| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"E. L." |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2003 01:34:32 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
Re: Court oath: you accept or fight?
Group: talk.atheism
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 8:57pm (EST+5) From:
(robpar)
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 00:38:30 -0500 (EST), (E. L.)
wrote:
"When you are an atheist you sometimes have to rub some people the wrong
way. The ones I like to rub the wrong way, fortunately, are usually
theists such as found in courtrooms where god and the bible are used as
authority over everyone.
I'm happy to say that I'm true to myself and don't kowtow to such
authority.
When I am called for jury duty, I make it a point before the judge gets
too comfortable to stand up and disrupt the proceedings by stating to
the judge that I'm an atheist and will not accept a god oath, which is
usually given to the whole group instead of individually. Even though
the judge tells me that the oath does not include god I still have been
excused from a couple of trials.
But let me tell you up front that as I'm thinking of when to stand up
and make my announcement which, BTW, is usually discouraged by attempts
by the guards in the courtroom signaling me to sit down which I ignore,
my heart does start pumping 'cause you never know when you are going to
go up against a theist judge who might take it personally and hold you
in contempt. You can get wise with the ***** and eventually come out
on top but you might have to spend the night in jail.
I also rejected the oath when I went before a Grand Jury in the case of
a neighbor who was attacked in the lobby of my building and to whose
rescue I came, tangling with the mugger who was captured a few minutes
later. When I rejected the god oath telling them that I was an atheist,
there was a short get-together between the lawyers, whispering to each
other, and they decided to give me a secular oath which I still felt was
unnecessary 'cause the god oath or putting your hand on the bible
doesn't prevent anyone from lying. But I accepted the secular oath to
get things moving.
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion? Or did you say "***** it", took the god
oath so as to not make any waves or enemies?
Ed"
-----------
Good for you, I almost went to Jail but it
appears that the Judge was bluffing. I
simply told them that honesty required
me to inform them that I had no beliefs
in god/s, and the oath was meaningless
to me. However I would commit perjury
if they insisted.
One cannot help but notice immediately when one walks into a courtroom
the sign high above the judge's bench and so I immediately start
thinking of when to disrupt the proceedings to inform the judge and
everyone else that I am not under the influence and I don't want to be
party to anything associated with religion. I would love to tell the
judge that as long as I'm in the courtroom to hide the visible
judeo/christian bible but that might, again, land me in jail for an
overnight visit until I can take action against the judge and any
bailiffs that might mis-handle me in the zeal.
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 08:41:12 PM |
|
|
"E. L." <> wrote in message
news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Re: Court oath: you accept or fight?
Group: talk.atheism
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 8:57pm (EST+5) From:
(robpar)
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 00:38:30 -0500 (EST), (E. L.)
wrote:
<>
other, and they decided to give me a secular oath which I still felt was
unnecessary 'cause the god oath or putting your hand on the bible
doesn't prevent anyone from lying. But I accepted the secular oath to
get things moving.
The oath can't prevent someone from lying but it still
serves a couple purposes.
It notifies you that your integrity is particularly important
in the matter.
That message is reinforced by requiring an action
(affirmation) from you.
It removes any excuse for not acting with integrity
because of being unaware.
You have pledged your integrity. If you break the
oath your integrity is gone.
When you are under oath you are liable to penalties
for violating the oath.
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion? Or did you say "***** it", took the god
oath so as to not make any waves or enemies?
Ed"
We need to be represented on juries.
I don't mind being a stealth atheist at times.
"so help me God"? I don't have too much trouble with that.
Since he doesn't exist I don't expect much help.
The oath doesn't require me to swear that god exists.
There are times when we need to be conspicuous too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 04:22:05 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Ron Baker <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
: We need to be represented on juries.
: I don't mind being a stealth atheist at times.
: "so help me God"? I don't have too much trouble with that.
: Since he doesn't exist I don't expect much help.
: The oath doesn't require me to swear that god exists.
It requires that you utter a statement that contains that implication.
"So help me god" is a contradictory statement to make if you don't
believe there is such a thing as god. By saying it, you ARE also
saying you believe there is one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 04:36:32 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:boaj0d$spm$5@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Ron Baker <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
: We need to be represented on juries.
: I don't mind being a stealth atheist at times.
: "so help me God"? I don't have too much trouble with that.
: Since he doesn't exist I don't expect much help.
: The oath doesn't require me to swear that god exists.
It requires that you utter a statement that contains that implication.
"So help me god" is a contradictory statement to make if you don't
believe there is such a thing as god. By saying it, you ARE also
saying you believe there is one.
I would agree that the implication is there but I wouldn't
agree that it is an actual declaration.
Its moot anyway. "so help me god" is not part of
the oath here in California.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Julie" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 07:25:27 PM |
|
|
Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<boaj0d$spm$5@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
In talk.atheism Ron Baker <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
: We need to be represented on juries.
: I don't mind being a stealth atheist at times.
: "so help me God"? I don't have too much trouble with that.
: Since he doesn't exist I don't expect much help.
: The oath doesn't require me to swear that god exists.
It requires that you utter a statement that contains that implication.
"So help me god" is a contradictory statement to make if you don't
believe there is such a thing as god. By saying it, you ARE also
saying you believe there is one.
I agree with the last paragraph. It really staggers me that it's such
an issue - that is, that there is simply a presumption everyone will
take the oath. As a lawyer I never have, or will, be called up for
jury duty, but I have had to swear in court when admitted to the bar
(in Melbourne, Australia). However, prior to the swearing everyone is
given the option of whether they will swear an oath or simply an
affirmation. Then each group is called upon to swear in the way they
have selected; there is never in my state - or country for that matter
(as far as I am aware) an automatic presumption that people will take
an oath. How odd!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
06 Nov 2003 02:34:27 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Julie <JulieClarke999@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<boaj0d$spm$5@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
:> In talk.atheism Ron Baker <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
:>
:> : We need to be represented on juries.
:> : I don't mind being a stealth atheist at times.
:> : "so help me God"? I don't have too much trouble with that.
:> : Since he doesn't exist I don't expect much help.
:> : The oath doesn't require me to swear that god exists.
:>
:> It requires that you utter a statement that contains that implication.
:> "So help me god" is a contradictory statement to make if you don't
:> believe there is such a thing as god. By saying it, you ARE also
:> saying you believe there is one.
: I agree with the last paragraph. It really staggers me that it's such
: an issue - that is, that there is simply a presumption everyone will
: take the oath. As a lawyer I never have, or will, be called up for
: jury duty, but I have had to swear in court when admitted to the bar
: (in Melbourne, Australia). However, prior to the swearing everyone is
: given the option of whether they will swear an oath or simply an
: affirmation. Then each group is called upon to swear in the way they
: have selected; there is never in my state - or country for that matter
: (as far as I am aware) an automatic presumption that people will take
: an oath. How odd!
The rules have changed in the last few decades here in the States,
such that it is now possible to pick an oath that does not contain
the presumption that you believe in a god - but in many places you
still have to tell one of the workers in the court about it ahead
of time so you they know to give you the altered version of the
oath. (They try to do so discretely so there's not a big show over
it - when you are asked to "repeat after me", they just give you
a version with the god phrase left off.) In some places a bit
ahead of the curve, like California, the default oath is actually
secular now.
It didn't used to be that way. In Texas, it used to even worse.
It used to be the case that a known atheist wasn't allowed to give
testimony in Texas. Since they won't feel bound by the oath to
God, it was reasoned, they have no incentive to tell the truth.
This was shot down at first by pointing out that an atheist
willing to lie could just lie about believing in God and thus
end up giving testimony, so that the law had the exact opposite
of the intended effect. Instead of filtering out all atheists,
it only filtered out the honest ones. The ironical situation
was that those atheists willing to speak public lies and claim to
be believers would be accepted by the court as trustworthy,
while those who had a problem with stating a public lie would
not. As soon as an atheist takes the "so help me god" oath,
he has demonstrated his willingness to lie in court about what
he truly thinks.
So after enough complaints, the law was eventually changed, and
a precedent was set that requiring a religious oath for
giving testimony counts as "establishment of religion", and
thus would be struck down. Eventually all the courts around
the country, even the local ones, had adopted a way to
accomodate those not willing to say the religious oath.
(But it's still the default in many places if you don't
tell them ahead of time to give you the secular version.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
06 Nov 2003 03:11:40 PM |
|
|
So after enough complaints, the law was eventually changed, and
a precedent was set that requiring a religious oath for
giving testimony counts as "establishment of religion", and
thus would be struck down.
The prohibition for that existed prior to the Establishment Clause. It is
rather explicitly clear in Article VI, Section 3 of the unamended Constitution
which prohibits religious tests for positions in the public trust. Since taking
an oath in a public trial is a position in the public trust, any such oath
cannot be religious in origin. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in Torcaso
v. Watkins in 1961.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "I Lost Three Claytons In Three Weeks With Atheislim!" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 04:49:11 PM |
|
|
"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion?
I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 08:59:53 PM |
|
|
"I Lost Three Claytons In Three Weeks With Atheislim!"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fa58907$0$29421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion?
I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three
times
I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I
apparently
can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was
the
only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
The jury process is manipulated form start to finish to psyche the Jurors to
support the corrupt legal system. For that matter, the court system exists
for the benefit of the court system, and lawyers. Its secondary purpose is
to preserve the social heirarchy while slowly moving more power into the
hands of the wealthy.
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 04:14:33 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism I Lost Three Claytons In Three Weeks With Atheislim! <cjfat@spamblockoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
: news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
:>
:> How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
:> right to be free from religion?
: I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
: birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
: legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
: oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
: hypocrite doing it.
No kidding. I wonder if these states that had (until very recently)
required the religious oath realized that by requiring it they were
setting up a filter that in the case of atheists, did exactly the
opposite of what they want - it selects for dishonesty. Someone with
a strong opposition to giving false testimony is exactly the sort of
person who would object to a religious oath if he doesn't believe in
it. Someone willing to lie for the sake of "moving things along"
would be the only kind of atheist they would get as a witness.
: However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
: strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
: instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
: I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
: single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
: can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
: encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
: only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
: me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
: people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
That's encouraging.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 08:05:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:49:11 +1000, "I Lost Three Claytons In Three
Weeks With Atheislim!" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion?
I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
jurors that think for themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 09:10:34 AM |
|
|
Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
jurors that think for themselves.
You think that's bad, wait until you tell them that you are aware of the
principle of jury nullification. Nothing terrifies DAs more than an informed
juror.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 01:52:33 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) writes:
Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
jurors that think for themselves.
You think that's bad, wait until you tell them that you are aware of the
principle of jury nullification. Nothing terrifies DAs more than an informed
juror.
That's why you don't tell the prosecutor these things. You tell the other
jurors during deliberations. Memorize the specific laws as best you're
able to justify your claims.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Who said that SPEWS was dead? http://spews.org/
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diederik" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 07:36:21 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20031103101034.09103.00000144@mb-m21.aol.com>...
Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
jurors that think for themselves.
You think that's bad, wait until you tell them that you are aware of the
principle of jury nullification. Nothing terrifies DAs more than an informed
juror.
I've been told they don't care for advanced degrees either. This is
from a friend of mine who has a Ph.D.
Diederik
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 04:17:35 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism robpar <robpar@deleteairmail.net> wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:49:11 +1000, "I Lost Three Claytons In Three
: Weeks With Atheislim!" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
:>
:>"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
:>news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
:>>
:>> How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
:>> right to be free from religion?
:>
:>I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
:>birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
:>legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
:>oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
:>hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
:>strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
:>instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
:>I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
:>single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
:>can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
:>encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
:>only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
:>me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
:>people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
:>
: Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
: called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
: jurors that think for themselves.
There's a LOT of random factors in whether or not you get called.
Lots of people go their whole lives without ever being called.
The fact that you've already been called before might be a factor,
for example (a preference may exist for not making the same person
keep doing it over and over.)
The filtering for personal opinions and preferences doesn't happen
during the call to jury duty anyway - it happens in person, after
that. All the computer cares about when deciding to send you
the form letter is your age and legal record.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
05 Nov 2003 11:45:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:17:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism robpar <robpar@deleteairmail.net> wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:49:11 +1000, "I Lost Three Claytons In Three
: Weeks With Atheislim!" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
:>
:>"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
:>news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
:>>
:>> How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
:>> right to be free from religion?
:>
:>I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
:>birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
:>legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
:>oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
:>hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
:>strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
:>instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
:>I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
:>single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
:>can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
:>encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
:>only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
:>me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
:>people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
:>
: Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
: called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
: jurors that think for themselves.
There's a LOT of random factors in whether or not you get called.
Lots of people go their whole lives without ever being called.
The fact that you've already been called before might be a factor,
for example (a preference may exist for not making the same person
keep doing it over and over.)
The filtering for personal opinions and preferences doesn't happen
during the call to jury duty anyway - it happens in person, after
that. All the computer cares about when deciding to send you
the form letter is your age and legal record.
But the legal systems put the names in the computer. The list is
purged from time to time. Removing the names of dead people, people
who have moved, and those undesirable to the system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
06 Nov 2003 02:17:17 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism robpar <robpar@deleteairmail.net> wrote:
: On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:17:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
: <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>
:>There's a LOT of random factors in whether or not you get called.
:>Lots of people go their whole lives without ever being called.
:>The fact that you've already been called before might be a factor,
:>for example (a preference may exist for not making the same person
:>keep doing it over and over.)
:>
:>The filtering for personal opinions and preferences doesn't happen
:>during the call to jury duty anyway - it happens in person, after
:>that. All the computer cares about when deciding to send you
:>the form letter is your age and legal record.
: But the legal systems put the names in the computer. The list is
: purged from time to time. Removing the names of dead people, people
: who have moved, and those undesirable to the system.
Yeah, so? I don't see the relevance that observation has to what
I said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mushinronsha" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 07:25:50 PM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:49:11 +1000, "I Lost Three Claytons In Three
Weeks With Atheislim!" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net...
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion?
I was 19 the first time I did jury duty. (Actually it started on my 19th
birthday...so 13 years ago on Wednesday) I was easily intimidated by the
legal process and each of the three times I was put on a jury I took the
oath on the Bible so as not to rock the boat, but felt like a total
hypocrite doing it. However next time I was on jury duty, my spine had
strengthened and I made it clear that I would be taking the affirmation
instead of the religious oath. Strangely enough...of the other three times
I have done jury duty proclaiming my atheism, I have not been put on a
single jury. Apparently if I don't believe in magical fairies I apparently
can't give an unbiased and thoughtful decision. One thing that did
encourage me...the first time I opted for the secular affirmation, I was the
only one of about 50 people present to do it and they looked surprised at
me...by the third time I did it, there were at least 10 others. I guess
people are becoming more willing to come out of the godless closet.
Odd thing since I openly admitted to being atheist, I haven`t been
called for Jury duty. Apparently the judicial system doesn`t want
jurors that think for themselves.
The last time I went for jury duty, which was the only time I got to the jury
pool before being dismissed because they already had enough people, there was no
god or bible invoked. The jurors were asked to raise their right hands and
vow they would carry out their duties. There was no "so help me god", or "kiss
my *****". It was a municiple court, and maybe the city fathers were just trying
to prevent overturning decisions because of religious objections. (Which is a
good thing).
Mushy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 07:12:06 PM |
|
|
(E. L.) wrote in message news:<750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Re: Court oath: you accept or fight?
Group: talk.atheism
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 8:57pm (EST+5) From:
(robpar)
(snip)
When I am called for jury duty, I make it a point before the judge gets
too comfortable to stand up and disrupt the proceedings by stating to
the judge that I'm an atheist and will not accept a god oath, which is
usually given to the whole group instead of individually. Even though
the judge tells me that the oath does not include god I still have been
excused from a couple of trials.
I am a Christian (a Quaker to be specific) and I *also* don't swear
oaths. The Bible says we ought not do so. Does the fact that a
Christian agrees with you make you reconsider your stance? :-)
keith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "God" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 07:18:13 PM |
|
|
(E. L.) wrote in message news:<750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Re: Court oath: you accept or fight?
Group: talk.atheism
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 8:57pm (EST+5) From:
(robpar)
When I am called for jury duty, I make it a point before the judge gets
too comfortable to stand up and disrupt the proceedings by stating to
the judge that I'm an atheist and will not accept a god oath, which is
usually given to the whole group instead of individually. Even though
the judge tells me that the oath does not include god I still have been
excused from a couple of trials.
Listen to my story!
I had to appear in a court room a few years back. Before the
proceedings began, I made it very clear to the clerk in the court
through an attorney that I am an atheist and I will not utter the oath
with the words "..so help me god" during a judicial oath. This is an
oath that is usually administered to a witness before he begins
speaking to the court.
