1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Religion and Courts?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Weekly_Estimate, 1 May 2016.

  1. Weekly_Estimate

    Weekly_Estimate Gives credit where its due

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    301
    I thought Religion and Courts were a separate thing? Seem's 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??
     
    ElThomsono likes this.
  2. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    151
    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.
     
  3. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    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.
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2016
  4. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    151
    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.
     
  5. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    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.
     
  6. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    151
    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.
     
  7. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    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.
     
  8. Krazeh

    Krazeh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,111
    Likes Received:
    56


    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.
     
  9. Fishlock

    Fishlock .o0o.

    Joined:
    22 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    34

    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.
     
  10. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    151
    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.
     
  11. NoobNeb

    NoobNeb Enthusiastic Lurker

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2011
    Posts:
    129
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  12. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    I think its more about applying rules universally and not making exceptions to rules based on a person's religion.
     
  13. Odinster

    Odinster New Member

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    80
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  14. Mr_Mistoffelees

    Mr_Mistoffelees The Lunatic on the Grass.

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2014
    Posts:
    1,976
    Likes Received:
    436
    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.
     
  15. Mr_Mistoffelees

    Mr_Mistoffelees The Lunatic on the Grass.

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2014
    Posts:
    1,976
    Likes Received:
    436
    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
     
  16. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    It more highlights how fallible the system is and the sort of biases that are rife through out it.
     
  17. KayinBlack

    KayinBlack Currently Rebuilding

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,497
    Likes Received:
    285
    I tend to agree. Separation of church and state should apply in a courtroom. Outside it, fair practice should be allowed.
     
  18. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    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)
     

Share This Page