

Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution was a living document, and he should know.