« Home | Next: First we take North Korea, then Taiwan, then... Ca... »
| Next: Daily FISK is Looking for New Writers »
| Next: Duel of the "Stupids" »
| Next: Reach out and FISK someone »
| Next: Misappropriating Kelo »
| Next: Dicky's Retraction »
| Next: It Sucks to be an immigrant »
| Next: Wondering where the lions are »
| Next: Rev. Phelps' Mission »
| Next: Blogging can be a Dangerous Sport »


Monday, June 27, 2005

Separating Church and State

No Swearing Allowed

No, I'm not talking about profaning the courts. Or then again...

What I am talking about is the Supreme Court's decision today that says the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed inside courthouses because they violate the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The decision was split so closely that even the supreme court itself doesn't really know what to do with this conundrum.

If memory serves correctly the principle of separation was supposed to protect the Church from the State, but it would appear the reverse is now in order (or was it the other way around).

Time and again the courts have made clear they have an aversion to anything that smacks of 'religion'. So I'm a-thinkin' maybe we should get rid of the swearing of oaths as well.

Indeed, what is the point if there are no 'absolutes' to swear by? On your mommas' grave perhaps? And what does the judge think of all that cussin' going on. I say let's be rid of it once and for all!

I mean, really... the western world's legal system 'was' based on certain moral precepts (theft, murder, etc.) from the ten commandments (notice that I used 'was' instead of 'is').

Trying to separate law from religion is like separating the... well, church from the state. Make sense? I'm glad it does to you because the whole notion is contradictory to my sensibilities.

Questions:

  • Is this just another example of a social trend that can't see the end beyond the means?


  • Is it a decision trying to strike a fair balance, or is it just another anti-religion decision?


  • Or, how can you find balance and justice in a world with no absolutes to judge it by?


  • On the whims of a partisan judge perhaps?

    Click here to listen to this Podcast This inspiring podcast brought to you by the Fisk @ 4:07 PM

    Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português | Chinese | Korean | Japanese

    Technorati Watchlist - Favorites - Explore - Other blog comments
    Bookmarks add to del.icio.us add to Furl digg it add to Reddit add to YahooMyWeb add to Fark add to blinklist SlashDot this Add to Simpy Seed this at Newsvine Add to Spurl


    5 Comments: 'Reach out and FISK someone'...

    At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    If we don't base our laws on a moral code then what the hell good is the law?

     Edit Comment
    At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Who needs a moral Judge when you have a gun!

     Edit Comment
    At 4:08 PM, Blogger EPIPHANY said...

    Didn't morality ( A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct) crawl out of the primordial soup along with fear and common sense?
    Just looking at ourselves....I'm sure were headed to an evolution of morality where Judges won't be necessary, where we'll all live in harmony....aaaahhhhh!!!!

     Edit Comment
    At 10:44 PM, Blogger buma said...

    Religions do not have a monopoly on morality. Separation of church and state is common sense -- just because someone doesn't subscribe to your brand of religion does not mean he or she is amoral. Let's base our system of laws on the Constitution. Waving the ten commandments around is just a nonsensical stunt. Nobody would want our court system to start prosecuting those who commit adultery or who covet their neighbor's wife.

     Edit Comment
    At 12:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Dear Buma:

    You are confusing civil and criminal law. I would not expect to see any laws passed prosecuting adulterers any more than I would expect to see homosexuality made illegal in a criminal sense.

    Like it or not our laws are based on morals that are derived from Jewish tradition.

    It seems however that certain special interest groups are intent on replacing our traditional morals with theirs.

    Sorry, but it's not gonna happen.

     Edit Comment

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    If you enjoyed this post why not leave a comment, bookmark it or subscribe to our free newsletter?

    More @ the daily FISK!...

    Even More fun and frivolity...

    Home
    First we take North Korea, then Taiwan, then... Ca...

    Daily FISK is Looking for New Writers

    Duel of the "Stupids"

    Reach out and FISK someone

    Misappropriating Kelo

    Dicky's Retraction

    It Sucks to be an immigrant

    Wondering where the lions are

    Rev. Phelps' Mission

    Blogging can be a Dangerous Sport

    << Thanks for dropping by! >>