Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on August 12, 2017, 06:58:36 PM
-
Some argue there should one form of swearing in at a law court sounds reasonable to me, give this link a go, it's interesting.
http://theconversation.com/abolish-the-oath-moral-prejudice-against-atheists-may-bias-courtroom-decisions-82230
ippy
-
I think the none religious oath should be adopted by all courts as the swearing by god is so outdated. It certainly doesn't stop people telling porkies. ::)
-
Thanks ipy. Agreed floo but a lot of people 'affirm' instead of taking traditional oath anyway. It's a widespread practice, I'd do it myself, tho' a believer, if I had to gve evidence in court (hope not ever),think the oath is far too solemn for court proceedings.
To so many the oath on Bible means nothing. Affirmation is better imnsho.
-
I'm still staggered by the fact that people believe the religious to be more trustworthy than atheists. Is this a sign that not many people actually know anyone who is religious?
-
I can't remember when it came into force but a pagan may, is she/he so wishes, use the words
I swear by all that I hold sacred . . . etc
instead of the Christian versiion and no book is required.
-
Some argue there should one form of swearing in at a law court sounds reasonable to me, give this link a go, it's interesting.
http://theconversation.com/abolish-the-oath-moral-prejudice-against-atheists-may-bias-courtroom-decisions-82230
ippy
I thought in the UK you had the choice to swear or affirm (the latter being a non religious alternative). I've only given evidence in Tribunals, but these are still courts of law, and I've always been given the option to affirm.
-
I thought in the UK you had the choice to swear or affirm (the latter being a non religious alternative). I've only given evidence in Tribunals, but these are still courts of law, and I've always been given the option to affirm.
The point being made in the article is that people find those believing less believable because of affirming and is suggesting that either all oaths should be the same or that they shouldn't affirm in public.
-
I'm still staggered by the fact that people believe the religious to be more trustworthy than atheists.
Isn't that down to the public face of atheism?
-
Isn't that down to the public face of atheism?
Does it have one?
-
Does it have one?
Well if it has, Shaker, it is one where they go on about how bad God/religion is in any field of human existence and then when asked about alternatives they bleat about ''only the disbelief in God's''. I think the word for that is ''whinger''.
Unfortunately religion has a mountain of social concern and action behind it where as Secular Humanism hasn't and just seems content to whinge about religion.
-
Well if it has, Shaker, it is one where they go on about how bad God/religion is in any field of human existence and then when asked about alternatives they bleat about ''only the disbelief in God's''. I think the word for that is ''whinger''.
Unfortunately religion has a mountain of social concern and action behind it where as Secular Humanism hasn't and just seems content to whinge about religion.
Unfortunately religion has been the cause of much evil over the centuries.
-
Well if it has, Shaker
Where does the 'if' come from all of a sudden? You claimed it has one. Does it or doesn't it?
-
Where does the 'if' come from all of a sudden? You claimed it has one. Does it or doesn't it?
Yes Shaker, you're it!
-
Yes Shaker, you're it!
Did you have a liquid lunch, dear? ;D
-
Did you have a liquid lunch, dear? ;D
Good Idea.....after all there are so many bonfires on this forum requiring micturation.
-
Yes Shaker, you're it!
I have a public now? Blimey ... never knew I was so important.
-
Yes Shaker, you're it!
Which makes you the public face of Christianity. And it's not exactly an honest one, hence my bafflement.
-
I have a public now? Blimey ... never knew I was so important.
You have me Shaker, you entertain me no end.
-
Which makes you the public face of Christianity.
Bloody hell, I knew things were bad; but ... ::)
-
Bloody hell, I knew things were bad; but ... ::)
But not that bad. ;D
-
The point being made in the article is that people find those believing less believable because of affirming and is suggesting that either all oaths should be the same or that they shouldn't affirm in public.
Yes, my mistake - I didn't read the full article.
I can certainly see that the type of oath/affirmation used might influence a jury member, whether consciously or sub-consciously, but I'm not sure you the claim that this adversely affects those who affirm is credible.
In our increasingly secular society, those who do not subscribe to a religious belief are becoming the norm, and I would suggest these people (including non religious not just atheists) are more likely to affirm. So the person giving a religious oath may be rarer and with juries also reflecting society (with perhaps 80-90% of people not having any meaningful involvement with any religion) these people may be seen as a touch odd and different, and that may work against, rather than for them.
But of course the bigger point is that the law of the land applies to all equally and hold no truck for religious belief or lack thereof, and so any oath/affirmation should be the same for all people, and would therefore have to be secular.
There can be no claim from a religious person that they cannot in conscience make the following statement:
"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."
The reverse is not the case - no atheist can, in conscience make the following statement:
"I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
-
Just to note that even with the increase in those with no religion, that may not mean that they themselves may not judge fellow non religionists more harshly.
https://www.livescience.com/60069-atheists-judge-atheists-less-moral.html
-
Just to note that even with the increase in those with no religion, that may not mean that they themselves may not judge fellow non religionists more harshly.
https://www.livescience.com/60069-atheists-judge-atheists-less-moral.html
I know, which is why I think that most non-religious don't know many religious people, if any.
