I am not involved in criminal trials but the suggestion that, in civil cases, judges not tend to be less believing of those who affirm rather than swear on the Bible is absolute rubbish....
Judges fully understand that contempt is contempt, oath or affirmation.

I think this sums up our fundamental disagreement. You see the need to demean those you disagree with. I dont.

It's not constructive. All it does is make you feel better. But it gets you nowhere.

Complete crap. Fathers are disbelieved in the family court system every damn day in this country - even those who do swear on the bible - so those, like me, who affirm have an even harder job of it. Been there - got the feckin' tee shirt!

__________________
Fianna FAIL are on their way to oblivion.

What does "demean" mean to you? I don't see the need to demean people as I understand it. I see the need to say that some people's ideas are absurd, but that doesn't mean the people are absurd.

Have a little responsibility for what you put in print. What did you mean by this statement.......?

Fathers being disbelieved has nothing to do with those who affirm being disbelieved.
Don't let your own bitter experience cloud your judgment.

That you wouldn't ordinarily have reservations about demeaning things you regard as absurd I suspect

I meant exactly what GarlandGreen said. Someone else understood it, at least.

I'll try again:

1) What does "demeaning" mean to you? What do I do to demean other people.
2) If somebody makes a wild proposal is it demeaning to them to say that the proposal is "ludicrous"? Let's say someone proposed that we should remove all the seatbelts from the cars in Ireland on order to make drivers more responsible, and on the same day changed the side of the road we drive on so that foreigners wouldn't have as many crashes on our roads. Would it be demeaning to the person who suggested that to say that it's a silly suggestion? Because, it seems to me that, according to you

a) we should never say that some ideas are silly
b) and if we do we directly insult the person

I said it before and I will say it again.
The oath is only a vehicle on which to ground a charge of perjury.

Perjury has to be proven beyond doubt and there has to be very strong evidence even before a charge is laid.

Perjury has to be a wilfull act and had to lend itself to changing the outcome of the case.

Because of the system not just here in Ireland but throughout Europe and the world the oath is a recognised vehicle( important when it comes to extradition and the likes) on which to base the validity of informations written and informations given orally.

A judge is not going to decide on the credibility of a witness on what oath he takes.

The credibility of the witness is based on the accuracy of the information given by that witness to the court.

A witness can be concluded to be "not a credible witness" for various reasons. This does not mean he has committed perjury.

Of course there are some judges sitting who make disasterious judgments that are not based on the facts as put before them and this in itself is a disgrace.

perprojustice you are missing the point the oaths should preferably be non-religious and at the very least there be non-religious options. This state is supposed to be non-secular and unfortunately its a long way from that.