| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nakas" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2003 05:42:23 PM |
| Object: |
God's oath should be unconstitutional |
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be judged
unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now. What's the difference? In both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think the
case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because demanding a
secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
.
|
|
| User: "E. L." |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional - it is! |
05 Nov 2003 06:38:39 PM |
|
|
God's oath should be unconstitutional
Group: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2003, 11:42pm (EST+5) From: (Nakas)
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be
judged unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is
pretty much undisputed right now. What's the difference? In both cases
the government is standing in a position of authority in favor of
monotheism. In both cases those outside the religion are made to feel
uncomfortable. In both cases the person is given the opportunity to opt
out. In fact, I think the case of the oath in our courts is even more
significant because demanding a secular oath may cause you to lose
credibility with the judge and jury.
el: "I recently started a thread over at talk.atheism about my
experiences regarding the oath in court during jury selection. I also
just added a FindLaw article here (a.a) about too much religiosity
during the process. But to comment on your post, the '...so help me
God' part of the oath is no longer used as a couple of judges have told
me when I stand up to tell them that I'm an atheist and I'm not going to
say '...so help me God.' I've also made comments about the sign above
the judges' bench that says 'In God We Trust (all others pay cash!)."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional - it is! |
06 Nov 2003 04:05:54 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism E. L. <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote:
:
: God's oath should be unconstitutional
: Group: alt.atheism
: Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2003, 11:42pm (EST+5) From: (Nakas)
: I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be
: judged unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is
: pretty much undisputed right now. What's the difference? In both cases
: the government is standing in a position of authority in favor of
: monotheism. In both cases those outside the religion are made to feel
: uncomfortable. In both cases the person is given the opportunity to opt
: out. In fact, I think the case of the oath in our courts is even more
: significant because demanding a secular oath may cause you to lose
: credibility with the judge and jury.
One big difference is that one is an oath to be truthful in
a trial (a requirement for basic justice), while the other is
an oath to be loyally supporting your nation, right or wrong
(which is jingoism, and not a requirement for anything important
at all).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 06:14:07 PM |
|
|
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote in
news:zPWpb.108223$Tr4.289862@attbi_s03:
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be
judged unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is
pretty much undisputed right now. What's the difference? In both
cases the government is standing in a position of authority in favor
of monotheism. In both cases those outside the religion are made to
feel uncomfortable. In both cases the person is given the opportunity
to opt out. In fact, I think the case of the oath in our courts is
even more significant because demanding a secular oath may cause you
to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
The ultimate irony is that christians are commanded by Jesus, not to swear
any oath at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 06:16:24 PM |
|
|
I find it very inconsistent that the pledge of allegiance may soon be
judged unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is
pretty much undisputed right now. What's the difference? In
both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think
the case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because
demanding a secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the
judge and jury.
The witness's oath is unnecessary; it's illegal to commit perjury.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 06:21:08 PM |
|
|
In article <bo9ff4$tgj$1@news.chatlink.com>,
Witziges Rätsel <zer@roer.com> wrote:
The witness's oath is unnecessary; it's illegal to commit perjury.
But "perjury" is the "voluntary violation of an oath or vow", and
the legal definition is usually a variation of "an intentional false
statement given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit." Without an
oath, there can be no perjury to begin with.
In addition, I think a secular oath would work as a sort of
"mirandizing" the witness, making him explicitly aware that there are
penalties should he provide intentionally false statements.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 07:34:45 PM |
|
|
The witness's oath is unnecessary; it's illegal to commit
perjury.
But "perjury" is the "voluntary violation of an oath or vow", and
the legal definition is usually a variation of "an intentional false
statement given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit." Without an
oath, there can be no perjury to begin with.
In addition, I think a secular oath would work as a sort of
"mirandizing" the witness, making him explicitly aware that there are
penalties should he provide intentionally false statements.
All right, is it legal to refuse to take the oath?
If it is, then is it legal to refuse, then lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
05 Nov 2003 11:09:39 AM |
|
|
In article <bo9k1u$vu9$1@news.chatlink.com>,
Witziges Rätsel <zer@roer.com> wrote:
The witness's oath is unnecessary; it's illegal to commit
perjury.
But "perjury" is the "voluntary violation of an oath or vow", and
the legal definition is usually a variation of "an intentional false
statement given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit." Without an
oath, there can be no perjury to begin with.
In addition, I think a secular oath would work as a sort of
"mirandizing" the witness, making him explicitly aware that there are
penalties should he provide intentionally false statements.
All right, is it legal to refuse to take the oath?
Usually, yes; except in certain specific circumstances, you cannot be
compelled to testify. Of course, if you refuse to take the oath, then
you cannot testify and you cannot give an affidavit.
Kinda like flying: it is perfectly legal to refuse to submit your
luggage to X-rays, security, or customs search. Of course, then you
cannot fly.
If it is, then is it legal to refuse, then lie?
If you refuse, you will not be testifying, and it is not illegal to
lie per se (though certain kinds of lies are actionable, as in slander
and libel laws).
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 09:20:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:34:45 -0500, "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
All right, is it legal to refuse to take the oath?
If it is, then is it legal to refuse, then lie?
In most jurisdictions, you can affirm, rather than swearing.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
05 Nov 2003 03:51:41 AM |
|
|
In article <zPWpb.108223$Tr4.289862@attbi_s03>,
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote:
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be judged
unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now.
In my state, at least, an oath is not requred for court use.
Affirmations, with no reference to a deity, are an acceptable
alternative.
What's the difference? In both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think the
case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because demanding a
secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
You may find this interesting. In the US Constitution, in Article 2,
Section 1, the last paragraph spells out the way the President is to be
installed in his office. It doesn't mention a book-o-blood, or *GAWD!*
or anything like that:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.''
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html
Apparently, when every Prez from Washington on has said "So help me
*GAWD!*" he was adding his own words to the mandated script. Silly,
ain't it?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
05 Nov 2003 05:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:51:41 GMT, *nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com>
wrote:
In article <zPWpb.108223$Tr4.289862@attbi_s03>,
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote:
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be judged
unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now.
In my state, at least, an oath is not requred for court use.
Affirmations, with no reference to a deity, are an acceptable
alternative.
What's the difference? In both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think the
case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because demanding a
secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
You may find this interesting. In the US Constitution, in Article 2,
Section 1, the last paragraph spells out the way the President is to be
installed in his office. It doesn't mention a book-o-blood, or *GAWD!*
or anything like that:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.''
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html
Apparently, when every Prez from Washington on has said "So help me
*GAWD!*" he was adding his own words to the mandated script. Silly,
ain't it?
Here's a copy/paste from the Constitution, notice the last paragraph:
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 05:52:34 PM |
|
|
In article <zPWpb.108223$Tr4.289862@attbi_s03>,
Nakas <nakas@comcast.net> wrote:
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be judged
unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now. What's the difference?
Not saying I agree that they are different, but one important
difference which ->does<- matter is that it is not the Pledge itself,
but rather its recitation in school which is at issue. There is ample
precedent for treating schoolchildren inside the school differently
from the way we treat adults, or even children in other settings. Some
of them you may agree with, some you may disagree. For example, the
Court has ruled that the school (as a state actor) may censor a
student newspaper, but the state may not censor a newspaper. On the
other hand, prayer in school was outlawed even though it was
"optional" in large part because we were dealing with children in a
particular setting (school).
In both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think the
case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because demanding a
secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
Unfortunately, "losing credibility with the jury" is not really an
issue. Juries are meant to be kind of "cross sections" of the general
population (though, of course, they are highly unlikely to be). But if
the general population has a bias in one direction then it is only
natural for the jury to reflect that bias. For example, the Supreme
Court struck down the practice of excusing from a jury in a capital
case people who are inclined against capital punishment, arguing that
if the population is inclined against it, then the jury will of course
reflect it, even though it may cause a zealous prosecutor to be
thought of less by the jury.
(Mind you, I would be in favor of replacing "so help me god" in all
official oaths with secular oaths, e.g. "under penalty of perjury";
but I do not think that the brush that strikes down school prayer and
may possibly strike down the recitation of the pledge of allegiance
would be wide enough to strike down non-secular legal oaths. School
cases have long been "distinguished" from other cases, and you would
have to make your case directly).
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
05 Nov 2003 08:12:17 AM |
|
|
Nakas wrote:
I find it very inconsistant that the pledge of alegince may soon be judged
unconstitutional, but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now. What's the difference?
The "so help me God" part of a court oath is very disputed; there are law suits
being filed all the time. The difference is that with the Pledge, children are
being required by law to say it. Children do have the right to leave the room
or to refuse to salute and pledge, the Supreme Court's previous ruling have
made this quite clear. However, children who excercise those rights become,
quite frequently, the target of emotional and even physical abuse at the hands
of other students and, amazingly enough, at the hands of teachers and school
administrators. Children who do not wish to recite the Pledge are, in short,
bullied in to blind obedience in violation of their Constitutional rights and
personal beliefs. The courts have long recognized (if grudgingly) that no one
may be legally required to swear a god-oath, and in the United States many
courts already omit the religious language entirely. Those that do not may not
require a witness to use it; the witness is completely free to swear some other
binding oath or affirmation and the courts are not allowed to use that
alternate oath in any way against the witness.
In both cases the government
is standing in a position of authority in favor of monotheism. In both
cases those outside the religion are made to feel uncomfortable. In both
cases the person is given the opportunity to opt out. In fact, I think the
case of the oath in our courts is even more significant because demanding a
secular oath may cause you to lose credibility with the judge and jury.
If the witness does lose credibility, there is grounds for not only a mistrial,
but grounds for having the judge and lawyers disbarred and prohibited from
practicing law ever again.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God's oath should be unconstitutional |
04 Nov 2003 07:20:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:42:23 +0000, Nakas wrote:
but the god's oath in our court system is pretty much
undisputed right now.
I didn't think there was anywhere left that required swearing "by god." Is
there? I haven't run into it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
