Re: John Lofton/Oaths

[JMHACLJ]

In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:53:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:         I doubt that most people, even religious people, are more ready to tell the truth only if the swear an oath to God rather than simply being informed that the perjury rules apply.  But that aside, Jim presses the question, do we accept variances because "we are a pluralistic society or because we are a tolerant one."? I responded both, and I'm not sure I understand why Jim presses this question.  Is it because he thinks "merely" tolerating someone's religion is already to denigrate that religion. A fuller acceptance of the religious beliefs of others rather than tolerance is required? (I'm guessing.)           I would be eclectic here. If someone needs the administration of an oath, so be it. If another does not, simply remind him or her about the rules of perjury.            In my view, the EC is in play when one sectarian book or artifact is required for everyone. Well, Bobby, I am not sure on that first point.  But the development of trials from battle and fire to oath and jury suggests that some kind of meaning attaches to an oath above and beyond the bare power of the court to punish perjury.    In a recent posting, the term pluralistic was used to describe our society.  Word choices are, or are not, deliberate.  I was trying to flush out the choice, and its purpose.  I "pressed" the question only in the sense that I continue to ask for arguments on one side or the other.  I am asking because I come to the table with an impression about these two words and what kind of thinking is reflected in the choice of one or the other.   In this case, the choice was pluralistic, rather than tolerant.  We may be pluralistic by design.    I have also read and heard, especially in an earlier day, our society referred to as a tolerant one.  And in those cases, tolerance was offered in contrast to pluralism.    Obviously, neither pluralism or tolerance are adopted by those terms as the official governmental ethic in the Constitution of the United States.  Perhaps some use the terms interchangeably, even though they would never substitute salt for sugar in a cookie recipe.    I asked whether a textual argument for one choice or the other exists.  After all, if the Constitution makes us one or other, rather than our preferences doing so, the proof of the point should be at hand.     Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.