Why I dont post here

[Ravi]

In my case, everyone in the jury pool was told to swear an oath to God. There is a difference between being allowed to do something and being told to do something.

I have a seriously hard time believing this, sorry. Could you find a link to back it up?

 

[Shogun]

I have a seriously hard time believing this, sorry. Could you find a link to back it up?

oh come ON, ravikins.. are YOU the only person who can use personal non sequiters to "prove" your point?

 

[Anguille]

I have a seriously hard time believing this, sorry. Could you find a link to back it up?

You're just going to have to take my word for it. Or not, whatever suits your purpose.

 

[Glori.B]

ouch!! don't hurt yourself angi

 

[editec]

Shogun,

Let’s give editec some credit.

Editec prefers a cash-and-carry reputation, but thank you.

Because of the tremendous pro-israel social pressure people in the West/US is subjected to, editec is reluctant to accept the fact that the nature, the structure of the israeli state is the same as South Africa under Apartheid and 19th century America but no one can deny he’s a compassionate individual.

No, I am not.

I am at least as aware of the injustice meted out to the Palestinians (especially those in camps or the PA) as anyone on this board.

I'd have thought, given all the ASCII I've devoted to this subject, you two would have realized that my objection isn't with the philosophy, but the application of that idealistic solution.

I am merely reluctant to impose an idealistic solution on that disasterours place that I think will NOT work at this time.

You see.. the proposal to dismiss both the Isreali government and the PA, and impose a just society overseen by an international cabal isn't flawed , except that it assumes that the players on the ground will stand it.

Do you both not realize that it was the combined ire (and terrorism and rioting) of both the Zionists AND the Arab brotherhoods which drove out the British in 1948?

These international solutions will NOT work unless the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES DEMAND IT.

We might very well increase the killing if we imposed this international boots on the ground solution on this place, folks.

THAT, and not any confusion about what is going on, is my primary objection.
[/quote]

 

[Anguille]

I have a seriously hard time believing this, sorry. Could you find a link to back it up?

Here we go: jury duty question [Archive I] - IIDB

I googled "jury swear to God" and this link came up.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think I'm the first person to question why in country with supposedly no religious requirements citizens are expected to swear to God in a court of law and it looks like I'm not.

"Roger Williams (forgotten founder, The | Church & State | Find Articles at BNET) In 1635, Roger Williams was appointed to pastoral duties at the local church in Salem, Mass. Williams, a Puritan preacher who had fled religious persecution in England, was already unpopular in Boston for rebuking civil authorities who seized lands owned by Native Americans, but he promptly waded into another controversy.

Massachusetts' General Court, the governing authority at the time, required all males over the age of 16 to swear an oath of allegiance to the king of England, ending with "so help me, God."

Most people didn't see a problem with that. Williams did. To him, the state's use of God's name in a civil oath was far from innocuous. What about the atheists, he argued? Would they be forced to take the oath as well? "A magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man," insisted Williams. Doing so, he contended, would force the non-believer "to take the name of God in vain."

Hey Ravi, if we were made to swear to Allah would that be any different? thh!

 

[Ravi]

Here we go: jury duty question [Archive I] - IIDB

I googled "jury swear to God" and this link came up.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think I'm the first person to question why in country with supposedly no religious requirements citizens are expected to swear to God in a court of law and it looks like I'm not.

"Roger Williams (forgotten founder, The | Church & State | Find Articles at BNET) In 1635, Roger Williams was appointed to pastoral duties at the local church in Salem, Mass. Williams, a Puritan preacher who had fled religious persecution in England, was already unpopular in Boston for rebuking civil authorities who seized lands owned by Native Americans, but he promptly waded into another controversy.

Massachusetts' General Court, the governing authority at the time, required all males over the age of 16 to swear an oath of allegiance to the king of England, ending with "so help me, God."

Most people didn't see a problem with that. Williams did. To him, the state's use of God's name in a civil oath was far from innocuous. What about the atheists, he argued? Would they be forced to take the oath as well? "A magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man," insisted Williams. Doing so, he contended, would force the non-believer "to take the name of God in vain."

Hey Ravi, if we were made to swear to Allah would that be any different? thh!

Nice, one link from something that happened before we were a country and another an atheist chat board. I did find this on the chat board:

They gave every one the "so help me God" oath then requested anyone not taking the oath to remain standing. I imagine that is the point where you can stay standing and ask for another oath. I didn't bother.

I'm still going to wait and see if you have any credible proof that one MUST swear an oath to God to be on a jury.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nice, one link from something that happened before we were a country and another an atheist chat board. I did find this on the chat board:

I'm still going to wait and see if you have any credible proof that one MUST swear an oath to God to be on a jury.

Not to jump in the middle of your private little shooting match, but .....

Federal Court Juror's Handbook

The answer to your question lies within the PDF. Of course this is for Federal Court and even within the Federal Court system, it appears there is some variation. Now in state courts, my guess is it really depends on how the judge wants to run his or her courtroom. They have a tendency to act like mini-deities themselves.

You two may now resume your war.

 

[Ravi]

Not to jump in the middle of your private little shooting match, but .....

Federal Court Juror's Handbook

The answer to your question lies within the PDF. Of course this is for Federal Court and even within the Federal Court system, it appears there is some variation. Now in state courts, my guess is it really depends on how the judge wants to run his or her courtroom. They have a tendency to act like mini-deities themselves.

You two may now resume your war.

Thanks, but pdf's scare me.

I found this link, if you scroll down and look at "b" you'll see that in this particular court, one may abstain. I'm willing to bet you are allowed to in any court with a rational group of people in charge. And the court with the irrational people in charge, then a lawsuit may be needed.

N.D.R.Ct. 6.10 Courtroom Oaths

 

[Tech_Esq]

Thanks, but pdf's scare me.

I found this link, if you scroll down and look at "b" you'll see that in this particular court, one may abstain. I'm willing to bet you are allowed to in any court with a rational group of people in charge. And the court with the irrational people in charge, then a lawsuit may be needed.

N.D.R.Ct. 6.10 Courtroom Oaths

PDFs scare you? You must mean in a psychological way because there is nothing executable about a PDF (speaking of course as a Certified Information Systems Security Professional and a Certified Information Systems Auditor). But, no matter, a phobia is a phobia. I respect you no less for it.

If you had looked at the link it would have supported your contention. It allow that in some districts jurors were asked to swear on a Bible rather than with upraised hand, but you should also have the option to affirm in that case as well. Being a Pagan I've never run into an issue where I couldn't affirm instead of swear.

 

[Ravi]

PDFs scare you? You must mean in a psychological way because there is nothing executable about a PDF (speaking of course as a Certified Information Systems Security Professional and a Certified Information Systems Auditor). But, no matter, a phobia is a phobia. I respect you no less for it.

If you had looked at the link it would have supported your contention. It allow that in some districts jurors were asked to swear on a Bible rather than with upraised hand, but you should also have the option to affirm in that case as well. Being a Pagan I've never run into an issue where I couldn't affirm instead of swear.

Well, they don't really scare me, they just have been crashing my browser lately. I need to update adobe.

What would a Pagan swear on, if asked?

 

[Anguille]

Nice, one link from something that happened before we were a country and another an atheist chat board. I did find this on the chat board:

I'm still going to wait and see if you have any credible proof that one MUST swear an oath to God to be on a jury.

If you had actually read my posts rather than just invent ways to discredit them, you would understand that I never got to ask the judge if a juror must swear to God to serve on jury. I, along with the rest of the jury pool, was told, to stand and repeat an oath which included the words,"swear to God". I stood but remained silent at the swear to God part. The judge next asked for all who had questions about their ability to serve on jury for whatever reason, work or family commitments, health or religious reasons to raise their hands and be put on a list so that they could discuss the issue with her when they were impaneled. I raised my hand and gave my name but was dismissed before I ever reached the jury box because the lawyers chose 12 jurors before my number was called.

So I never got to tell the judge that I had not sworn to god when the bailiff told us all to do so. I never got to ask her if that disqualified me as a juror and why would that be so. Certainly I was never offered an alternative to swearing to God or "given the opportunity" to do so, I was told to do so.

I don't think public school students should be made to pray in class and this incident seemed very similar to me.
I don't think that people should be made to feel they must swear to God in a courtroom. Public schools and United States courtrooms must not have religious affiliations.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, they don't really scare me, they just have been crashing my browser lately. I need to update adobe.

What would a Pagan swear on, if asked?

Oh gotcha, yeah, AR is good for that.

That's a good question. I think that Paganism is diverse enough in its practice that there is no one common think that would suffice for all who call themselves Pagans. Some believe in specific Pantheons of Gods and Goddesses (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic etc.). In those cases, something symbolic of the appropriate God or Goddess would probably be right. In other cases, people don't specifically break it out like that and the deity(ies) is/are more amorphous than that. I put myself in more of the latter category. If I had more religious discipline I would probably pick a Pantheon because I do see the point, but I've never really gone through the effort.

Back to your point, I'm not sure that there is something you could give me that I would be willing to "swear" on and it would be meaningful as intended by the process.

 

[Anguille]

Not to jump in the middle of your private little shooting match, but .....

Federal Court Juror's Handbook

The answer to your question lies within the PDF. Of course this is for Federal Court and even within the Federal Court system, it appears there is some variation. Now in state courts, my guess is it really depends on how the judge wants to run his or her courtroom. They have a tendency to act like mini-deities themselves.

You two may now resume your war.

It was a criminal case in a state court. I think you are probably correct when you suggest that it depends on how a judge choses to run his or her court because I recall that other times I've been called to jury duty an oath to God was not always part of the procedure.

 

[Ravi]

If you had actually read my posts rather than just invent ways to discredit them, you would understand that I never got to ask the judge if a juror must swear to God to serve on jury. I, along with the rest of the jury pool, was told, to stand and repeat and oath which included the words,"swear to God". I stood but remained silent at the swear to God part. The judge next asked for all who had questions about their ability to serve on jury for whatever reason, work or family commitments, health or religious reasons to raise their hands and be put on a list so that they could discuss the issue with her when they were impaneled. I raised my hand and gave my name but was dismissed before I ever reached the jury box because the lawyers chose 12 jurors before my number was called.

So I never got to tell the judge that I had not sworn to god when the bailiff told us all to do so. I never got to ask her if that disqualified me as a juror and why would that be so. Certainly I was never offered an alternative to swearing to God or "given the opportunity" to do so I was told to do so.

I don't think public school students should be made to pray in class and this incident seemed very similar to me.
I don't think that people should be made to feel they must swear to God in a courtroom. Public schools and United States courtrooms must not have religious affiliations.

Honestly, Ang, I don't think you had to swear to God. You should have asked right then and there.

I'm also guessing your message boarding antics have you on some kind of crack pot list and you'll never get chosen for jury duty.

 

[Anguille]

Oh gotcha, yeah, AR is good for that.

That's a good question. I think that Paganism is diverse enough in its practice that there is no one common think that would suffice for all who call themselves Pagans. Some believe in specific Pantheons of Gods and Goddesses (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic etc.). In those cases, something symbolic of the appropriate God or Goddess would probably be right. In other cases, people don't specifically break it out like that and the deity(ies) is/are more amorphous than that. I put myself in more of the latter category. If I had more religious discipline I would probably pick a Pantheon because I do see the point, but I've never really gone through the effort.

Back to your point, I'm not sure that there is something you could give me that I would be willing to "swear" on and it would be meaningful as intended by the process.

Thanks for the links. As far as being pagan or atheist and not wishing to swear to God, I would think even some religious people have an objection to God, Allah, whomever, being made part of the judicial process.

 

[Anguille]

Honestly, Ang, I don't think you had to swear to God. You should have asked right then and there.

I'm also guessing your message boarding antics have you on some kind of crack pot list and you'll never get chosen for jury duty.

Sigh, unlike the crack pots, I followed courtroom procedure and raised my hand when the judge asked me to. Not a good idea to speak out of turn in a court of law.

 

[Shogun]

Well, they don't really scare me, they just have been crashing my browser lately. I need to update adobe.

What would a Pagan swear on, if asked?

that, or get more ram and stop opening 15 tabs on your browser.. PDFs are notoriously hoggish on the memory.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If you had actually read my posts rather than just invent ways to discredit them, you would understand that I never got to ask the judge if a juror must swear to God to serve on jury. I, along with the rest of the jury pool, was told, to stand and repeat and oath which included the words,"swear to God". I stood but remained silent at the swear to God part. The judge next asked for all who had questions about their ability to serve on jury for whatever reason, work or family commitments, health or religious reasons to raise their hands and be put on a list so that they could discuss the issue with her when they were impaneled. I raised my hand and gave my name but was dismissed before I ever reached the jury box because the lawyers chose 12 jurors before my number was called.

So I never got to tell the judge that I had not sworn to god when the bailiff told us all to do so. I never got to ask her if that disqualified me as a juror and why would that be so. Certainly I was never offered an alternative to swearing to God or "given the opportunity" to do so I was told to do so.

I don't think public school students should be made to pray in class and this incident seemed very similar to me.
I don't think that people should be made to feel they must swear to God in a courtroom. Public schools and United States courtrooms must not have religious affiliations.

I disagree with the way that courtroom was run.

But, and even though my religious affiliations are as I stated, the Courts and Law of the United States and England are inextricably tied to their Judeo-Christian foundation. You have to remember that under English Common Law (which all states in the US with the exception of Louisiana are founded on) there was a distinction between Law and Equity courts. Legal courts were run by the crown and Equity courts were run by the church. This distinction is not completely gone and in some states, like Virginia, there continues to be a real distinction in the way cases are plead at Equity and at Law.

By summarily ripping religion from the foundation of Equity, you remove that firm basis from which Equity decisions were founded calling into question the very chain of stare decisis which creates the current understanding of those cases.

In the court setting, I think that the few remaining religious artifacts of a by-gone time remind a great many people of the solemnity of the proceedings being held. For those of us where that is not the case so be it, but I hardly think that the very foundations of the legal system need to shaken so some people like me won't be offended by the process.

 

[Anguille]

I disagree with the way that courtroom was run.

But, and even though my religious affiliations are as I stated, the Courts and Law of the United States and England are inextricably tied to their Judeo-Christian foundation. You have to remember that under English Common Law (which all states in the US with the exception of Louisiana are founded on) there was a distinction between Law and Equity courts. Legal courts were run by the crown and Equity courts were run by the church. This distinction is not completely gone and in some states, like Virginia, there continues to be a real distinction in the way cases are plead at Equity and at Law.

By summarily ripping religion from the foundation of Equity, you remove that firm basis from which Equity decisions were founded calling into question the very chain of stare decisis which creates the current understanding of those cases.

In the court setting, I think that the few remaining religious artifacts of a by-gone time remind a great many people of the solemnity of the proceedings being held. For those of us where that is not the case so be it, but I hardly think that the very foundations of the legal system need to shaken so some people like me won't be offended by the process.

That's interesting what you have to say about the history of law. I don't agree though, that no longer requiring people to swear to God would in any way take away from the solemnity of the proceedings or shake the foudations of the legal system. In fact it would only solidify the principal of separation of Church and State, not to mention increase the number of citizens available , granted probably by a very minuscule number, to serve on juries once the religious requirements were removed.

I am not particularly in favor or spending money on things like removing statues of the ten commandments or redesigning our currency again, but putting an end to practices that contradict the Constitution is a good idea IMO, and I'm glad to see that some states and some judges are doing that.