I thought religion and courts were a separate thing? Seems odd having to "Swear" on the bible when personally you feel it's a load of crap. Like swearing on the bible to me is the equivalent of swearing on a banana??
In the UK, if you don't swear on the Bible (or the Qur'an or the Torah or whatever your holy book happens to be), you can choose to "affirm" instead, where you "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm..." rather than swear.
I would swear on whatever they want. It's not like it makes a difference to what someone is going to say. Asking a liar to promise they wont lie seems moronic at best. The real issue is not offending your favourite mythical creature, its the consequences of being found to have lied.
The idea is that since you swear or affirm to tell the truth, then you can be held in contempt or tried for perjury if it's later found out that you didn't.
That at least is a little bit more reasonable but it seems weird to make you swear you are telling the truth in order to convict you of perjury. Why not just make giving false testimony in court, under the circumstances you normally have to swear in, a crime/offence/whatever the appropriate legal phrase is? Making people aware of the real consequences of giving false testimony prior to doing so would seem to me, to be more reasonable than performing a holy book pantomime. Maybe they do that as well, I haven't been to court thankfully.
But you don't have to swear on a magic book - if you're an atheist or if your chosen religion doesn't have a magic book, then you "affirm" rather than "swear". These days, you're given a choice. In some parts of 'Merica, I think they do add something like "under pains and penalties of perjury" to the end of the statement.
Yeah that's true but what I'm saying is to swap the silly swearing on whatever ritual, be it religious or non-religious for just telling them that if they're found to be purposefully lying they'll be punished and get on with it. My perception of court is that it has lots of archaic ritual and outfits that would be considered bizarre in any other professional setting. Which is all a bit out of touch with reality. Sort of like going to the GP to find someone dressed up like a witch doctor. But as I've said I've never been, so I could be way off.
Pretty sure the law doesn't require you to have sworn or affirmed to tell the truth before you can be charged or find guilty of perjury.
Perjury is the very act of lying whilst under oath, during some kind of judicial proceeding. If you haven't sworn or affirmed then you can't be committing perjury. Perverting is different, which is what you might be thinking of. You can 'pervert the course of justice' for anything as simple as giving false details when being given a ticket. Yet it is still considered a serious offence.
Actually, Britain isn't a secular country: our head of state (the Queen) is also the head of the church in Britain. But, yes, I agree: religious things should stay in the religious places and in people's homes and stays out of everywhere else.
I don't see how letting people wear religious items/ dress could be a security threat and I don't think you should have to subject yourself entirely to the will of a company to find employment. Religion should be separated from state but at the same time we should respect each person's right to believe what they want, and I think this should translate into letting people wear turbans, crucifixes etc. You have a good point about initiation rituals being up to the individual at an appropriate age, especially circumcision because of the negative effects that has, but unfortunately I don't think this will happen any time soon.
I think its more about applying rules universally and not making exceptions to rules based on a person's religion.
I don't know just how relevant this is but it may be of interest, a relative of mine worked a lot in courts and a judge told him that sometimes when swearing if the person is particularly religiously inclined they won't hold the holy book as close to their body if they weren't intending on being honest. As th whether this then introduces bias into the court system, I'd imagine it does, but is it justified? I'm not so sure.
I would think anything that offers an insight into whether someone might tell the truth in court, is potentially useful in helping to ensure that the verdict is fair and just.
In the UK an employer would likely have to show there were legitimate health and safety concerns with regard to the wearing of religious clothing in the workplace, or possibly fall foul of regulations with regard to equality and discrimination. Advice from ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service): http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4953
I tend to agree. Separation of church and state should apply in a courtroom. Outside it, fair practice should be allowed.
so the way a religious court works is like ACAS , they mediate a dispute - but using religion as the `process` ; a divorce will be petitioned and under the book of process , decided the outcome - it will then be petitioned to a civil court , and both sides put the terms *agreed* at the religious court so the marriage can be officially ended. criminal courts are not religious in the UK and cannot be under English law. as for the oath Witness Affirmation "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." and it has been the option since 1695.....quakers act 1695 , extension in 1702 and made permanant in 1715 (extended to Scotland)