Anti-swearing law

Bob Fitzke fitzke at VOYAGER.NET
Mon Feb 21 21:59:17 UTC 2000

Nor, I think, did I suggest you did. My comments were aimed at your observation
about swearing on a bible.


Anne Gilbert wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Fitzke <fitzke at VOYAGER.NET>
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Anti-swearing law
> > Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your mind set) the "wall of
> > separation" is not nealy as clear cut as the phrase implies. Most courts
> use
> > "swear or affirm" to accomodate those who recognize no deity. The
> government not
> > only employs "chaplains" for Congress, it has them scattered throughout
> the
> > armed forces. The phrase, "In God we trust" is a commonly recognized
> breach of
> > the wall. And the 'swearing' statute in Michigan is only the tip of the
> > religious icebergs that clutter the law. For example, sodomy statutes and
> other
> > laws dealing with "perversion", for the most part, reflect nothing more
> than our
> > Puritanical heritage.
> >
> > The courts generally recognize and accept this historical foundation
> rather than
> > giving full force and effect to the "wall".
> Bob:
> I didn't say the "wall of separation" is airtight.  It obviously isn't, as
> the examples you have given suggest. And there is continual and ongoing
> argument about how airtight this "wall of separation" ought to be.  But
> that's another story, and probably doesn't have much to do with
> sociolinguistics.
> Anne G

More information about the Ads-l mailing list