|
meataxe
Jun 30, 2004, 9:09 PM
Post #2 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
If you swear to be truthful to a diety that you do not believe exists, aren't you really commiting perjury?
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Jun 30, 2004, 9:12 PM
Post #3 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i've always found that oath to be funny. i can easily lie with a clear conscience under that oath because i believe it is reprehensible that i should be beholden to a god i do not believe in.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jun 30, 2004, 9:27 PM
Post #4 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
In reply to: i can easily lie with a clear conscience under that oath because i believe it is reprehensible that i should be beholden to a god i do not believe in.
..role model..
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Jun 30, 2004, 9:35 PM
Post #5 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i really object to having something as important as an oath in a court being subject to divine laws that i do not believe in and find fairly reprehensible. why on earth can you not just swear to tell the truth? in that case, i couldn't in clear conscience lie.
how would the christians feel having to swear under allah to tell the truth? i think they would dislike the position as well.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jun 30, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #6 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
In reply to: how would the christians feel having to swear under allah to tell the truth? i think they would dislike the position as well.
...to the point of war...well put..
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jun 30, 2004, 10:48 PM
Post #7 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
I what universe does judicial enforcement of a belief in a fictitious diety equal common sense?????
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jun 30, 2004, 11:24 PM
Post #8 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I see nothing wrong with swearing on the Bible. It is after all the historical basis upon which current day laws are based. You are in effect swearing that you will tell the truth under the law (present day law for all you nitpickers who will want to start to quote Leviticus).
What you are doing is recognising that present day law is based upon a firm foundation of precedent that has been built up over many centuries, tracing its origins back to the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
cthcrockclimber
Jun 30, 2004, 11:27 PM
Post #9 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Did anyone read the article?
In reply to: Though the standard oath includes the reference to God, state law allows witnesses themselves to decide to "affirm" their intent to be truthful rather than take the oath referring to God. |
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jun 30, 2004, 11:34 PM
Post #10 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
I think most have missed the point. The whole point of a triparte system of government is that Legislatures make law, Executive branches do just that, (execute) and the judiciary interprets, resolves conflicts. It was clearly out of his pervue to rewrite policy.
It ain't his job.
Now, if someone will do the same thing about the 9th ckt.
|
|
|
|
|
galf
Jun 30, 2004, 11:46 PM
Post #11 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 230
|
:shock:
COMMON SENSE?!?!?!?!
Your country is f*cked!!!! You're no better than Talibans when you do crazy sh!t like this........
I'm SO happy I wasn't born 100 miles to the south.
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jul 1, 2004, 1:11 AM
Post #12 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
In reply to: I see nothing wrong with swearing on the Bible. It is after all the historical basis upon which current day laws are based. You are in effect swearing that you will tell the truth under the law (present day law for all you nitpickers who will want to start to quote Leviticus). What you are doing is recognising that present day law is based upon a firm foundation of precedent that has been built up over many centuries, tracing its origins back to the Bible.
I was under the impression(though by no means have I spent much time studying this) that both our modern government and laws were based on the roman empires, and before that the Code of Hammurabi, and The twelve tables.
Although the Justinian codes have applied quite a bit.
(wow a simple google search and I almost sound smart) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jul 1, 2004, 12:32 PM
Post #13 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: I was under the impression(though by no means have I spent much time studying this) that both our modern government and laws were based on the roman empires, and before that the Code of Hammurabi, and The twelve tables. Although the Justinian codes have applied quite a bit.
I guess there are writings by the founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton et al) confirming your assertions. :?
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jul 1, 2004, 12:49 PM
Post #14 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
"under god".."so help me God"...
...pleading ignorance on religon....are Allah, Jaweh....God in the Christain sense? Are they not the same?
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Jul 1, 2004, 1:57 PM
Post #15 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: I see nothing wrong with swearing on the Bible
of course you don't phil - you are a christian. would you like to swear on the koran to allah instead?
debating the semantics of god being the same as allah or yaweh or whatever is sort of moot when your hand is on a christian bible.
|
|
|
|
|
cthcrockclimber
Jul 1, 2004, 2:03 PM
Post #16 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
I think the problem is that we spend so much time on stupid arguments like this, swear on whatever you want. It's that simple, don't tell someone to swear to a diety they dont believe in because that's just plain stupid, How would anyone feel to swearing under oath to satan?
Maybe we should worry about the real problems our justice system needs to take care of first.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jul 1, 2004, 2:09 PM
Post #17 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
In reply to: debating the semantics of god being the same as allah or yaweh or whatever is sort of moot when your hand is on a christian bible.
...agreed...but (butt monkey)....are they the same God? The bible would seem to be the immaterial part. Swearing an oath under God would be the pertinent common thread.
|
|
|
|
|
mackavus
Jul 1, 2004, 2:23 PM
Post #19 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 322
|
I swear to Satan everday.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 1, 2004, 2:30 PM
Post #20 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Are we debating whether or not references to God have a place in a state coutroom or whether or not the judge had the authority to change the oath? They are not the same issue.
Issue number one: Should religious references (Christian or otherwise) be officially sanctioned by the government? Your opinion probably relies on your own religious belief system. I happen to think that it has no place in a court, but I don't think it's all that big a deal. Frankly, there are bigger fish to fry, especially since witnesses have the option not to swear to God.
(Aside: Phil, et al, though the foundation of modern law certainly owes a lot to the bible, to say that concepts of modern morality and altruism originated with bible is entirely erroneous and denies the very existence of any other belief system prior to the Judeo-Christian.)
Issue number two: Did the judge have the authority to change the state-mandated oath? No. Absolutely not. Though he likely could have ruled that having such references violates the separation of church and state, wouldn't he have first had to wait for such a case to come before him? And even then, he would be overstepping his authority to say anything more than that the oath is unconstitutional. It would then be left to the legislative branch to propose specific changes or amend the constitution. Or, I guess somebody could appeal... if there had been a ruling to appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jul 1, 2004, 2:47 PM
Post #21 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
In reply to: Are we debating whether or not references to God have a place in a state coutroom or whether or not the judge had the authority to change the oath? They are not the same issue. Issue number one: [blah] Issue number two: [blah]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In reply to: In reply to: I was under the impression(though by no means have I spent much time studying this) that both our modern government and laws were based on the roman empires, and before that the Code of Hammurabi, and The twelve tables. Although the Justinian codes have applied quite a bit. I guess there are writings by the founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton et al) confirming your assertions.
*checks again*
*rubs eyes*
*checks again*
Holy shit, bumblie just said I'm right....AND JUST THEN!!!!!!!!
http://www.todd.youre.net/...lfrozenover-real.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jul 1, 2004, 3:08 PM
Post #22 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I was under the impression(though by no means have I spent much time studying this) that both our modern government and laws were based on the roman empires, and before that the Code of Hammurabi, and The twelve tables. Although the Justinian codes have applied quite a bit. I guess there are writings by the founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton et al) confirming your assertions. *rubs eyes* *checks again* *rubs eyes* *checks again* Holy s---, bumblie just said I'm right
Actually no.
Here. I'll simplify it for you.
Are there writings by the founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton et al) confirming your assertions?
|
|
|
|
|
flashpumped
Jul 1, 2004, 3:22 PM
Post #23 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 97
|
In reply to: I what universe does judicial enforcement of a belief in a fictitious diety equal common sense?????
...of which you have none :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
flashpumped
Jul 1, 2004, 3:43 PM
Post #24 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 97
|
In reply to: The high court sided with angry officials from two counties who complained that District Judge James M. Honeycutt had taken it upon himself to change courtroom procedures.
In reply to: "Basically, the judge swore in his own witnesses," Shipwash said. "I think this decision returns this court to the people instead of like a dictatorship of one judge."
This is the issue I was going for. Our system was built upon a defined Christian belief. Our laws were created to be fair and equal for the benefit of ALL in our "melting pot". The underlining basis for this can be attributed to the Bible and Jesus Christ who is fair and just to all. I believe that our judicial system can be biased because of who rules the gavel on that particular day. Look at Ruth Bader Ginsberg (the most liberal judge in America who sits on the highest seat in the Supreme Court, interpreting the law her own way). This is the issue.
It would be pretty stupid to say, "In Judge [man] We Trust" now wouldn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Jul 1, 2004, 3:50 PM
Post #25 of 77
(911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: It would be pretty stupid to say, "In Judge [man] We Trust" now wouldn't it.
No more stupid than "In God [invisible man in the sky that a significant percentage of Americans do not believe in] We Trust".
The United States was also originally based on slavery, genocide of the Native American populations, and women as unequal second class citizens. Thankfully we have moved beyond those anachronisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
