Campaign against judicial religious oaths

[oceanclub]

I am an aetheist and I took and oath in court. Big deal. Swear the oath and forget about it.

You know you don't have to? I was a juror recently and asked could I affirm rather than swear an oath - this is mentioned on the pamphlet you receive, but not offered in court itself. A bit nervewracking, since it was Justice Carney, and I had visions of being carted off to the cell for my impertinence.

I think there is a point of principle here; I mean, if people know you're an atheist, and swear an oath to a god, they'll - rightly - take it to mean you feel the oath has absolutely no meaning.

P.

[Aindriu]

You can merely "affirm" in court.

Very true, but you will find juries and judges tend to be less believing of those who do so. The assumption being, "What is wrong? They must have something to hide if they won't swear on the bible".

[oceanclub]

Very true, but you will find juries and judges tend to be less believing of those who do so. The assumption being, "What is wrong? They must have something to hide if they won't swear on the bible".

I find it hard to believe that judges are that stupid and ignorant.

Oh, wait.

P.

[jerryp]

Very true, but you will find juries and judges tend to be less believing of those who do so. The assumption being, "What is wrong? They must have something to hide if they won't swear on the bible".

I know someone who claims the exact opposite. Is an atheist. Asked if he could " affirm testimony " or something like that. Was assured by the judge that it was ok, claimed to have been given lenient treatment by the judge who happened to be non - Catholic.

[Geekzilla]

My point is that if you do not believe in a God, then swearing an oath on that basis is a lie.
And lying in court in that manner is willful, albeit forced by the legal procedure.
And since the person swearing such an oath is not bound by it, as they don't believe it, therefore their evidence may be considered unsafe.
I agree with the previous poster as to how the wording could usefully be changed.

I was going to post my argument, but the above posting sums it up nicely.

In particular, what if the witness whose testimony is considered unsafe was crucial?

[The OD]

I wonder what the legal basis is for someone who is a professed atheist taking the oath?

Basically, how can one genuinely swear an oath on something they have no belief in and more importantly, how can this oath be accepted as such?

[Geekzilla]

Big deal.

The oath is in the constitution which has power over the state and uts public services.

That is the big deal.

It is merely a declaration of being truthful and honest.................... why is it that Militant Athiests are trying to remove all presence of religiousness?

It's more than a declaration of being truthful and honest - it's a requirement for certain government posts. An athiest who swears the oath as given might have their position challenged under section 34.5.4 of the constitution.

[Geekzilla]

This whole discussion is designed to deflect attention from the forthcoming budget.

How many are taking part - a dozen, two dozen? As a guess say there's about ten times as many just reading that and you have less than 300 people involved in an island of several million.

[Odyessus]

Very true, but you will find juries and judges tend to be less believing of those who do so. The assumption being, "What is wrong? They must have something to hide if they won't swear on the bible".

Judges and juries are not that stupid. A lying non-religious witness would happily swear an oath, while a believer would hardly deny his religion in order to lie.

[FrankSpeaks]

I say the sooner we have a referendum to get rid of these religious oaths the better and prayers before Dail sittings should be stopped immediately.