tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post4593850761865108760..comments2024-03-28T00:46:19.476-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: The Ban on the Bible OathBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-47708063689314982362020-02-25T07:19:59.616-05:002020-02-25T07:19:59.616-05:00This is the first reason why you will notice the d...This is the first reason why you will notice the differences between these books and the kind of books that have been published in the past. To learn more about <b><a href="https://murmur.csail.mit.edu/thread?group_name=Tao&tid=17647" rel="nofollow">شمس المعارف</a></b>, visit on hyperlinked site.Jessica world smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16855494932991509704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-92094503964975436582020-02-25T00:13:55.103-05:002020-02-25T00:13:55.103-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jessica world smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16855494932991509704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-74318893189666256432017-12-13T09:46:27.321-05:002017-12-13T09:46:27.321-05:00This past summer I was involved in an attempted ra...This past summer I was involved in an attempted rape case in rural North Carolina. Upon filing my report, I had to swear on a bible. When I filed my restraining order (Charlotte, NC city-center), I had to swear on the bible. The 3 times I had to go to court in the back woods of Iredell County, I had to swear on the bible. <br /><br />I am agnostic. I do not necessarily believe in a god and if I did I am not sure my beliefs would align with christianity or the bible they had me swear on. I told the truth, but that is because I am a good and honest person, but that book had nothing to do with it and I felt uncomfortable putting my hand on it. The only thing false I said that whole trial was "so help me god" because I simply do not believe that. <br /><br />If I felt more passionate about religion, I would be very upset by having to do this. As an assault victim, there is already a loss of pride, control, and self-esteem. When you force me to conform to your religious customs and make a vow on the book that upholds your values HURTS. <br /><br />My point is, this STILL EXISTS. Now, I am not too angry, but when you force a person to conform to your beliefs and make serious affirmations to your beliefs it devalues my beliefs and makes me feel like I don't even have a fighting chance. I didn't by the way. The ruling was not guilty and it was an incredibly strong case with 2 witnesses that caught him in the act, Iredell County has let a serial rapist go free in Charlotte. The bible belt needs change, this place is sick.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06430181273778348244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-57072402391092680992017-08-06T19:10:16.218-04:002017-08-06T19:10:16.218-04:00Traditionally the Bible was used to swear upon as ...Traditionally the Bible was used to swear upon as it is and contain the standards of right and wrong. It's a Holy Bible meaning without blemish and pure. Swearing upon the Word of God was considered the highest degree by which you could swear. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077186002265420669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-61494988371701542812016-03-10T15:14:34.171-05:002016-03-10T15:14:34.171-05:00Unfortunately, this has been an issue in our count...Unfortunately, this has been an issue in our country even before it was a country. In the 1600's Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, raised similar objections to religious oaths in his trial before other Puritan magistrates and ministers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. For this and other "dangerous" opinions he was banished from Massachusetts. He fled and became the first founder of a state guaranteeing religious freedom - Rhode Island. For an excellent account of this issue in colonial New England (with some reflections on the present, and including Roger Williams' religious objections to such oaths in a civil context) see the recent book by Alan Johnson entitled "The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience", copyright 2015 by Mr. Johnson, with a separate index entry for "oaths".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11865240960515568361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-41695135020737776822015-10-24T03:21:17.691-04:002015-10-24T03:21:17.691-04:00So as an atheist living in the south, I was recent...So as an atheist living in the south, I was recently at court, where on the outside of the building was large lettering reading "In God We Trust". I just don't know how that is constitutionally legal. But then inside the courtroom there was quite a bit of emphasis on 'swearing' on the bible. While I would have loved to elaborate, I simply said "I will pass"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501319129598514236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-4285873764038367832014-10-23T12:01:34.726-04:002014-10-23T12:01:34.726-04:00I'm a practicing Christian, and I was just rea...I'm a practicing Christian, and I was just reading Matthew 5:33-37, in which Jesus instructs against taking holy oaths. Later in Matthew (22:15-22), regarding taxes, Jesus says "Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's." Of course, this is pre-church, but that instruction suggests a preference for separation of church and state to me. So it would make sense to me to replace the religious oaths with a legal contract to the court. georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333606634788114323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-52329957145859740382014-08-29T22:10:07.195-04:002014-08-29T22:10:07.195-04:00Explaining the consequences of lying in a court of...Explaining the consequences of lying in a court of law should be sufficient.Babblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09250221882421468530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-70232272898120880262013-10-23T02:07:13.220-04:002013-10-23T02:07:13.220-04:00Cori brought of a very interesting proposal that I...Cori brought of a very interesting proposal that I had not thought about - introducing the non-religious oath, yet leaving the possibility of the religious one for those who wished to use it. At first I thought this was a good resolution to the issue because people who do believe in the religious consequences would understand the religiously motivated oath they are taking. However, Maggie's comment persuaded me back to my original belief. Within our court system, people should be answering to the United States government, and following the laws set forth by them - not those in the Bible or whichever other religious text one may choose.Tyler Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12201835260110186685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-20347757936017496162013-10-22T20:48:27.438-04:002013-10-22T20:48:27.438-04:00I think the God language should be taken out of th...I think the God language should be taken out of the oath, but disagree with some of the comments that suggest an option should be given as to which oath is taken. In a courtroom, the person taking the oath is vowing to tell the truth as a citizen of this country, not as a religious or non-religious person. The authority to which they should be answering is the US government and our legal system, and the only way to ensure everyone is applying the same weight to the oath is to make it about respect for the legal system and its consequences, and our shared government--this is the only common ground we can be sure of. Maggie S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04759746780561295473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-28400481608023721192013-10-22T20:22:39.600-04:002013-10-22T20:22:39.600-04:00I believe the oath should be taking out of the cou...I believe the oath should be taking out of the court system all together. You are telling the American people to swear on a God that some may not believe in (Giving some the right to lie on the stand without any remorse). This would violate other religion First Amendment in which they are force and told to swear on a bible and if not will be delivered a punishment. I'm surprise they still do the oath, especially during religion cases other than those who don't believe in the Bible God. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186692103893472216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-86649527219080768082013-10-22T19:50:06.060-04:002013-10-22T19:50:06.060-04:00I don't agree that someone should be able to c...I don't agree that someone should be able to choose between taking an oath on a religious text and taking a non-religious oath. If individuals do not take the religious oath seriously and are given the option to choose that oath or a secular oath, most likely they would choose the religious oath since they do not abide by that faith and odds are that they would careless which religious book they are taking the oath with. I think that the revised oath should be introduced to all courts and more people will be more aware that if they do not testify truthfully there will be serious consequences. I highly doubt that someone would say that the court is preferring non-religion over non-religion. I think that by having this revised oath there will be neutrality in our courts, something that should have been done/proposed a long time ago. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16446374291496664840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-83990223797049534892013-10-22T17:28:57.474-04:002013-10-22T17:28:57.474-04:00I agree that there should be a choice between taki...I agree that there should be a choice between taking an oath on a religious text and taking a non-religious oath. Requiring a religious oath might make people who do not believe in any God or believe in a non-theistic religion uncomfortable and would not hold any meaning for them.<br /><br />I'm not completely persuaded that oaths based on religion need to exist at all, but I understand that they have been a part of American legal history. I don't necessarily think that history requires them to remain now.Jennie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13806138538524287490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-51067185372213990052013-10-22T16:43:04.950-04:002013-10-22T16:43:04.950-04:00I believe too that a choice should exist. I would ...I believe too that a choice should exist. I would go even to the extent to say that all religions (or-non religions) could propose an oath to be approved by the courts. Swearing under God is dated if it’s the only option, and an oath has more impact if it actually means something to the person participating. Tailoring said oath would alleviate any concerns over the oath’s content and make the participant more willing to stay truthful in their testimony. Also in doing it in this way, I see less of an excuse for a jury to display prejudice as everyone is accommodated for.Benjamin Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06425760933102237136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-90621313983771685222013-10-22T15:28:10.930-04:002013-10-22T15:28:10.930-04:00I would prefer the revised oath over the tradition...I would prefer the revised oath over the traditional one. I feel that non religious individuals would fail to see the seriousness of being sworn into oath if the oath in question appears to be religious in nature. I feel that it is important to take out "G-d" and make it more clear that this is a legally binding oath that requires the individuals to tell the truth, or potentially face legal consequences. The court system, at any level, must remain secular in its pursuit to seek the truth and I feel that revising the oath would make this goal much more apparent. In addition I feel that taking the oath out shows no hostility toward religious individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-40751484913780629222013-10-22T12:41:10.377-04:002013-10-22T12:41:10.377-04:00I completely agree with Cori here. It would clearl...I completely agree with Cori here. It would clearly be preferring non religion over religion to completely remove the practice of swearing on the bible and saying the words so help me God. We have seen that the tradition argument has had great influence, simply look at Marsh v Chambers for confirmation. I believe this is similar to Marsh v Chambers but I like the compromise of offering a non religious method of swearing in court. This would properly give preference to all, regardless of religious belief. I think the court has, on occasion, neglected the implications of the establishment clause in order to keep a long standing tradition as may be the case in Marsh v Chambers. I'm not sure I agree with this but I do think it is important to preserve the religious freedom that was ensured by the first amendment. Cori's proposition preserves religious freedom while ensuring no establishment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18081325932310376524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-21099635538309166152013-10-22T11:22:42.316-04:002013-10-22T11:22:42.316-04:00I think that the new oath should be introduced and...I think that the new oath should be introduced and that people should have the choice of which to take (and which book to swear on should someone choose the religious one). I think that Tyler brings up an interesting point about a jury being prejudiced based on the book that someone swears the oath on, but I still feel like people testifying should have the choice. For people who are religious, I believe that the religious oath would still carry more weight with them then the secular one. Allowing the choice also respects the oath's history in the US and is a good way to accommodate both religion and non-religion. Cori Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11016173590431873336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-22046185353907633032013-10-21T19:22:05.542-04:002013-10-21T19:22:05.542-04:00I agree with Tyler that the oath should be changed...I agree with Tyler that the oath should be changed. Swearing on the bible and ending the oath with “so help you God” clearly makes the act one based on Christianity and so it is plainly religious. The oath is not neutral because it favors the Christian religion over other religions and religion over non-religion. In addition, the oath might not be as effective because those who do not believe in the Christian religion or any god might not feel as obligated to uphold this oath as it does not coincide with their beliefs. It is important for the oath to be neutral in order for it to be relevant for all who take it.Maddie C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18049241668905770415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-50654466909864630932013-10-21T16:50:19.093-04:002013-10-21T16:50:19.093-04:00I often always wondered why people swore on the bi...I often always wondered why people swore on the bible, and why the issue of establishment wasn't raised. I agree that the bible oath should be eliminated. Inside a courtroom, where everyone has the right to be represented fairly, is the last place I would want there to be a religious bias. While the bible oath does favor christianity, it also could potentially insult it if someone who is not christian takes the oath. In addition, taking the bible oath serves little to no purpose if the person taking the oath is not christian.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016723584670728029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-74314360534266313142013-10-21T14:23:35.068-04:002013-10-21T14:23:35.068-04:00I personally think this is a great idea. I have al...I personally think this is a great idea. I have always been concerned that taking an oath on a bible may not be taken seriously by those citizens who are not highly religious. In many instances those brought before a court are not concerned with how they are seen in the eyes of God. Therefore, there would be nothing preventing them from lying to a courtroom if their only punishment would be in relation to a religion they may or may not believe has any value. I do not think that removing religious texts from a courtroom would really be disfavoring religion as much as it would be ensuring that every person taking the oath has the same magnitude of reasoning to want to tell the truth.Nicole Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612920182365847224noreply@blogger.com