-
Just to note that even with the increase in those with no religion, that may not mean that they themselves may not judge fellow non religionists more harshly.
https://www.livescience.com/60069-atheists-judge-atheists-less-moral.html
But giving an affirmation rather than an oath is no guarantee that the person is an atheist - I'd suggest it is likely to mean that they aren't religious.
And so your link isn't really directly relevant as it is about belief in god rather than religion. I wonder whether the same result would be found if that talked about a 'religious teacher' and a 'non religious teacher' still more whether the same result would have been obtaining if a specific religion were mentioned, e.g. a 'muslim teacher' vs a 'non religious teacher'.
-
But giving an affirmation rather than an oath is no guarantee that the person is an atheist - I'd suggest it is likely to mean that they aren't religious.
And so your link isn't really directly relevant as it is about belief in god rather than religion. I wonder whether the same result would be found if that talked about a 'religious teacher' and a 'non religious teacher' still more whether the same result would have been obtaining if a specific religion were mentioned, e.g. a 'muslim teacher' vs a 'non religious teacher'.
which is why I used the term non religionist. Don't understand why you think that studies which show people judge non religionist as less likely to be moral, and that people who affirm are less likely to be truthful isn't an argument to move to a general non specific affirmation.
-
which is why I used the term non religionist. Don't understand why you think that studies which show people judge non religionist as less likely to be moral, and that people who affirm are less likely to be truthful isn't an argument to move to a general non specific affirmation.
No - from what I read in the article the study focussed entirely on belief in god, not on religiosity.
I'm also rather sceptical of the study as the wording of the question seems rather biased - if the article is correct the terms used were ' a believer in God' and a 'non believer'.
These aren't really neutral and equivalent - surely better to talk about someone who 'believes in God' compared to someone who 'does not believe in God'.
The exact wording in surveys of this type can completely change the fundings, so need to be chosen very carefully.
Unfortunately there isn't a link to the actual published research study so it is rather difficult to judge its quality.
However I remain unconvinced it is relevant as making the following statement:
"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."
tells us nothing about the person's belief in god nor their religiosity - I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.
-
No - from what I read in the article the study focussed entirely on belief in god, not on religiosity.
I'm also rather sceptical of the study as the wording of the question seems rather biased - if the article is correct the terms used were ' a believer in God' and a 'non believer'.
These aren't really neutral and equivalent - surely better to talk about someone who 'believes in God' compared to someone who 'does not believe in God'.
The exact wording in surveys of this type can completely change the fundings, so need to be chosen very carefully.
Unfortunately there isn't a link to the actual published research study so it is rather difficult to judge its quality.
However I remain unconvinced it is relevant as making the following statement:
"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."
tells us nothing about the person's belief in god nor their religiosity - I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.
Which is all well and good but if there is a perception that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy , I still don't see why your position is relevant to it being better for all affirmations to be the same
-
But giving an affirmation rather than an oath is no guarantee that the person is an atheist [...] I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.
May be wrong on this but typically don't Quakers affirm?
-
Yes they do, that's where I go t the idea from as my mother comes from a Friends background. Lots of people affirm though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32809040
-
Which is all well and good but if there is a perception that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy , I still don't see why your position is relevant to it being better for all affirmations to be the same
But you haven't provided any evidence to support a suggestion that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy. In the increasingly secular UK it could just as easily be argued that someone who places their hand on a religious text and make an oath to god may be seen as odd, different and therefore inherently less trustworthy.
Truth is neither of us has evidence to support either assertion. A universal affirmation, which would necessarily need to be secular, would solve the problem in part - however jury members will still make snap judgements about a person based on other things - so for example were the person giving evidence dressed in a manner that clearly indicates they are likely to be a muslim, or an orthodox jew inherent biased (whether that be good or bad) is likely to come into play.
-
But you haven't provided any evidence to support a suggestion that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy. In the increasingly secular UK it could just as easily be argued that someone who places their hand on a religious text and make an oath to god may be seen as odd, different and therefore inherently less trustworthy.
Truth is neither of us has evidence to support either assertion. A universal affirmation, which would necessarily need to be secular, would solve the problem in part - however jury members will still make snap judgements about a person based on other things - so for example were the person giving evidence dressed in a manner that clearly indicates they are likely to be a muslim, or an orthodox jew inherent biased (whether that be good or bad) is likely to come into play.
The original article gives indication that it might be an issue. There is at least sine methodology in the combination of the mock trials and the concept that the religious are seen as more moral. I agree that it's not any where near conclusive but it has more validity than you just suggesting with nothing more than your opinion that people swearing a religious oath might be seen as somehow less reliable.
