"So help me God"

[Stumpy]

A couple of years ago I was the plaintiff in a lawsuit involving my late father. During the suit I had to take an oath ending in "so help me God". Luckily, they have since abandoned the practice of placing your hand on the bible when you say this oath, but I was disturbed by this nonetheless. I know it is more of simply a reflex reaction to hear the oath and say "I do", but I truly would like to have said that I am not religious and would thus not swear to a god, but that I would abide by the request to be truthful. I chose not to make a scene, however, simply because I knew that revealing my true beliefs would have turned most of the jurors against me before the trial even began. Opinions on this...:dontknow:

[minorwork]

At the ceremony of matrimony, what kind of bindings does the person saying, "I do," put upon him/herself? Who is the authority in this case?

[David]

I truly would like to have said that I am not religious and would thus not swear to a god, but that I would abide by the request to be truthful. I chose not to make a scene, however, simply because I knew that revealing my true beliefs would have turned most of the jurors against me before the trial even began. Opinions on this...:dontknow:
I do this all the time when I have to get something notarized or similar. What you do is say that you would like to 'AFFIRM' instead of swearing an oath.

There's no need to state the reason WHY, just state that you will affirm that the information is true.

The logic and rationale behind swearing an oath (or affirming) is to have something that is weighty on your conscience to make you tell the truth. In the case of a religious person, swearing an oath to god is weighty. However, to someone who sees god as an imaginary person, swearing an oath is not exactly useful.

I have a notorial seal and, as a matter of course, offer the choice of an oath or affirmation to everyone.

Now, in a court (kangaroo or otherwise), stating that you want to affirm is not always met with an obvious look of approval; but, that's normally because most people don't know it's even an option. The look is one of surprise--not disgust or terror.

[David]

At the ceremony of matrimony, what kind of bindings does the person saying, "I do," put upon him/herself? Who is the authority in this case?
The State is the authority. The "I do" is standard.. The content of what they are agreeing to is not. You can include or not include the word "God" in a marriage ceremony, and it's just as valid either way.

It's the marriage licence, the signatures, witnesses, and the officiant being present that makes it OK.

[Stumpy]

Interesting, I didn't know about the affirmation either. As far as the swearing of the oath, I know that it's more of a conditioned response for the court to ask you to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god", but I guess it bothers me to the extent that is one of the more subtle ways that religion is forced upon us by government entities. I realize that there is no use in fighting it as there are bigger battles to be waged against the government forcing religion, but it is a continuous bombardment of these minute religious notions that helps isolate the non-religious.

As far as the marriage details, I never promised god I'd do anything. The promise made was to my wife, so that's all that mattered to me. We did have a non-denominational preacher conduct our ceremony, but that was because of simplicity, I guess you could say.

[phrog]

When I was sworn in when giving my deposition for the lawsuit American Atheists have against the Utah Hiway Patrol Association they automatically used the secular affirmation. Usually they ask if the witness has a choice. I feel if one truly believes in God, then by all means swear on the Bible. But don't assume all are god fearing.

[Stumpy]

Well, I guess I should point out that this trial is in the sweaty waistband of the bible belt, Memphis.

Oh, and Memphis is a VERY religious city. Just about everyone there thumps the bible and the mayor himself claims that god appointed him mayor (and not the people that voted for him 3 or 4 times) yet the city just got ranked as #1 in per capita violent crime. Bible thumpers, criminals, is there a correlation???:eek:

[Bunterx]

Bible thumpers, criminals, is there a correlation???:eek:
You can actually get statistics to work in your favour on that one. As the population increases the number of churches increases. But as the population increases the level of crime also increases. Therefore as the number of churches increases the level of crime increases also ^^.

On-Topic: Courts should not have religion in them. They are ruled by the law of the land. Technically it is dicrimination to force someone to say that that isn't a theist. Unfortuantely any such case would quickly be beaten down. It's hard to fight against it when the system is ruld be those you are fighting >_>.

[minorwork]

The oath is ridiculous. More binding would be the punishments for perjury and ask if the witness understands perjury and the punishments. Gee, "God'll get you" seems like a license to lie. At least mention the penalties for perjury.

