YDOAPS Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I call your attention to a short letter published in the Fayetteville Observer by Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association. Speckhardt argues that courtroom oaths should be secular and to attempt to incorporate all possible religions is absurd. He's right. Should a witness be required to swear an oath on the Christian bible? Of course not! America may be a Christian nation in the sense that the majority of Americans profess their Christianity, but this is simply not relevant here. Why would a Christian want a non-Christian to swear on a bible in the first place? Doesn't the Christian realize that an oath sworn over something that is not meaningful to the swearer has no value? What is the optimal solution given that we live in a multicultural society with great religious diversity? Do we have Christians swear on bibles, Muslims on Qurans, Scientologists on Hubbard, etc., and how much of this are we really prepared to accommodate? Before commenting on the absurdity, Speckhardt raises the logistical question about whether we start asking people to bring their own book to court for this purpose. Of course, Speckhardt also raises the critical question: How are a witness' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) even relevant here? He concludes that they are not and that any oaths deemed necessary should be secular. I can hear the inevitable protests which will follow (and isn't it interesting how they always come first from Christians?). There will be a chorus of complaints about how secularism is a religion (it isn't), about how secular oaths represent the persecution of Christians (they don't), or about how Christians should be entitled to ram their beliefs down the throats of the unwilling (they shouldn't). But the lesson here is clear - ending religious discrimination requires us to honor the secular roots of our system of government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep Superstition out of the Courtroom from Atheist Revolution. It's a pretty good blog. I've been reading it for a few weeks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Why do people need to swear oaths at all? That whole concept is really outdated. I mean, they obviously don't stop people from lying on the stand, because people have done it. They may feel a bit more guilty, but it doesn't stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why do people need to swear oaths at all? That whole concept is really outdated. I mean, they obviously don't stop people from lying on the stand, because people have done it. They may feel a bit more guilty, but it doesn't stop them. Exactly. Swearing on a Babble does not make a person tell the truth or make their statements more legally binding in any way. It's just another leftover from the Xianization of American society, one that will be soon done away with, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why do people need to swear oaths at all? That whole concept is really outdated. I mean, they obviously don't stop people from lying on the stand, because people have done it. They may feel a bit more guilty, but it doesn't stop them. Because if they swear to tell the truth, and they lie, then they can be prosecuted for it and have their tesimony thrown out so that it doesn't (shouldn't) affect the outcome of the trial. If they don't swear to tell the truth, and they lie, then there is no way to punish them - despite the fact that their lies could very well have irreversibly harmed the other party(ies) in the trial. Can you see how this would be detrimental to the criminal justice system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why do people need to swear oaths at all? That whole concept is really outdated. I mean, they obviously don't stop people from lying on the stand, because people have done it. They may feel a bit more guilty, but it doesn't stop them. Because if they swear to tell the truth, and they lie, then they can be prosecuted for it and have their tesimony thrown out so that it doesn't (shouldn't) affect the outcome of the trial. If they don't swear to tell the truth, and they lie, then there is no way to punish them - despite the fact that their lies could very well have irreversibly harmed the other party(ies) in the trial. Can you see how this would be detrimental to the criminal justice system? Not necessarily. Just ammend the law that you can't lie on the stand to be that it is automatically expected of people, and they don't have to swear to or on anything, and keep the punishments the same or adjust them as needed. That's the way it should've been in the first place, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts