Oaths and Atheists

[Jack Folcagor]

Since this is The Straight Dope, where documented evidence is the gold standard, I wonder if there have been any incontrovertible cases of perjurers being punished by the almighty for their duplicity?

Until such evidence has been adduced and peer-reviewed, it seems to me that the atheists' oath more objectively describes the consequences of lying on the stand.

[kendricbeachey]

Due to the verses mentioned by chunda21, Mennonites don't swear either, we just affirm as others have mentioned. I've seen cases where the question is presented as "Do you solemnly swear or affirm..." which gives you the freedom to take either one by saying "I do" and nobody has to know whether you're a God-fearing citizen, a godless heathen, or a Mennonite. :)

[C K Dexter Haven]

On March 5, 1793, Frederick Fitzgerald lied on the stand when giving testimony in Salem, MA, and that next year, his crop failed. Or maybe it was the year after.

[Moe]

Umm... link?

::double checks forum::

Umm... link?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil's column if it's on the Straight Dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).

Cecil's column can be found on-line at this link:
How do courts swear in atheists? (12-Jun-1981) (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_145.html)

__________________
moderator, «Comments on Cecil's Columns (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=1)»

[nuffle]

Why is it the witness who has the responsbility to tell the court he can't swear to god? An athiest wouldn't feel bad about lying to a nonexistent god. He can just take the phony oath give false testimony!

Seems like the other side's lawyer should be crying foul play: "Hey, he doesn't even believe in god! We need a new oath!"

[blowero]

Originally posted by nuffle
Why is it the witness who has the responsbility to tell the court he can't swear to god? An athiest wouldn't feel bad about lying to a nonexistent god. He can just take the phony oath give false testimony!

Seems like the other side's lawyer should be crying foul play: "Hey, he doesn't even believe in god! We need a new oath!"
Atheists lie in court all the time...that is, when they're not too busy kicking puppies and pushing old ladies into the street. Atheists are required to perform at least 3 evil acts a week, or they get excommunicated.;)

[Voyager]

Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven
On March 5, 1793, Frederick Fitzgerald lied on the stand when giving testimony in Salem, MA, and that next year, his crop failed. Or maybe it was the year after.

Umm, actually that was because he broke the chain in the chain letter he was sent. :)

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by nuffle
Why is it the witness who has the responsbility to tell the court he can't swear to god? An athiest wouldn't feel bad about lying to a nonexistent god.

Yes, they would.

An honest atheist would feel bad about lying to a court of people, *especially* if he made an oath that emphasized the truthfulness of the testimony that he was about to give. It doesn't matter if the oath calls down the punishment of a non-existent deity or not. It's all about an honest individual giving his word for something...

If I went back in time to ancient Greece and had to testify about a crime, swearing by Zeus, that'd still apply. Even though I don't believe in Zeus - or any other particular god.

I'd not really care to point out that I don't believe in said god thought, unless I was trying to make a point about diversity of religious expression or whatever.

[nuffle]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
Yes, they would.

I didn't intend to imply athiests aren't generally honest (I am both, for instance). However, in this case, I was considering perhaps a hypothetical crimininal. I assume that the oaths are supposed to make the witness feel obligated to tell the truth. Telling the (hypothetical) criminal atheist to swear to god doesn't seem an effective way to do this. So, if I were the prosecuting attorney, I'd want the new secular oath for the defendent.

As an atheist, I personally wouldn't object to swearing to god in courtroom. I wouldn't request a separate oath. After all, I don't hate god, I just don't think he exists.

[sensibal]

Well here's the thing. God really has nothing to do with telling the truth or lying. Look at the Catholic Church - they've been lying about and covering up their diddling priests for years.
I've taken the oath in court and I don't believe in God and guess what - I didn't lie. I could have sworn on the Easter Bunny and I still wouln't have lied because it's WRONG. Plese, let's not confuse morals and religion - they are not related.

[courtneyf1]

Question: What is your name? Answer: John Smith (or whatever). But is that the whole truth? What about the "pet names" used by your wife and mother, your nick-names from school, or your name you use to logon? Also the origins of "John" and "Smith".

Question: What day is it? Answer: Thursday (or whatever). But the whole truth includes details of timezones, day names in other languages, and General Relativity. Also time may be an illusion anyway.

Perhaps only God (if He or She exists) knows the whole truth.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Let's try and leave the criticisms of organized religion out of the conversation, eh? That would belong in either The BBQ Pit or Great Debates, but not here unless you find a Straight Dope column discussing the issue.

[foolsguinea]

from Cecil's column:In U.S. District Court (to take the most widespread example), the standard oath is amended to: "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?" After the witness replies, "You got it, Jack," or whatever godless heathens say in such situations, everyone sits back and pretends that the "pains and penalties of perjury" are every bit as intimidating as the wrath of a vengeful Almighty. It's not an ideal situation, if you want my opinion, but I suppose it's the best the judges can do under the circumstances.Actually, since the pains & penalties of perjury are what you're actually answerable to (somehow I doubt the Almighty answers to human judges), & they're known to exist, I find them more intimidating.