Taking oath on Bible as a court witness, but do not believe in God, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 08:42 PM by littled16
reply to post by grainofsand
As others have stated you need only affirm that you will tell the truth. There have been cases of people who for religious reasons are not allowed to swear- especially on the bible. In such cases they are only required to hold up their right hand and affirm that they will tell the truth to the best of their ability.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 12:11 AM by adjensen
For the love of pete...

Does no one know how to use google?

Entering "atheist swear in court" results in: How do courts swear in atheists? on "The Straight Dope".

When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.


You don't need to swear on a Bible, stop sweating it.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 02:12 AM by Pinke

Polygraph testing is currently being used to determine whether sex offenders are ready to be released from prison and will continue to be used as a pilot in certain areas of England and Wales for two more years. Whether this will alter the opinion on court use remains to be seen. Lie detector results can be admissible in some tribunal and civil cases, but their introduction into criminal courts would require legislation.

solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk...

As far as I know, polygraphs are normally used to pressure a person and give the 'interrogator' an idea of what avenues to probe etc ... From what I've seen they at least require a skilled operator.

reply to post by adjensen

Hiya Adjensen.

I'm not sure that would be the best approach if you're saying it would be best to ask to be sworn in in private? (I think it's pretty obvious the OP knows about affirming) Most judges I've seen would not be particularly pleased with the idea of having to step out of their way to do anything really. I mean ask your lawyer but ...

I'm from a different country but with a similar system. I've been sworn in as juror and witness. I've seen courts do oaths and affirmations in slightly different ways, I've yet to see a judge pleased when someone gets creative. The courtrooms I've been in, the judges get very particular from choosing the number of jurors to telling the person in the third row to take their shades off their head and learn some respect.

One particular case I was involved in was against a sex offender. One juror was very upset and didn't want to continue. The juror asked to be excused, and the judge insisted repeatedly on knowing why publicly. It was incredibly inconsiderate, and prior to proceedings the jury was told if they had reasons for not wanting to take part such as personal experiences it could be handled in private. The same judge got aggravated over another person asking for a different holy book to swear over (you're meant to give 24hrs notice here). As a witness I'm loathed to do anything that attracts me undue attention or gets me flustered; judges are quite rude persons in my experience.

Honestly, I think it's better to not make it a big deal and keep the court staff on side, since they're the ones that can fluster you the most if they get cranky.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 07:21 AM by bigdohbeatdown
reply to post by grainofsand


In Australia we take a similar oath both as witnesses and when sworn in as a solicitor / officer of the court. We too can elect to take a secular oath.

I know a lot of lawyers who are atheists but take the oath on the bible. The legal fraternity and the priesthood have a history of being in bed together, so i guess its just custom / tradition - 'if everyone is doing something you should as well lest you be an outsider' king of attitude. As the legal fraternity in aust is quiet small, and jobs are sometimes scarce its best not to rock the boat.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 07:48 AM by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by grainofsand


don't worry about it since our judicial system cares nothing about truth nor justice, you'll fit right in. you may as well be watching it on TV for what it's worth.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 09:44 AM by grainofsand
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by grainofsand
As others have stated you need only affirm that you will tell the truth. There have been cases of people who for religious reasons are not allowed to swear- especially on the bible. In such cases they are only required to hold up their right hand and affirm that they will tell the truth to the best of their ability.


Yes, I agree, my concern is that I am forced to declare a religious belief (or lack thereof) prior to giving evidence through my choice of oath or affirm.
Religious belief is irrelevant to truth yet in the mind of a zealous magistrate my choice could influence their opinion on my testimony.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 09:48 AM by grainofsand
Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by D.Wolf
I don't think they let trolls to become magistrate, but you know your surroundings better than me.

Some judges do appear to be trolls.

Exactly my concern in this case.


OP shouldn't have to compromise, but if it was the choice between saying 'I believe in God' and having a bad outcome for a loved one ... I imagine a lot of people would make the 'practical' decision.

Sometimes practical issues outweigh positions of conscience - the seriousness of the criminal charges I am witness to draws me towards selling out and hiding my lack of belief in gods.


reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 09:53 AM by grainofsand
Originally posted by adjensen
For the love of pete...

Does no one know how to use google?

Entering "atheist swear in court" results in: How do courts swear in atheists? on "The Straight Dope".

When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.


You don't need to swear on a Bible, stop sweating it.


Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough in the OP.
I am aware of the choice between a religious oath or a non-religious affirmation - this has been confirmed to me by a primary source, namely the police witness support officer.
The point of this discussion is the situation where a witness is forced to reveal their hand regarding religious belief prior to giving evidence by choosing oath/affirm. This is in open court and publically recorded.
The information could influence the opinion of a magistrate if they happened to be fanatically religious for example, as such I feel it has no place in an allegedly unbiased criminal court case.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



New Testament Fairy Tales
  Posted 7 days ago with 25 member flags
A Brief Rant On Religion
  Posted 2 days ago with 24 member flags
Obama has declared himself the messiah?
  Posted 3 days ago with 13 member flags