Even were it to be so, then that would then be an argument from the other side for there to be a single affirmation, since I think we should be aiming to reduce any prejudices caused by different methods. That we can't eliminate them all isn't an argument against doing as much as possible.
-
The original article gives indication that it might be an issue. There is at least sine methodology in the combination of the mock trials and the concept that the religious are seen as more moral.
No - the original article makes an assertion - the 'mock trials' are from the USA, where there is a massively greater prejudice against atheists than in the UK. And, of course, as I keep pointing out - opting for affirmation rather than oath doesn't indicate that the person is atheist.
-
No - the original article makes an assertion - the 'mock trials' are from the USA, where there is a massively greater prejudice against atheists than in the UK. And, of course, as I keep pointing out - opting for affirmation rather than oath doesn't indicate that the person is atheist.
Yes, I know you keep pointing it out, I just don't know why as it's essentially irrelevant to the question of removing as much prejudice as possible as I pointed out in my last post. However you edited that bit out for some reason.
-
I thought in the UK you had the choice to swear or affirm (the latter being a non religious alternative). I've only given evidence in Tribunals, but these are still courts of law, and I've always been given the option to affirm.
Yes you're right Proff D but have a look at the link it's very interesting.
ippy
-
I thought the suggestion of taking the oath or affirming before going in front of the jury held a certain amount of credence, I don't know.
I doubt the religious minded would want to go for a level playing field, however fairly it was arranged.
ippy
-
Yes you're right Proff D but have a look at the link it's very interesting.
ippy
Yes I have now - but I think attitudes, certainly in the UK are rather more complicated than the 'believer in god = good', 'atheist = bad' assertion.
As we become increasingly secular in the UK we become, as a society, less accepting of religion and religious people as inherently good. Indeed with a decline in the proportion of actively religious people in the UK those that are left tend to be rather more likely to be seen as extreme rather than good.
So for example a comprehensive survey of social attitudes a couple of years ago showed that 61% of people agreed or strongly agreed that religion was a negative influence compared to just 15% who saw religion as a force for good. Is a jury with a similar demographic make-up more or less likely to look favourably to someone who swears a religious oath on the bible or koran compared to someone who makes a much more neutral secular affirmation.
-
Yes they do, that's where I go t the idea from as my mother comes from a Friends background. Lots of people affirm though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32809040
It would be interesting to know the proportions of people nowadays who affirm rather than make a religious oath on the bible/koran etc.
My experience is very limited, restricted to a couple of employment tribunals - but in those, all but one of those giving evidence (probably about a dozen people) affirmed rather than gave an oath. I suspect that probably isn't far off the norm, as I suspect all but the most religious would feel a bit uncomfortable making an oath on a holy book. That would include people who believe in god but aren't religious and probably those who have nominal but not active religious belief - I suspect for those swearing on the bible (for example) would seem just odd, particularly when there is a much more accessible alternative, the affirmation, available.
-
It would be interesting to know the proportions of people nowadays who affirm rather than make a religious oath on the bible/koran etc.
My experience is very limited, restricted to a couple of employment tribunals - but in those, all but one of those giving evidence (probably about a dozen people) affirmed rather than gave an oath. I suspect that probably isn't far off the norm, as I suspect all but the most religious would feel a bit uncomfortable making an oath on a holy book. That would include people who believe in god but aren't religious and probably those who have nominal but not active religious belief - I suspect for those swearing on the bible (for example) would seem just odd, particularly when there is a much more accessible alternative, the affirmation, available.
Hunting around I can't find any stats on affirmation vs oath, although there are a few 'blog' pieces on experience.
I think a lot will depend on the clerk and the neutrality with which they explain the options to witnesses etc. In my case the clerk was entirely neutral, he explained that I could either affirm (and gave me a card with the words I would have to say) or I could swear an oath on a holy text (and also he gave a card with the words). I was then asked which option I wished to go for, and my choice was recorded. I think with that kind of unbiased neutrality many, probably most, will go for affirmation.
Reading around I've heard of other experiences which weren't neutral at all - including a jury where the clerk asked whether everyone was OK to swear on the bible, without actually explaining that there is another equally acceptable alternative.
-
Hunting around I can't find any stats on affirmation vs oath, although there are a few 'blog' pieces on experience.
I think a lot will depend on the clerk and the neutrality with which they explain the options to witnesses etc. In my case the clerk was entirely neutral, he explained that I could either affirm (and gave me a card with the words I would have to say) or I could swear an oath on a holy text (and also he gave a card with the words). I was then asked which option I wished to go for, and my choice was recorded. I think with that kind of unbiased neutrality many, probably most, will go for affirmation.
Reading around I've heard of other experiences which weren't neutral at all - including a jury where the clerk asked whether everyone was OK to swear on the bible, without actually explaining that there is another equally acceptable alternative.
Yes it would be imteresting to me, having said that I think you'll find we're allready making quite a substancial impression into the Humanist weddings and funerals departments.
ippy