How do courts swear atheists?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

You’ve lost me, jklann. My point was exactly what I said - that the Constitution explicitly gives the wording for the president to say upon taking office. The Constitution is not explicit about all that many things, but in this case it is, and it should be noted.

The wording is in fact quite interesting. Among the things of interest is that it does not require the president to swear by anything. Presumably the founders, who knew their bibles well yet had widely mixed views on religion, did this deliberately. It also places an oath and an affirmation on exactly equal basis. Again, this is presumably done deliberately.

I think this is a wonderful example of how all people of all persuasions are treated equally in the eyes of the Constitution. However, as indicated by the above discussion, most people forget that this clause is even in the Constitution, let alone understand the nuances of it.

22

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)

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»

23

As an atheist, my objection to swearing on the bible or in God’s name is thus: god does not exist. The bible is a collection of stories and other untruths. It seems ironic to swear by virtue of a lie to tell the truth. In fact, if I’m swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I cannot in good conscience swear upon a lie to do so. Or have I just invalidated the whole process, and thereby given myself a legal out for lying in court? I didn’t think so. (Note: I’m speaking from my perspective.)

blowero said:

I wouldn’t go that far. While it is ritual, it does serve some meaning, though more attested to in the alternate form. By swearing upon penalty of perjury, you are legally acknowledging that you will be punished for lying. It precludes a later defense to perjury of “I didn’t know”. Yep, you did know, and we have it in the court records.

But the court has never had the ability to call down the wrath of God. They’ve always had to rely merely upon the punishments of perjury. Though the psychological element could be useful on some people, I doubt it would work on many people, christian or otherwise. If you’ve decided to lie in court, what’s the difference?

24

Exapno I think jklann understands that even though the Presidents may have said “So help me God” during the ceremony of inauguration, the instant they say that final “…United States” in the official oath they have taken office and anything after that is a rhetorical flourish. But they still do say it while the CJotUS still has them holding their hand up in the air like fools. Unless your claim is that every other part of the inauguration ceremony but the constitutional oath is irrelevant and immaterial, it’s still telling about the cultural attitudes of our society that I’m still waiting for someone to tell the CJ that what he wants for a coda to the oath is "It’s Miller Time . . .

25

Thanks. I’ve read quite a few. And, I’m aware that Cecil is a wiseass (I am too, at times), and often attempts to be humorous.

This wasn’t funny; it was insulting to a group of people who have different “religious” (for lack of a better word) beliefs . That’s a pretty stupid attitude, for someone who bills himself as the World’s Smartest Human Being, especially these days.

I wasn’t personally insulted, as I’m not an atheist, but I was offended by the smug complacency of the attitude. Such attitudes need to be challenged. Hence, my post. I’m actually surprised no one else found it offensive.

Personally, I figure the atheists will be the only ones left after all the “followers of false prophets” have been whisked away to whatever hell claims them first.

26

I’m an atheist, and I wasn’t offended by Cecil’s column. I thought it was a hoot. (Well, maybe it was a little condescending . . .)

Exapno, I just think that in your zeal to emphasize that “so help me God” isn’t part of the Constitution, you write with too broad a brush. For example, you say “God does not enter into it.” And my point was that God does enter into it–indirectly, at least–because even the “Constitutional” part of the oath includes the “swear or affirm” option, which was written to accommodate those Christian denominations that don’t like to swear. To emphasize that affirmation wasn’t created for atheists, I pointed out that the one president to use it, Franklin Pierce, was a Christian who maintained (I believe) the addendum “So help me God”. That was all I meant to say.

27

Litttle Ed has his off days and that column was one of them.

Trying to stay within some factual bounds and not turning this into a debate –

That a Christian used the affirmation instead of the oath doesn’t prove one way or the other whether it was originally written with atheists in mind. It probably wasn’t, but the founders were an interesting bunch, theologically, and while few of them were atheists in the sense we now commonly use that term, Tom Paine
might well have been on their minds. More likely, it was a Quaker influence, but I’d have to dig through my books on the background of writing the Constitution for more detail.

My point was that it doesn’t matter if all 43 presidents added “so help me god” - though I’d like to know how you know that to be true - even though all of them were Christians, in the way we commonly use that term, Jefferson probably included. It also doesn’t matter if the use of the phrase, because of popular usage or custom, has slipped into the court system. Some people may incorrectly think it is required. There are people who think holding up one’s hand means something in law, too.

There may be minor and timebound counterexamples but it has in general always been true in law that affirmation should be equal to swearing with no prejudice laden on those who use it.

