Campaign against judicial religious oaths

[garlandgreen]

It doesn't disbar anybody from taking office it just makes the oath meaningless. Which is no fault of those taking the oath it is the fault of those who authored it.

[slx]

I would go for something like:

Turn to the court and face the people:

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I will not attempt to mislead this court, or to pervert the course of justice. I fully understand that if I do, I will be held in contempt of court and will face an unlimited fine and up to X years in prison"

I think something like that would definitely make you think more than a wishy washy statement offending God.

[perprojustice]

Lying in court is perjury, a crime in itself.
Atheists, non-believers, humanists and agnostics should not be required to have their word underwritten by an appeal to fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Lying in court is not perjury unless it is wilfull and the matter lied about would affect the outcome of the case. For instance to lie about one's age, unless that person's age is a key factor in proving the case, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

Years ago the Oath instilled fear into Catholics, now it has no religious effect and is just a vehicle on which to base a criminal charge of wilfully misleading the court.

[JCSkinner]

Lying in court is not perjury unless it is wilfull and the matter lied about would affect the outcome of the case. For instance to lie about one's age, unless that person's age is a key factor in proving the case, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

Years ago the Oath instilled fear into Catholics, now it has no religious effect and is just a vehicle on which to base a criminal charge of wilfully misleading the court.

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.

[tmesis2008]

Atheists/Secularists bemoan how destruction, war and persecution has resulted from religon.
And then they get upset over empty formulas/words which have also caused such destruction, war and persecution.
Disappointing.

If the formulas are empty or if the argument is "just take the oath, it doesn't mean anything" then it's an argument for getting rid of the religious oath. Either you defend the religious oath, arguing why it is necessary and required, or you accept that it should be abolished. All other arguments are tosh.

[slx]

Lying in court is not perjury unless it is wilfull and the matter lied about would affect the outcome of the case. For instance to lie about one's age, unless that person's age is a key factor in proving the case, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

Years ago the Oath instilled fear into Catholics, now it has no religious effect and is just a vehicle on which to base a criminal charge of wilfully misleading the court.

The oath was actually just lifted straight from English law.The same bible-swearing stuff goes on in the UK and in many US states too. It's nothing to do with Catholics per se, it's just old established-Church/State crossover mentality that has not been changed to recognise that its no longer the middle ages.

[drkpower]

If the formulas are empty or if the argument is "just take the oath, it doesn't mean anything" then it's an argument for getting rid of the religious oath. Either you defend the religious oath, arguing why it is necessary and required, or you accept that it should be abolished. All other arguments are tosh.

I agree that there should be an alternative oath or a one size fits all oath.
What I cannot understand is why secularists get exercised over such a triviality.

[JCSkinner]

Not a triviality. It's about eradicating the fairytale belief guff from the operations of a secular society.

[Catalpa]

THE HUMANIST Association of Ireland has launched a poster campaign on Dart trains in the capital against the practice of judges and presidents of Ireland being obliged to take an oath. The poster, headed “Unbelievable”, asks: “Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the president – in Ireland?” It continues: “In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end.”

Source

Any Group of people inspired by Dawkins strike me as a sad bunch indeed.

If these Atheists don't believe in God then they can hardly take a Oath to him that has the slightest bearing on them IMO.

However perhaps a compromise might be arrived at where if they don't want to take a religious oath they could leave out the 'God' bit and proceed?

As for the Office of President I think anyone running to be elected to that position should be legally obliged to say whether they intend to take a religous or a secular oath if they win.

The Irish People have at least the right to know that before they go to the polls.

[perprojustice]

The oath was actually just lifted straight from English law.The same bible-swearing stuff goes on in the UK and in many US states too. It's nothing to do with Catholics per se, it's just old established-Church/State crossover mentality that has not been changed to recognise that its no longer the middle ages.

That is correct. Most of our law was based on old english law and common law....and then came McDowell but I digress.

The fact that 'God' appears in the the oath has no legal significance now. The bible is just there to satisfy the existing legislation.

Swearing on affirmation is there to satisfy those who have a bee in their bonnet about God.

In the end of the day no judge would accept the defence of an alleged perjurer that he could not have committed perjury because he did not believe in god. A wilfull lie in court is just that whether sworn or not.