Well, before anything was started, the judge was notified through a
hand-written note by a clerk (who was sitting close to the judge, near
a witness stand) that I was an atheist.
When it came my turn to take the oath, the judge asked me to raise my
right hand and told me: "Do you solemnly swear to tell the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?"
I smiled and said "Yes, I do!". No one else in the court room noticed
any absence of the words "So help me god" in the oath, I guess. The
judge was not ***** at me. No witnesses, no attorneys or anyone
else raised any objections.
It was straight forward. I do not utter the words "under god" at any
time.
On that note, I excuse myself from the assembly rooms when the pledge
of allegiance is uttered. I also excuse myself temporarily from
religious ceremonies whenever such actions take place in social
contexts (marriages or funerals).
I have a very simple principle I follow: I do not force anyone to
become an atheist, and I do not tolerate anyone else forcing their
religion on me.
Some religious people (relatives, colleagues, friends or casual
acquaintances) are offended by such a bold and an independent approach
I take towards my personal life. To them I give a polite "*****"
gesture in a diplomatic, friendly way. After all they are my family
and friends, you know! :-)
God
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
02 Nov 2003 02:38:54 PM |
|
|
Your courage is minimal.
The real test comes when you testify in a matter that truly concerns you and
don't want your testimony discounted.
Especially so when you're the defendant.
:-)
Jenny
********
(E. L.)
Date: 11/2/03 12:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id: <750-3FA55C48-21@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>
Re: Court oath: you accept or fight?
Group: talk.atheism
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 8:57pm (EST+5) From:
(robpar)
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 00:38:30 -0500 (EST), (E. L.)
wrote:
"When you are an atheist you sometimes have to rub some people the wrong
way. The ones I like to rub the wrong way, fortunately, are usually
theists such as found in courtrooms where god and the bible are used as
authority over everyone.
I'm happy to say that I'm true to myself and don't kowtow to such
authority.
When I am called for jury duty, I make it a point before the judge gets
too comfortable to stand up and disrupt the proceedings by stating to
the judge that I'm an atheist and will not accept a god oath, which is
usually given to the whole group instead of individually. Even though
the judge tells me that the oath does not include god I still have been
excused from a couple of trials.
But let me tell you up front that as I'm thinking of when to stand up
and make my announcement which, BTW, is usually discouraged by attempts
by the guards in the courtroom signaling me to sit down which I ignore,
my heart does start pumping 'cause you never know when you are going to
go up against a theist judge who might take it personally and hold you
in contempt. You can get wise with the ***** and eventually come out
on top but you might have to spend the night in jail.
I also rejected the oath when I went before a Grand Jury in the case of
a neighbor who was attacked in the lobby of my building and to whose
rescue I came, tangling with the mugger who was captured a few minutes
later. When I rejected the god oath telling them that I was an atheist,
there was a short get-together between the lawyers, whispering to each
other, and they decided to give me a secular oath which I still felt was
unnecessary 'cause the god oath or putting your hand on the bible
doesn't prevent anyone from lying. But I accepted the secular oath to
get things moving.
How about you? Have you been in similar situations and stood up for your
right to be free from religion? Or did you say "***** it", took the god
oath so as to not make any waves or enemies?
Ed"
-----------
Good for you, I almost went to Jail but it
appears that the Judge was bluffing. I
simply told them that honesty required
me to inform them that I had no beliefs
in god/s, and the oath was meaningless
to me. However I would commit perjury
if they insisted.
One cannot help but notice immediately when one walks into a courtroom
the sign high above the judge's bench and so I immediately start
thinking of when to disrupt the proceedings to inform the judge and
everyone else that I am not under the influence and I don't want to be
party to anything associated with religion. I would love to tell the
judge that as long as I'm in the courtroom to hide the visible
judeo/christian bible but that might, again, land me in jail for an
overnight visit until I can take action against the judge and any
bailiffs that might mis-handle me in the zeal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 03:06:04 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in message news:<20031102153854.14175.00000018@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Your courage is minimal.
The real test comes when you testify in a matter that truly concerns you and
don't want your testimony discounted.
Especially so when you're the defendant.
:-)
Jenny
And the fact that he's never *been* a defendant doesn't tell you
anything about his character?
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
03 Nov 2003 02:07:35 PM |
|
|
(Bob Dog) says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
Your courage is minimal.
The real test comes when you testify in a matter that truly concerns you
and
don't want your testimony discounted.
Especially so when you're the defendant.
:-)
Jenny
And the fact that he's never *been* a defendant doesn't tell you
anything about his character?
I gave two examples: 1) testifying in a matter that concerns you, where you
don't want your testimony discounted, and 2) the ultimate case where you don't
want your testimony discounted which is when you're the defendant.
Absent other data, a person who has never been a defendant is of unknown moral
character. So is a person who has been a defendant and was acquitted. So is a
person who has been a defendant and was convicted unjustly.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
04 Nov 2003 10:28:53 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in message news:<20031103150735.21394.00000116@mb-m15.aol.com>...
bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
Your courage is minimal.
The real test comes when you testify in a matter that truly concerns you
and
don't want your testimony discounted.
Especially so when you're the defendant.
:-)
Jenny
And the fact that he's never *been* a defendant doesn't tell you
anything about his character?
I gave two examples: 1) testifying in a matter that concerns you, where you
don't want your testimony discounted, and 2) the ultimate case where you don't
want your testimony discounted which is when you're the defendant.
Absent other data, a person who has never been a defendant is of unknown moral
character. So is a person who has been a defendant and was acquitted. So is a
person who has been a defendant and was convicted unjustly.
Are you suggesting that people assume the worst about everyone
until they know them well? Speaking only from my own experience
and what I've read, a stranger with no reputation will be judged
differently based on the situation. No one would dare leave their
kids with a total stranger, but plenty of people ask strangers to hold
their cameras and take pictures, or hire strangers for jobs in their
companies.
Every day, people put their personal safety or wealth at the risk of
strangers. Why? IMHonestO, it's because in Western society we
take the view that the average person is honest and decent. Not
all are, so we use different levels of trust depending on what we
are risking. We would never risk our kids, but we would not worry
if our spouse went to a club or gym; we wouldn't let a stranger
borrow our cars, but we'd stop and give someone a hand if their
tire was flat.
So now to my point: in court, we give people the benefit of the doubt
and assume strangers are honest, especially where they have no
vested interest (ie. juries, witnesses). Oaths are really superfluous,
they do nothing anymore except to notify people that lying is a crime.
I've never been to court or had to take an oath, but if I did, I'd refuse
and simply acknowledge from the judge that I had to tell the truth. I
doubt the law would be applied to me any differently.
You said strangers are of "unknown moral character", but that does
not have to mean bad character as it sounds like you are inferring.
(Maybe, maybe not.) There's a sick joke I heard once:
------------------------------------------------------------
A man stopped his car in the desert when he saw a naked woman
tied spreadeagled to the ground. He removed the gag and asked
her what happened.
"I was kidnapped, tied up and raped, then they drove off and left me
here! What kind of person would do that? Please help me!"
The man said, "Lady, this is just not your day," as he unbuckled
his belt.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I don't say that to be crude or to offend, but to make a point:
the vast majority of people would *never* do something like that to
a stranger in trouble - you, me, and most of people in the world
will help someone in need. Maybe I'm thinking the best of others,
but at least I know what I would do in that situation. The only thing
I would take off is my jacket.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Court oath: fight or flight? |
04 Nov 2003 11:37:29 PM |
|
|
(Bob Dog) says in part
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
(Bob Dog) says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
Your courage is minimal.
The real test comes when you testify in a matter that truly concerns you
and
don't want your testimony discounted.
Especially so when you're the defendant.
:-)
Jenny
And the fact that he's never *been* a defendant doesn't tell you
anything about his character?
I gave two examples: 1) testifying in a matter that concerns you, where
you
don't want your testimony discounted, and 2) the ultimate case where you
don't
want your testimony discounted which is when you're the defendant.
Absent other data, a person who has never been a defendant is of unknown
moral
character. So is a person who has been a defendant and was acquitted. So
is a
person who has been a defendant and was convicted unjustly.
Are you suggesting that people assume the worst about everyone
until they know them well?
No. I didn't say that, so I didn't mean that or suggest that.
..
I said what I said. In the absence of data, a person's moral character is
unknown.
Duh!
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