[Stumpy]

The oath is ridiculous. I wonder about this history of it and if it always involved bibles and god or if that was added (as were many other religious references) during the 50's as a response to those "godless commies" during the Cold War. I could probably research it, but at this time I'm:
a. lazy
b. watching football.

[stan2reason]

The oath is ridiculous. I wonder about this history of it and if it always involved bibles and god or if that was added (as were many other religious references) during the 50's as a response to those "godless commies" during the Cold War. I could probably research it, but at this time I'm:
a. lazy
b. watching football.

Are we to pick one or do both apply? ;)

[Logicat]

A couple of years ago I was the plaintiff in a lawsuit involving my late father. During the suit I had to take an oath ending in "so help me God". Luckily, they have since abandoned the practice of placing your hand on the bible when you say this oath, but I was disturbed by this nonetheless. I know it is more of simply a reflex reaction to hear the oath and say "I do", but I truly would like to have said that I am not religious and would thus not swear to a god, but that I would abide by the request to be truthful. I chose not to make a scene, however, simply because I knew that revealing my true beliefs would have turned most of the jurors against me before the trial even began. Opinions on this...:dontknow:

I was recently asked to be a witness at a trial. It was not by jury so anything I said would only be reviewed by the judge/decider. I had a hard time with this decision and finally hit the computer and did a search as to what the ramifications and alternatives could be.

Since 'the oath' is merely ranked as "costom" in the court system, I simply responded with "I do". The plaintiff's lawyer knew the truth because I told him before hand. The defendants could have caused a problem because they know the truth, but they didn't.

I would have loved to be more upfront about my beliefs but this was neither the time nor the place. It would have taken the spotlight off the subject at hand which could be why you also chose not to make a scene.

As non-believers, we take enough flack from the actions of the more outspoken without adding to it in a public courtroom when the subject at hand is not our belief or lack thereof and the prejudice that accompanies our actions.

Incidentally, the defendants and their one witness lied like the proverbial rug!!!

You asked for opinions and that is mine...

Logicat

[minorwork]

It could very well be that there are more atheists in church than we thought, judging from the ethics displayed.

[Logicat]

It could very well be that there are more atheists in church than we thought, judging from the ethics displayed.

minorwork,

I do hope that by that remark you're not inferring that by lying or lack of ethics, they're automatically Atheists! As a staunch Atheist my very bones scream at that idea.

I've made the conscious decision to be honest in both my personal life and business life with the idea that whenever someone brings up Atheism and honesty or integrity, I have nothing they can point to and say, "See, you aren't a religious person so you can't be honest or ethical".

It was not a difficult decision. I've seen far too many people that claim they're religious behave in ways that are despicable. I choose not to be a part of that and it has nothing to do with any god or religion. It's how I chose to live my life based on how I would like to be treated by others. If they're not good people, by my standards, I can still occasioanlly learn something... then avoid them!

[minorwork]

minorwork,

I do hope that by that remark you're not inferring that by lying or lack of ethics, they're automatically Atheists! As a staunch Atheist my very bones scream at that idea.

I've made the conscious decision to be honest in both my personal life and business life with the idea that whenever someone brings up Atheism and honesty or integrity, I have nothing they can point to and say, "See, you aren't a religious person so you can't be honest or ethical".

It was not a difficult decision. I've seen far too many people that claim they're religious behave in ways that are despicable. I choose not to be a part of that and it has nothing to do with any god or religion. It's how I chose to live my life based on how I would like to be treated by others. If they're not good people, by my standards, I can still occasioanlly learn something... then avoid them!

Well, Cat, maybe I do infer atheism by lack of ethics. You don't mind if I consider you a non-traditional theist? OK then. I won't. The words are too charged for clarity. Emotions too tightly bound to the word. Depends on what I mean by atheist. My mindset when I wrote needs some explaining.

In the interest of separating ownership of so called religious experience and ethics from the traditional religions, I had been exploring the defining of a theist as one who has had contact with the divine and my post was the vessel. By divine I be meaning several things that are not associated with the popular Catholic Christian idea of the truth of the Bible and their ownership of interpretation.

The exemplary ethics shown in the manner you have chosen, I associate to a high level of ethics no matter the outward religious practice. Probably due to the inevitable negative results seen when your actions are in conflict with your conscience. This "source" of ethics begs for a non religious term and yet one that embraces the religious. Might as well wish for world peace. Eh?

I'm trying to break ethics ownership from the Christians that blindly claim those who do not profess being Christians are gonna' fry. I thought this a worthy goal and beg for other's techniques to break their hold. Could I be trusted with a technique that would initiate doubt in one's basic assumptions?

Are you as attached to the term "Atheist" as the Yeshua worshipper to "Christian?" A lot of power in a charged name, no doubt.

My ethics at the coal mine were challenged for 31 years. When I am trying to support a family, it is a hard thing to cost another his means to do so. Others looking at my actions on many occasions would question my decisions depending on whether they were management or union. I tried to hold the functioning of the mine and safety of the men ahead of any group politics. I got approval by only a few who shared my philosophy. "Is it ethical to comply 100% with the Law?" challenged me continually.

Ethics is so murky that I too get my buttons pushed at the mention of certain group's claim to ownership of this higher human quality. Few understand coal mine ethics. Including me. So, I explore the abyss.

Than you, Cat.

[Logicat]

Well, Cat, maybe I do infer atheism by lack of ethics. You don't mind if I consider you a non-traditional theist? OK then. I won't. The words are too charged for clarity. Emotions too tightly bound to the word. Depends on what I mean by atheist. My mindset when I wrote needs some explaining.

In the interest of separating ownership of so called religious experience and ethics from the traditional religions, I had been exploring the defining of a theist as one who has had contact with the divine and my post was the vessel. By divine I be meaning several things that are not associated with the popular Catholic Christian idea of the truth of the Bible and their ownership of interpretation.

The exemplary ethics shown in the manner you have chosen, I associate to a high level of ethics no matter the outward religious practice. Probably due to the inevitable negative results seen when your actions are in conflict with your conscience. This "source" of ethics begs for a non religious term and yet one that embraces the religious. Might as well wish for world peace. Eh?

I'm trying to break ethics ownership from the Christians that blindly claim those who do not profess being Christians are gonna' fry. I thought this a worthy goal and beg for other's techniques to break their hold. Could I be trusted with a technique that would initiate doubt in one's basic assumptions?

Are you as attached to the term "Atheist" as the Yeshua worshipper to "Christian?" A lot of power in a charged name, no doubt.

My ethics at the coal mine were challenged for 31 years. When I am trying to support a family, it is a hard thing to cost another his means to do so. Others looking at my actions on many occasions would question my decisions depending on whether they were management or union. I tried to hold the functioning of the mine and safety of the men ahead of any group politics. I got approval by only a few who shared my philosophy. "Is it ethical to comply 100% with the Law?" challenged me continually.

Ethics is so murky that I too get my buttons pushed at the mention of certain group's claim to ownership of this higher human quality. Few understand coal mine ethics. Including me. So, I explore the abyss.

Than you, Cat.

minorwork,

The truly wonderful thing about this site is the open exchange of ideas and nudging to think beyond what is expected and accepted. No, I am not tightly attachedd to the word Atheist. Actually I would prefer a word that doesn't carry quite the baggage but I've been unable to find one. Do you have any suggestions? And please don't suggest "Bright".

I too would like to find a way to break the religionists "ethics ownership" and I choose to do my part by being an example that one does not have to believe in a god to have ethics. But, your comments on ethics and the law opens up quite a new can of worms.

There are laws I disagree with. I do my best not to get caught breaking them, of course. Does this lower my ethics rating? Possibly, but my insurance agent is happy that I don't have speeding tickets all the time. Does this bother me, you might ask? Well... I guess it depends on the law. Probably not much different, in the long run, as what you've dealt with in your mining experience.

Do I use wiggle-room in my day to day ethics? Yup. If someone has a new hairdo that I think looks better off in a wax museum, I'll not say it. And I've been taken to task because although I may tell you the truth if there's a reason you need to know something, I might also not tell you every little detail of what I know. I have kept secrets for many years by simply not telling all that I know. One may shame me but those who's secrets I've kept are pretty darn thankful. I'm sure there are those who would say my ethics are lacking for this point but I'll let them say what they will, I'm still not telling! LOL!!!

[minorwork]

minorwork,

The truly wonderful thing about this site is the open exchange of ideas and nudging to think beyond what is expected and accepted. No, I am not tightly attachedd to the word Atheist. Actually I would prefer a word that doesn't carry quite the baggage but I've been unable to find one. Do you have any suggestions? And please don't suggest "Bright".

The local freethinker group here in Springfield also probed for a new name, but I got the chicken eye when I proposed: Daring Unbelievers Making Atheist's Solutions Simple.:eek: This at my first meeting caused me to consider them a bit tight assed. But getting close to a year with them now, all have adapted from much probings and familiarity.

I too would like to find a way to break the religionists "ethics ownership" and I choose to do my part by being an example that one does not have to believe in a god to have ethics. But, your comments on ethics and the law opens up quite a new can of worms.

There are laws I disagree with. I do my best not to get caught breaking them, of course. Does this lower my ethics rating? Possibly, but my insurance agent is happy that I don't have speeding tickets all the time. Does this bother me, you might ask? Well... I guess it depends on the law. Probably not much different, in the long run, as what you've dealt with in your mining experience.

Do I use wiggle-room in my day to day ethics? Yup. If someone has a new hairdo that I think looks better off in a wax museum, I'll not say it. And I've been taken to task because although I may tell you the truth if there's a reason you need to know something, I might also not tell you every little detail of what I know. I have kept secrets for many years by simply not telling all that I know. One may shame me but those who's secrets I've kept are pretty darn thankful. I'm sure there are those who would say my ethics are lacking for this point but I'll let them say what they will, I'm still not telling! LOL!!!

Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? These, if I'm sufficiently in charge of my senses at the time, guide me before utterance.
</IMG>

[Logicat]

The local freethinker group here in Springfield probed for a new name, but I got the chicken eye when I proposed: Daring Unbelievers Making Atheist's Solutions Simple.:eek: This at my first meeting caused me to consider them a bit tight assed. But getting close to a year with them now, all have adapted from much probings and familiarity.

LOL!!!

Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? These, if I'm sufficiently in charge of my senses at the time, guide me before utterance.

I like that and it's pretty darn close to how I try to conduct myself. Of course, there are those times when ...

[chasm]

minorwork,

The truly wonderful thing about this site is the open exchange of ideas and nudging to think beyond what is expected and accepted. No, I am not tightly attachedd to the word Atheist. Actually I would prefer a word that doesn't carry quite the baggage but I've been unable to find one. Do you have any suggestions? And please don't suggest "Bright".



There's post-theological (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Umbrella-Niose.html). I'm personally not too fond of it, but it's better than "Bright".

[phrog]

While I do find it somewhat annoying to have a tag at all, Atheist has come to do it all for me. We just need to unload some of the baggage that hangs with it.

I can't go with Daring Unbelievers Making Atheist's Solutions Simple because I belong to CUTSOA.*


*Citzens United To Stamp Out Acronymns

[minorwork]

Aw, come on Phrog. My life's work could be development of acronyms. This is fun.:D



REACH
Rational Explainers Associates Causing Havoc
Rational Explainers Associates Causing Hope

TEACH
Trainer’s Ethical Attitudes Calling Humanity
Transtheist Ethical Attitudes Calling Humanity
Taking Ethics Absolutely Causes Humility
Teaching Ethics Absolutely Causes Humility

SANE
Salient Atheists Needing Escape

TEICH
Teaching Ethics Inspires Common Humans
Talking Ethics Integrates Casual Humanity

FLASH
Fortunate Lazy Atheists Saving Humanity

IDIOT:eek:
I Don't Incriminate Other's Theologies
I Don't Input Other's Theology

FIGHT
Friends Into Godless Happy Thoughts

FRIEND
Free Rides Into Ethically New Days


Can't stop. Please help.:p

Boy. I feel for Edison when ideas aren't appreciated.:rolleyes: