John Lofton/Oaths

Thu Jul 28 14:01:07 PDT 2005

I Mr. Pardee wasn't, I am.  What difference does it make when  
swearing to any god at all?  If one believes in that god and in  
consequences of making a false oath to or in the name of the god,  
then one may be more likely to actually follow through with telling  
the truth or performing the functions, etc.  If one does not believe  
in that god or any god, then swearing to or in the name of a god is  
meaningless excess to that person.

Of course, for those who believe in things like damnation, it matters  
in the hereafter, if there is one.

But those issues are a bit beyond the scope of this list, it seems to  
me, that is the truth of Lofton's assertions of the inerrancy and  
ultimate authority of the Bible -- based mostly on the words of the  
Bible itself.  As a matter of simple logic, if one does not grant the  
authority of the Bible to the Bible, quoting it doesn't do much to  
persuade anyone.  So if one does not  believe in the Bible as God's  
word, then an assertion in the Bible that it is God's word isn't  
worth much.

But all of this will fall on deaf ears with respect to Mr. Lofton,  
based on his position regarding the Bible and the role of religion in  
the world.

Steve

On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Jlof at aol.com wrote:

> Interesting what happens when you de-abstractionize discussions by  
> being specific, by, for example, simply quoting God's Word. In any  
> event, let me take a swing at the questions asked below. My point  
> was that, as God says, there's only one God --- Him. You either  
> take an oath to Him or a false god. And He is "relevant" to  
> everything.
>
> As for the state and theology, ALL states take a position on this  
> "theological matter" by --- for example, in their laws --- being  
> either Godly or un-Godly. In fact, our country was founded, in  
> part, on "theological" beliefs.
>
> The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Laws of Nature and  
> of Nature's God," and how "all men...are endowed by their Creator  
> with certain unalienable Rights." It appeals to
> "the Supreme Judge of the world" and mentions "a firm reliance on  
> the protection of divine Providence."
>
> Sounds "theological" to me.
>
> But, I am not "suggesting" that the state take a position on  
> matters "theological." I am saying that, inescapably, ALL states do  
> EXACTLY this! They are either for or against God. There is no  
> neutrality here --- none! For example, all states will either  
> believe or not believe what our Founders said here in the  
> Declaration, or they will not.
>
> However, a state "taking a position" for or against God/Christ/ 
> Scripture does NOT mean "establishing" a national religion in the  
> sense of the kind of state church England has. No way.
>
> And I wonder, can Mr. Pardee be serious when he asks, or seems to  
> ask, in effect: What difference does it make whether, in an oath,  
> one is swearing to a true or false God?
>
> May God bless us all. John Lofton.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 Jlof at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> Exodus 20:1-3: "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD
>> thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
>> house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me." --- John
>> Lofton.
>>
>
> Could John Lofton please explain the relevance of his quotation to  
> the law
> of religion as applicable to this oath controversy (for the slow  
> such as
> me)?
>
> David B. Cruz
> Professor of Law
> University of Southern California Law School
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
> U.S.A.
>
> John Lofton wrote on 07/28/2005 11:06:41 AM:
>
>
>> Exodus 20:1-3: "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD
>> thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
>> the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ---
>> John Lofton.
>>
>
> But unless you are suggesting that the state take a position on a  
> purely theological matter, which would display extraordinary  
> disregard for the establishment clause (even as understood by those  
> of us who are conservative Christians), what bearing does this have  
> on the matter of court oaths?
>
> Brad Pardee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/

"I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of  
emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality."

Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050728/9052c36c/attachment.htm