Just wondering...

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
even more important, does a christian have to even though it goes against their very faith?

It is my understanding that the "Quakers" got into trouble for refusing to swear on the Bible (because of their faith).

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Just wondering...


When an atheist goes to court, does he or she have to swear on the Bible?


😉[/b]

In answer to the original question the answer is no in New Zealand. The oath is modified for those who do not want to swear on the 'Almighty God'. I recently went to court as a juror. I was challenged as I went to sit down and didn't get to take any sort of oath or watch proceedings.

Originally posted by andrew93
In answer to the original question the answer is no in New Zealand. The oath is modified for those who do not want to swear on the 'Almighty God'. I recently went to court as a juror. I was challenged as I went to sit down and didn't get to take any sort of oath or watch proceedings.

"I was challenged as I went to sit down and didn't get to take any sort of oath or watch proceedings." <--- What happened?

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"I was challenged as I went to sit down and didn't get to take any sort of oath or watch proceedings." <--- What happened?

gb

The court ballots a number of people to be jurors. Then about 30 people are taken to court. If your name is called you then walk to the juror box. If you are not challenged you become a juror. The defence (and prosecution) has the right to call 'challenge' to any juror, who is then excused. They do not have to give any reason whatsoever. They may not like the look of you, the suburb you live in or they may think you won't be sympathetic to their client.

I didn't take issue with being challenged - everyone is entitled to be judged by a juror of their peers. I believe the defence felt I wouldn't be a "peer" of the accused. I had reached my seat and was about to bend down when the challenge was issued. Prior to the challenge I was thinking "there goes 2 weeks of my life I won't ever get back". I was glad I was challenged.

Originally posted by andrew93
The court ballots a number of people to be jurors. Then about 30 people are taken to court. If your name is called you then walk to the juror box. If you are not challenged you become a juror. The defence (and prosecution) has the right to call 'challenge' to any juror, who is then excused. They do not have to give any reason whatsoever. They may not ...[text shortened]... g "there goes 2 weeks of my life I won't ever get back". I was glad I was challenged.

Identical to my experience in California, except I lost 3-4 days

of my life waiting for the jury selection process to conclude.

😉

Nowadays I believe all that's required is a raising of the hand and affirmation that you will tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That used to end, universally, with "So help me God," but now it has boiled down to state-to-state preference. In a Federal Court, I don't know whether they use "so help me God," or not.

Originally posted by sumydid
Nowadays I believe all that's required is a raising of the hand and affirmation that you will tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That used to end, universally, with "So help me God," but now it has boiled down to state-to-state preference. In a Federal Court, I don't know whether they use "so help me God," or not.

How about the requirement stipulated by our Constitution that citizens elected to positions in any of the three branches of government take an oath administered by the Supreme Court, which concludes with "So help me God", publically sworn on a Bible?

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
How about the requirement stipulated by our Constitution that citizens elected to positions in any of the three branches of government take an oath administered by the Supreme Court, which concludes with "So help me God", publically sworn on a Bible?

gb

That's still in effect and ... I think that's great.

I just Googled a bit and was reminded about the Atheist that everyone loves to loathe... Michael Newdow and his lawsuit to have that very phrase removed from the Presidential inauguration. He got shot down because it's up to the one being inaugurated to have it included or not. So far, (thank God), no one has been bold enough to do so. I'm surprised O'bummer didn't do it.

Originally posted by sumydid
Nowadays I believe all that's required is a raising of the hand and affirmation that you will tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That used to end, universally, with "So help me God," but now it has boiled down to state-to-state preference. In a Federal Court, I don't know whether they use "so help me God," or not.

i always thought of that as excessively redundant. the 'truth' is not enough, you have to also say the "whole" truth, but even that's not good enough...

Originally posted by VoidSpirit

i always thought of that as excessively redundant. the 'truth' is not enough, you have to also say the "whole" truth, but even that's not good enough...

Commonly acknowledged that much of what passes as truth contains degrees of absolute truth, gross ignorance driven half truths, inadvertent error and bias spawned outright falsehood. Flip side of the coin image profile is often equally as variegated and blurred. Much of what gets dismissed as falsehood and lies often contains an astoundingly high percentage of the whole truth, especially when the lies are manufactured and delivered by an expert veteran or inveterate liar.

Two pragmatic reasons: 1) Such polished lies are more likely to be questioned and are, therefore, more readily believed; 2) There's less of a fabrication burden for the seasoned liar to commit to memory. Skim milk and/or contaminated truth is neither 'enough', effectual nor beneficial. Venues involved include pulpits around the globe and spirituality forums across the internet.

-gb

Sunday Bump. Sorry. Maybe the 'evil one' made me do it.

😞

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Just wondering...


When an atheist goes to court, does he or she have to swear on the Bible?


😉[/b]

In the UK as stated [before in this thread] you have a choice of several options, you can swear on the bible,
you can swear on another holy book (say Koran), or you can simply affirm....
It should be noted that the right not to have to swear on a bible to god was hard fought for
by secularists against the protestations of Christians... Which I don't really understand as
atheists don't believe in god and thus have to lie to swear by god which makes the whole thing
pointless.


It might [also] be noted at this point that people of a highly religious persuasion, particularly Muslim,
often choose to affirm rather than swear on the Koran/other holy book... It has been speculated
that this is because they know that they are about to lie their heads off...
However I couldn't possibly comment on such speculation...


Likewise when MP's are sworn in to the house when elected they have a choice as to whether
they want to affirm or swear on the bible.

As for your delight that politicians in your country do swear by almighty god, I would remind you that
your country was founded as a secular nation, with separation of church and state in the constitution,
and that requiring politicians to be, or look to be, religious is just asking to be lied to, and is both discriminatory
against other faiths and secularists in your country as well as being in flagrant disregard on your own
founding constitution.

Consider how you would feel if your next president swore to Allah with his hand on a Koran to get an idea
of how secularists (of which there are more than you think) and theists from other religions feel every time
someone takes office swearing to the Christian god.

Originally posted by googlefudge

In the UK as stated [before in this thread] you have a choice of several options, you can swear on the bible,
you can swear on another holy book (say Koran), or you can simply affirm....
It should be noted that the right not to have to swear on a bible to god was hard fought for
by secularists against the protestations of Christians... Which I don't r eists from other religions feel every time
someone takes office swearing to the Christian god.

"As for your delight that politicians in your country do swear by almighty god, I would remind you that
your country was founded as a secular nation, with separation of church and state in the constitution..."


Taking an oath before and invoking the providential protection/blessing of a supreme being in no way violates separation of church and state. Individual choice in matters of belief and worship remains uncoerced. If the USA, God forbid, was a "Christian Nation" as some extreme and ignorant crusader groups would advocate anybody who believed differently than in the mandated manner would by definition be in criminal violation of the dictates of those in power (as in Iran, other Muslim and Pacific Rim totalitarian regimes).

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Commonly acknowledged that much of [b]what passes as truth contains degrees of absolute truth, gross ignorance driven half truths, inadvertent error and bias spawned outright falsehood. Flip side of the coin image profile is often equally as variegated and blurred. Much of what gets dismissed as falsehood and lies often contains an astounding involved include pulpits around the globe and spirituality forums across the internet.

-gb[/b]

Typo Omission Corrected:

"Two pragmatic reasons: 1) Such polished lies are more likely not to be questioned and are, therefore, more readily believed; 2) There's less of a fabrication burden for the seasoned liar to commit to memory. Skim milk and/or contaminated truth is neither 'enough', effectual nor beneficial. Venues involved include pulpits around the globe and spirituality forums across the internet."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"As for your delight that politicians in your country do swear by almighty god, I would remind you that
your country was founded as a secular nation, with separation of church and state in the constitution..."


Taking an oath before and invoking the providential protection/blessing of a supreme being in no way violates separation of church ...[text shortened]... tes of those in power (as in Iran, other Muslim and Pacific Rim totalitarian regimes).

gb[/b]

Really, so it would be no problem for a known atheist to run for president, without his/her atheism
being a point against them?

And no politicians deliberately emphasis their religion to gain votes?

You don't have to make belief in something different illegal before you begin to be discriminatory.