TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › *sigh* Here we go with the swearing in on the Bible again...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*sigh* Here we go with the swearing in on the Bible again... - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i really feel sorry for people who have no faith at all,
how empty they must feel inside.
Why? What is wrong with being content with the life you have now, and not needing to feel that there is more than this.
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i really feel sorry for people who have no faith at all,
how empty they must feel inside.
I'm a Buddhist (a skeptical Buddhist, and I guess an agnostic, leaning towards atheism)... as a Buddhist, I'm supposed to feel empty inside. So, well, I guess you're right
(ok, it's more complicated than that. I'm also a beginner Buddhist so I can't explain it in detail.)

Either way, I am mostly skeptical of things, but it doesn't make me feel like I am lacking anything. I believe in things, I am just unwilling to have blind faith.

To get back to the topic, I think it would be better if the oath was just non-religious. It's really unfair to single out people who are not Christians by pointing out their religion (especially if we know it affects the jury). Personally, my beliefs tell me that lying is wrong, regardless of whether or not I swear on a religious text. If you're a Christian, isn't God watching you lie regardless of your oath?
post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakat View Post
Why? What is wrong with being content with the life you have now, and not needing to feel that there is more than this.
cause there is really much more out there then what we can see with just eyes and ears,
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by marie-p View Post
I'm a Buddhist (a skeptical Buddhist, and I guess an agnostic, leaning towards atheism)... as a Buddhist, I'm supposed to feel empty inside. So, well, I guess you're right
(ok, it's more complicated than that. I'm also a beginner Buddhist so I can't explain it in detail.)

Either way, I am mostly skeptical of things, but it doesn't make me feel like I am lacking anything. I believe in things, I am just unwilling to have blind faith.

To get back to the topic, I think it would be better if the oath was just non-religious. It's really unfair to single out people who are not Christians by pointing out their religion (especially if we know it affects the jury). Personally, my beliefs tell me that lying is wrong, regardless of whether or not I swear on a religious text. If you're a Christian, isn't God watching you lie regardless of your oath?
lol if you buddhist then you still beleive in something,
and i have already covered the agnostic, leaning towards atheism, i have seen way to many people who lay such a great frame to being agnostic or others begging god, to save there husband, wife, child, pet when something bad happened. So i dont place much FAITH, when people make that claim now.
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I'm glad that the USA is finally practicing what they preach. They claim to be a "melting pot" of cultures, yet everything is wholey based on Christianity, even the way the Government is run. All bills passed or defeated are based on the voting member's religious beliefs and not in an unbias fashion based on what is truly best for the people and/or country. If it goes against the President's religious and moral beliefs, the Bill is vitoed. And that is just not right because what is right for him, is not necessarily right for everyone in the country.

IMHO the USA Government is very prejudicial, archaic even, when it comes to passing Government Bills.
sorry how i dont want a goverment ran buy a reigion, i see nothing wrong with people voting based on there faith and what they see as right and wrong.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
lol if you buddhist then you still beleive in something,
and i have already covered the agnostic, leaning towards atheism, i have seen way to many people who lay such a great frame to being agnostic or others begging god, to save there husband, wife, child, pet when something bad happened. So i dont place much FAITH, when people make that claim now.
I like this discussion, but since it's mostly off-topic, I took the liberty of creating another thread here: http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho....php?p=1797114

see you there.
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I'm glad that the USA is finally practicing what they preach. They claim to be a "melting pot" of cultures, yet everything is wholey based on Christianity, even the way the Government is run. All bills passed or defeated are based on the voting member's religious beliefs and not in an unbias fashion based on what is truly best for the people and/or country. If it goes against the President's religious and moral beliefs, the Bill is vitoed. And that is just not right because what is right for him, is not necessarily right for everyone in the country.

IMHO the USA Government is very prejudicial, archaic even, when it comes to passing Government Bills.
That's what a melting pot is. Assimilationist. If you think about it, in a pot melting stuff on the stove, everything blends together until the majority has taken over and everything has lost a little of its flavor. So a melting pot culture ends up being one in which people who are different or new must either successfully integrate/assimilate (ie, swear in on a bible they don't believe in) or be outcasts. People have taken to calling it a mosaic recently which IMO would be more accurate if the prevailing view wasn't still assimilationist (ie Learn English!)

I agree, I'm more concerned about the stranglehold a particular, minority type of Christianity has on the right than what book people lay their hand on. It's so strange to me. The biggest lobby used to be the AARP and look where that got us.

Has anyone had any arguments for not swearing in on the bible?
post #38 of 44
could be fun, but i am off to bed. for now.
enjoy ladies
post #39 of 44
When I did Jury duty I affirmed. I would not on principle, swear on a being I do not belive exists.
Out of the eleven other people one was a practicing Catholic, the others did it because they thought it was the thing to do or they didn't want to make a fuss. ( I know because i asked them )
post #40 of 44
Wouldn't it be more reasonable for people to have to swear on the U.S. or a state constitution? Or to just swear before the court to tell the truth, or face punishment?

A couple of years ago I had to testify against a recidivist child molester in Germany, and simply had to swear to tell the truth, or face the consequences of lying in the courtroom. That made more sense to me than having to swear on the Bible would have. I consider myself a moral and law-abiding person, but certainly not a religious one.
post #41 of 44
I think that almost every courtroom still uses the same oath.. where they allow you to swear or affirm..however, when I've been "affirmed" instead of sworn in, they've only substituted the word "affirm" for "swear" so that the end still held "so help you God"

Here's the link to what looks like the most common oaths.. there's supposed to be a substitution but I've never once heard it used in any affirmation in the court system. I imagine that it's used somewhere, but.. http://www.ndcourts.com/court/rules/ndroc/rule6.10.htm

Anyway, it seems to me that you should be able to use whatever book suits your religion, or no book if you choose to affirm. But it also seems to me that choosing to affirm is rather a pointless thing if the words in the oath "so help me God" are still used.

Personally swearing or affirming is not going to change my testimony. I don't think that it would make a difference to anyone.. a liar would be just as willing to lie under oath whether they swore on the bible or not, and someone who would be going to witness truthfully would tell the truth regardless.

I think that the course and concept of religion, particularly the religious background that oaths are based on, has changed over the course of history. IOW, I think there was a lot more fear in religious practitioners then versus now. That is not to say that anyone practising a religion is not fearful of what might happen to them should they commit a sin, but perhaps when these were instituted, people had more fear of an immediate reprisal then they do now. Just a thought, I don't know.
post #42 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
I think that almost every courtroom still uses the same oath.. where they allow you to swear or affirm..however, when I've been "affirmed" instead of sworn in, they've only substituted the word "affirm" for "swear" so that the end still held "so help you God"

But it also seems to me that choosing to affirm is rather a pointless thing if the words in the oath "so help me God" are still used.
We don't have that bit in the UK
post #43 of 44
Oh, that's cool! I think it's *supposed* to be eliminated when you affirm here, but it's been my experience that it's often not.
post #44 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakat View Post
We don't have that bit in the UK
The UK doesn't do the whole swearing to God thing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › *sigh* Here we go with the swearing in on the Bible again...