Should the courts be still using the bible?

LighterGuy

For the record I believe in God. This isnt an atheist vs religion thread (lets try to keep it that way too)

But why do they still use it?

- There's alot of liars out there who believe in god. That by placing their hand and swearing to tell the truth isnt going to change a thing.
- There are a lot of atheists in this world. The idea of swearing on a book they dont believe in doesnt mean a thing.

So .... why still continue to use it?

TeddyTedson

You have a point.
It's a load of ****e and they should just use lie detectors.

Sulmac

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

Citizens Information

If you wish to make the affirmation (suitable for those who are not Christians), then you must tell the registrar. The words of the affirmation are "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

LighterGuy

Sulmac wrote: »

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

Never knew that Sulmac.
But even then "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" aint going to mean much to a liar :pac:

kippy

Should Judges be refered to as "My Lord" - or has that stopped.....

TeddyTedson

Sulmac wrote: »

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

But I'm a Christian and made my affirmation when I was in 6th class

Sulmac

kippy wrote: »

Should Judges be refered to as "My Lord" - or has that stopped.....

Yes, it has. It's just 'Judge' now. They've also taken off the wigs.

TheZohanS

A more apt question is should we still use the courts? They're every bit as out of date as the bible, they're both a law upon themselves and both are in dire need of an overhaul.

Judges are fcuking useless.

partyatmygaff

Sulmac wrote: »

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

And that's the thread pretty much defused...

L.Jenkins

When asked, why not state that you're an atheist and wish to refrain from swearing on fiction.

emer_b

I've never been to an irish court.
Do they actually make people swear on the bible, or is that just in tv land?
Either way, surely an athiest can't be asked to swear on a bible, thats just farce isnt it?

just read Sulmacs post, question answered.

My name is URL

If you're innocent or an atheist then you have nothing to worry about

Saila

Eh it just symbolises that you are telling the truth, the real evidence of lying or not is with the stenographers I think they are called which type everything out thats said in court.

LighterGuy

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

When asked, why not state that you're an atheist and wish to refrain from swearing on fiction.

LighterGuy wrote: »

This isnt an atheist vs religion thread (lets try to keep it that way too)

This thread isnt about a persons beliefs. By saying such a word as "fiction" all you are doing is inciting people to turn it into such a thread.

If you believe the bible to be fiction. So be it. Your belief. But the door swings both ways.

saa

It shouldn't be the bible but there has to be a gesture. It would never mean you're not going to lie because you have a belief in something, lying to stay out of prison trumps every religious belief, gesture or oath for most people.

But as for the whole church and state thing yes take away the shackles nothing to do with me being offended as an atheist or no one thinking about my beliefs feck that.

Lapin

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

When asked, why not state that you're an atheist and wish to refrain from swearing on fiction.

I often thought of doing that if I ever end up before a judge.

But I'd be concerned it might send out a negative tone if the judge (or Jury if there is one) are strong belivers in the bible.

It would set a prejudicial slant against me before the case even began.

No, I'd just go with the flow and swear on the bible to keep em all happy.
It means little to me anyway so I might as well be swearing bus timetable.

ejmaztec

The best liar always wins in court.

Zebra3

Sulmac wrote: »

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

So christians get to swear on their book but those of other religons can't swear on their equivalent?

Discrimination if you ask me.

Chuck Stone

They should hide Korans inside Bible covers and vice versa so those who swear on them get a nasty shock when they die.

Yeap, post-mortem pranking.

holystungun9

TheZohan wrote: »

A more apt question is should we still use the courts? They're every bit as out of date as the bible, they're both a law upon themselves and both are in dire need of an overhaul.

Judges are fcuking useless.

I sentence you to a week washing your filthy mouth with soap young man!

Also, you can make a donation to (my backpocket) the court poor box. We will take any donation into account when dishing out 'justice' in your case.

Sulmac

Zebra3 wrote: »

So christians get to swear on their book but those of other religons can't swear on their equivalent?

Discrimination if you ask me.

I agree. I always thought that the courts had a selection of holy books for those from other religions, but apparently not.

Either get rid of the Bible and make everyone make an affirmation, or bring in the relevant holy books for those of other faiths.

Chuck Stone

Sulmac wrote: »

Either get rid of the Bible and make everyone make an affirmation, or bring in the relevant holy books for those of other faiths.

I'd bring in 'The BFG' by Roald Dahl and insist on swearing on that book and to the almighty Big Friendly Giant.

Logical Fallacy

TeddyTedson wrote: »

You have a point.
It's a load of ****e and they should just use lie detectors.

Lie detectors are very inaccurate.

KeithAFC

TeddyTedson wrote: »

You have a point.
It's a load of ****e and they should just use lie detectors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXrzgXnOE8

Deus Ex Machina

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Lie detectors are very inaccurate.

Lie detectors don't exist.

Saila

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Lie detectors don't exist.

lies! :mad:

TeddyTedson

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Lie detectors don't exist.

I'm not believing you unless you swear it to me

mikeyboy

Aren't witnesses free to swear on whatever sacred text (or none) they wish whether it be the Bible, Quran or Tao-te Ching? It's just that as Ireland is ostensibly 90%+ Christian the Bible makes the most sense to have in the Courts

Fart

I voted "Yes" by accident. :mad:

LighterGuy

Fart wrote: »

I voted "Yes" by accident. :mad:

I like that.
Glad my thread could some how annoy you :pac:

Kanoe

I had to swear on the bible to a courts clerk in order to get permission to work in a specific place, (as garda clearance would have taken too long) I felt really stupid doing it. He might as well have been asking me to put my hand on the argos catalogue while stating I'm telling the truth.

Lady Chuckles

What would one swear on instead?
Or should we drop the whole swearing-on-an-item-thing?

Snakeblood

LighterGuy wrote: »

For the record I believe in God. This isnt an atheist vs religion thread (lets try to keep it that way too)

But why do they still use it?

- There's alot of liars out there who believe in god. That by placing their hand and swearing to tell the truth isnt going to change a thing.
- There are a lot of atheists in this world. The idea of swearing on a book they dont believe in doesnt mean a thing.

So .... why still continue to use it?

I'm an atheist. The point isn't whether the bible is true or not, it's whether someone swearing on it takes it seriously and thinks it's important to swear on it. As long as I don't have to, it might be encouraging for them catholics to do so.

AeoNGriM

Zebra3 wrote: »

So christians get to swear on their book but those of other religons can't swear on their equivalent?

Discrimination if you ask me.

Der taykin ar Relijun!

:pac:

source

Right just to clear a few things up,

In Irish courts, the default is to swear an oath on the Bible.

If you're not religious you swear an affirmation on the Constitution.

If you're Muslim you swear an affirmation on the Qur'an.

I haven't seen anyone from any other religions swearing in court, but I would imagine they're catered for too.

You choose according to your personal beliefs, if you don't believe in your beliefs strongly enough to take the oath seriously then that's your problem not the courts.

Niles

What if you're agnostic? You might be telling the truth, you might not be, it doesn't really bother you either way... :rolleyes:

source

Niles wrote: »

What if you're agnostic? You might be telling the truth, you might not be, it doesn't really bother you either way... :rolleyes:

How is neither believing nor disbelieving there is a God going to stop the person telling the truth?

Non-religious people take an affirmation on the constitution.

Niles

source wrote: »

How is neither believing nor disbelieving there is a God going to stop the person telling the truth?

Non-religious people take an affirmation on the constitution.

It's not, I didn't mean it literally...

On a serious note perhaps it might be better to have an "affirmation on the constitution" as the standard for the courts, rather than a religious book. Of course liars are gonna lie... and then you have the hardcore Anti-treaty types who won't recognise that either.

Just don't lie in court kids.

Pace2008

Sulmac wrote: »

Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.

I have heard from people involved in law that it may not be advisable to do this. The majority of judges in Ireland are Catholic, and while personal opinion or prejudice should not come into it- and probably doesn't, in the majority of cases - it may be better forgetting about your convictions and avoiding the risk of setting yourself apart from the get-go.

iguana

source wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone from any other religions swearing in court, but I would imagine they're catered for too.

Maybe they can bring their own book in? I'd be surprised if every court in the country had, say, a copy of the Book of Mormon just on the unlikely off-chance that a Mormon witness or defendant needed one.

Mike 1972

Some Christians have issues with swearing on the bible too

source wrote: »

Right just to clear a few things up,
In Irish courts, the default is to swear an oath on the Bible.
If you're not religious you swear an affirmation on the Constitution.

I think Id struggle to decide which I believed in less TBH

Desire2

Thing about swearing on the Bible is it contains both an "eye for an eye" and turn the other cheek.

ResearchWill

I have personally seen Bibles, Torah and the Koran in Court. The reason for the requirement to swear on oath either on a book or affirmation, is that to lie under oath is the crime of perjury.

Desire2

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have personally seen Bibles, Torah and the Koran in Court. The reason for the requirement to swear on oath either on a book or affirmation, is that to lie under oath is the crime of perjury.

We give too little credit to those who are behind our laws so.
Either which way we are gonna nick the peasants if they cross us.:eek:

ResearchWill

Desire2 wrote: »

We give too little credit to those who are behind our laws so.
Either which way we are gonna nick the peasants if they cross us.:eek:

I also believe that the maximum penalty for perjury is 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I don't think they ever repealed the laws in this area, suppose its a cheap way to get to Sydney.

Ghost Buster

There is also the issue where an atheist who may be the accused or witness for the accused in a case who chooses not to swear on a bible suddenly becomes a disreputable character in the eyes of a jury who more often than not are pillars of the local community (Church goers). This prejudices the case.
No i dont have a link to such but I have a gut feeling that this may well happen.

Desire2

ResearchWill wrote: »

I also believe that the maximum penalty for perjury is 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I don't think they ever repealed the laws in this area, suppose its a cheap way to get to Sydney.

Pfffftttt that is less than decent law abiding People have been sentenced to already by the bailouts!:D

Terry

Desire2 wrote: »

Thing about swearing on the Bible is it contains both an "eye for an eye" and turn the other cheek.

What an awesome defense.
Yes, your honour. I did it, but Jesus said to turn the other cheek.

I was asked to swear on the Bible, but refused to. They got me to made some sort of pledge. Can't remember what it was.
Anyway, I was guilty and was pleading guilty, so it didn't really matter.

strobe

Interestingly, the second to last time I was up in a district court, when I was being sworn in they just had me do the 'secular' affirmation straight off, no Bible, no mention of God. If I remember correctly it was the same with the other cases there.

In a different DC they definitely had me do the Bible one (I'm not a Christian but I just did it, not pushed either way tbh), same in the CC in the Four Courts.

Maybe it's at the discretion of the sitting Judge which they use as the 'standard' one? Any law type people shed some light on this? Or anyone else been in court where the 'secular' one was the standard one people were being asked to repeat?

philologos

As a Christian I would ask for an alternative oath.

Matthew 5:34-37 wrote:

But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

As a Christian I would ask for an alternative oath.

Lol. Jesus man, do you not think the poor bastards are confused enough? :pac: