| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2003 11:12:44 AM |
| Object: |
Insurance company and oaths |
I got a slip of paper with my auto insurance renewal last week, not sure
what to do with it (I'll probably just ignore it). But it says that they
won't pay for any damages unless I agree to assist them with their
investigations (no problem) and give them information "under oath" regarding
the accident.
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
I suppose it's something that's unlikely to happen; never had to "oath" in
connection with a car wreck before. But, like winning the lottery (hey,
I've won small $$$) it could happen . . . It shouldn't ever happen, though,
under any circumstances. Hah.
--Tock
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 05:30:44 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> thought hard and said:
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion)
What, can you not tell the fucking truth?
--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 11:22:50 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I got a slip of paper with my auto insurance renewal last week, not sure
what to do with it (I'll probably just ignore it). But it says that they
won't pay for any damages unless I agree to assist them with their
investigations (no problem) and give them information "under oath" regarding
the accident.
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
Actually, this sounds like the sort of thing their lawyers will
fall all over themselves to correct by changing the wording to
"oath or affirmation", because they might otherwise run into
problems over religious discrimination in their coverage.
I'm sure an affirmation would be acceptable even without
an explicit mention.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Casper TFG" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 02:52:30 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:0W60b.1417$5A7.748@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
I got a slip of paper with my auto insurance renewal last week, not
sure what to do with it (I'll probably just ignore it). But it says
that they won't pay for any damages unless I agree to assist them with
their investigations (no problem) and give them information "under
oath" regarding the accident.
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I
bring it up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or
something), but I still find it somewhere between irksome and awkward
to be required to give an oath (something based on religion) when
there's no way that an unbeleiver can be sincere when doing religious
things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures this out, they could
possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an unbeleiver, I didn't
comply with their requirement to give information under oath.
I suppose it's something that's unlikely to happen; never had to
"oath" in connection with a car wreck before. But, like winning the
lottery (hey, I've won small $$$) it could happen . . . It shouldn't
ever happen, though, under any circumstances. Hah.
--Tock
An oath doesn't have to do with religion. It's simply a promise to tell the
truth, but you don't have to swear on a Bible or make any promise to "God"
for the oath to be valid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 04:59:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:52:30 GMT, Casper TFG <Casper@Ghostworld.com>
wrote:
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:0W60b.1417$5A7.748@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
I got a slip of paper with my auto insurance renewal last week, not
sure what to do with it (I'll probably just ignore it). But it says
that they won't pay for any damages unless I agree to assist them with
their investigations (no problem) and give them information "under
oath" regarding the accident.
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I
bring it up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or
something), but I still find it somewhere between irksome and awkward
to be required to give an oath (something based on religion) when
there's no way that an unbeleiver can be sincere when doing religious
things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures this out, they could
possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an unbeleiver, I didn't
comply with their requirement to give information under oath.
I suppose it's something that's unlikely to happen; never had to
"oath" in connection with a car wreck before. But, like winning the
lottery (hey, I've won small $$$) it could happen . . . It shouldn't
ever happen, though, under any circumstances. Hah.
--Tock
An oath doesn't have to do with religion. It's simply a promise to tell the
truth, but you don't have to swear on a Bible or make any promise to "God"
for the oath to be valid.
I do believe you are correct, here's an example from article VI of the
U.S Constitution:
"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."
But I wonder what would happen in court if you finished up with just
"....so help me."
Anyway, god isn't in the presidential oath laid out in the
Constitution.
"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.""
Given the small cost of looking it up and printing it out, it may be
handy to have a copy on hand if they try to put you to higher
standards than their own oath.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall//charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html
,d
shiftbrain
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 03:31:53 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
. . . s n i p . . . .
First off, no state can, in any situation, require a religious oath. Put
that
fear behind you. What the "under oath" language means is that you will be
asked
to attest, either in writing or in the presence of "a person duly
authorized by
the state to administer an oath" (such as a notary public) that what you
are
saying is true. In notary terms, such an oath is called a jurat and you
have
taken one every time you signed a document with the phrase "I swear/affirm
that
the information provided above is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge." If someone tries to give you a religious oath (such as "Do you
swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?")
you are perfectly within your rights to repeat the oath without the
offending
parts ("I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the
truth.") Any grief anyone tries to give you because of your wording is
illegal.
Well, I wish you'd come on down here to Texas and tell these gumballs that.
Here's the current law regarding the swearing in of jurors:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/cp/cp0003500.html#cp002.35.02.
Art.35.02. [603] [674] [656] Sworn to answer questions
To those present the court shall cause to be administered this oath: "You,
and each of you, solemnly swear that you will make true answers to such
questions as may be propounded to you by the court, or under its directions,
touching your service and qualifications as a juror, so help you God."
As far as I know, this is the only language the judge is legally able to
administer. If he changes it, then I suppose one of the lawyers could get
a mistrial 'cause the judge didn't follow the letter of the law.
There's a few other occasions when jurors have to take this oath, so it
seems to be the standard mode of operation in this reason-forsaken state,
which is why the insurance company's note got my attention. If I take the
oath in court, I'm guilty of perjury, if I don't, I can get thrown in jail
for contempt of court. If the insurance company has the same oath, then if
I take it, I'm guilty of perjury, and if I don't, they won't pay to have my
car fixed in a wreck.
There's no way for an honest atheist to win in this game . . .
I sent State Farm an e-mail yesterday, we'll see what they have to say
about it (assuming they respond) . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 05:41:01 AM |
|
|
(<tock@sbcglobal.net>):
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
I believe you have a persecution complex. I can give an "oath" to
someone and still maintain my atheism.
--
Jeremy Martin
I have an aa number, but I'd have to look it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 06:37:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:41:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, Jeremy Martin
(Jeremy Martin <mrbungle@pattonisgod.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
(<tock@sbcglobal.net>):
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
I believe you have a persecution complex. I can give an "oath" to
someone and still maintain my atheism.
By Odin, he's right you know.
Anyway, in this context the "oath" is purely a way for the company to
have some legal comeback should it be subsequently shown that you
lied. Here (in the UK) when you "swear a document" you can use the
holy book of choice, or affirm. Presumably it's much the same there.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 06:57:08 AM |
|
|
(Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com>):
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:41:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, Jeremy Martin
(Jeremy Martin <mrbungle@pattonisgod.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
(<tock@sbcglobal.net>):
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
I believe you have a persecution complex. I can give an "oath" to
someone and still maintain my atheism.
By Odin, he's right you know.
Anyway, in this context the "oath" is purely a way for the company to
have some legal comeback should it be subsequently shown that you
lied. Here (in the UK) when you "swear a document" you can use the
holy book of choice, or affirm. Presumably it's much the same there.
I think it's a silly issue of semantics.
--
Jeremy Martin
I have an aa number, but I'd have to look it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 07:08:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:57:08 -0500 in alt.atheism, Jeremy Martin
(Jeremy Martin <mrbungle@pattonisgod.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
(Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com>):
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:41:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, Jeremy Martin
(Jeremy Martin <mrbungle@pattonisgod.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
(<tock@sbcglobal.net>):
Geez . . . I suppose that the atheism issue won't come up unless I bring it
up first (unless I'm driving in an atheist parade or something), but I still
find it somewhere between irksome and awkward to be required to give an oath
(something based on religion) when there's no way that an unbeleiver can be
sincere when doing religious things . . . And if some sharp lawyer figures
this out, they could possibly refuse to pay any damages because, as an
unbeleiver, I didn't comply with their requirement to give information under
oath.
I believe you have a persecution complex. I can give an "oath" to
someone and still maintain my atheism.
By Odin, he's right you know.
Anyway, in this context the "oath" is purely a way for the company to
have some legal comeback should it be subsequently shown that you
lied. Here (in the UK) when you "swear a document" you can use the
holy book of choice, or affirm. Presumably it's much the same there.
I think it's a silly issue of semantics.
A few years ago if you were a Buddhist there was a wonderful oath in
British courts that involved breaking a plate, "as this breaks so
might my soul if I lie" and so on. Apparently the clerk of the court
at the Old Bailey kept a supply of plates that sounded great when
broken. I think these days that oath has been retired, unfortunately.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
19 Aug 2003 07:14:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:57:08 -0500, Jeremy Martin
<mrbungle@pattonisgod.com> wrote:
Anyway, in this context the "oath" is purely a way for the company to
have some legal comeback should it be subsequently shown that you
lied. Here (in the UK) when you "swear a document" you can use the
holy book of choice, or affirm. Presumably it's much the same there.
I think it's a silly issue of semantics.
Unfortunately it's not.
One of the horribly murdered O'Hair family (Robyn) had been gaoled for
contempt of court for refusing the Jury oath in Texas, and also the
alternative affirmation because they both made it dependant on
God-belief. Even the affirmation finished with "so help me God".
She tried to sue, but it was ruled that she had no standing because
she hadn't been a juror. Which was disgusting. Being gaoled for not
doing something illegal is false imprisonment.
I think Texas has changed the law since then.
But round about the same time, there was another trial when a mistrial
was ordered when one of the attorneys discovered that a juror was an
atheist who had perjured himself by swearing the oath.
Catch-22.
It's hardly a "silly issue of semantics" when it causes mistrials,
people to be gaoled etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 02:27:21 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
But it says that they won't pay for any damages unless I
agree to assist them with their investigations (no problem)
and give them information "under oath" regarding
the accident.
It sounds like the insurance company requires an affidavit or
acknowledgment or deposition, or something equivalent. It's no more a
matter of religion than is swearing to tell the truth in court.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Insurance company and oaths |
18 Aug 2003 07:42:29 PM |
|
|
In article <3f4168ac$0$4192$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Clayton
Episode 1...The Farting Menace wrote:
It might be an idea to ring your insurer and ask them if it is a religious
oath. If they say yes, tell them if they don't change that requirement, you
are going to contact your lawyers about their discriminatory policy. You
got to smack them on the snout with a rolled up newspaper occasionally or
they will keep pissing on your rug.
If you feel you must be less openly atheist, you can simply state that
like the Quakers you prefer to simply affirm the truth of your
statements. Most likely their use of the word oath includes
affirmations and they would have no trouble with this.
Note that legally the penalty of lying whether it be an oath or an
affirmation would be the same.
Emma
not a lawyer
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