I was offended by the tone of a few who have posted here and in the other thread concurrently going on that since atheists don’t believe in god, they are moralless people who can lie without consequence and will do so because literally nothing is sacred to them. It is this all too common attitude I was reacting against by raising the fact that the equality of the oath and affirmation are enshrined in the Constitution and that god is not.
All of our presidents have been Christians, as far as the popular use of the term would have it, and the majority of citizens have always been Christians, but nevertheless, atheists have not had to swear an oath to god on a Christian bible in court in a good long time. There is a legitimate alternative enshrined in the Constitution and available in lower courts. The majority got it right for a change. That unusual fact should be better known and better appreciated for what it means by all who claim a special place for religion in government.

28

> I’m assuming “godless heathens” is used as the usual partly-accurate counterpart to “goddessless Christians.”

How about poly heathens, whether deity or amory? :wink: Pan too!
> But the proper answer to what a godless heathen says in response to the affirmation quoted is “I so affirm.”

Any judge who poses a religious test as a government agent is a crook, and generally one with a bevy of armed thugs at his disposal. As such, the judge belongs in jail. The proper action is for the court to universally use affirmations that don’t include any theology in the guise of legal process.
> single people. From all the pagans I’ve talked to about the oath, it seems that “so help me God” may be TV-ese only-- none of us have actually been in a courtroom where such an oath was taken. I eagerly await any counterexamples of course. :slight_smile:

I’ve found judges in CT and VA, among other places, who routinely use illegal oaths. If I were to just answer “yes” to the deity pledge, I’d figure that was equivalent to not agreeing to much of anything, though the judge might not comprehend his error or penalize the guilty party (himself or his clerk). Alternately, “So fuck you too” might be suitable, which the judge would likely think profaned his god (himself), though since I believe in neither his external (xtian) nor internal (self) deity, couldn’t be profanity from me. AAMOF, none of my gods can be profaned, and so that concept in contract terms or law impresses me as utter BS whoever’s trying to pretend it’s universal to others needs to grow up and buy a clue about. The FU retort would be a comment on how the judge was in contempt of court and should be locked up without trial.

On the actual witness stand, I have said things more like, “yes, except for that deity reference”. The fact that elective judges in rural districts known for being rabid fundies, and non-elective judges in more developed civilization who really ought to be above that crap, are prepared to immediately offer an alternative oath I take to indicate how clearly they KNOW they’ve violated my rights and everyone else’s, merely by creating that situation in the first place.

I wish I had the chance to just say “No” without explanation, but that might take a case where I wanted to be a hostile witness, rather than trying to deal with the corruption of arbitrary judicial discretion less unfavorably.
On the other side of things, were I a juror and a witness declined an illegal oath, I might take that as suggesting the guy took telling the truth more seriously than do most witnesses. MWBAGs (men with badges and guns) I’d find just above mental health delusionals on the scale of witnesses known to lie regularly. A cop cannot do his job and be fully honest, and so it’s only a question of how and in what forms he perjures himself, even if some of that problem comes from corrupt politicians and illegal laws, in turn a problem of corrupt voters.

29

On the origin of the affirmation, quoted from the Supreme Court ruling in Beirne v. Flores et al:

See http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/webonly/a0018061.html for the statement that every president has added “So help me God”. Not the most authoritative cite, and one with an obvious religious bias, but it matches what I’ve read in many other places.

30

Clicking on that link locks up my computer, for some reason. I got the URL by going into quote and I took a look at the page.

Wasn’t Washington famed far and wide in his day as someone who could knock the breath out of you by the blueness of his cussing? He may also have decried swearing by his soldiers, but any page that mentions one and not the other loses some credibility with me.

And of course there is not the slightest backup for its assertion about “so help me god,” which also somehow manages to ignore Pierce. I think we need to leave the assertion as “unproven” and not give this page any more publicity than it deserves.

31

I don’t know about “famed far and wide”, precisely; in general, Washington seems to have disapproved of profanity. But they do say that when he caught up with the retreating General Lee at Monmouth, strong men fainted at the sound of Washington’s language.

32

Um… hold it a minute…

The OP is claiming Cecil was being offensive to atheists???

Am I getting whooshed?

I have read it for howevermany years as obviously and clearly Cecil being snide to the religious people who think that way about atheists by showing how stupid their stereotype of atheists sounds.

Of course, those being the prediluvian days before the siley, I guess he could not insert a :rolleyes: at the appropriate points…

Geez,really, people…

33

I think this whole discussion is a waste of time, because atheists don’t exist! yes ladies and gentlemen I don’t BELIEVE in atheisim and I know that sounds funny. anyway all atheist believe in some superior power which then takes them out of the atheism catagory, and I am willing to challenge anyone to prove my otherwise. Plus another point is that an oath on the Torah for example, THE Bible, is not only permitted but an obligation in legal cases and marital cases.

34

Uh, what?

35

This looks like a case for the Handy Latin-English Dictionary!

There you go.

36

Isn’t this what psychologists call “projection”?

37

My challenge to you - go post this in our Great Debates forum, and then respond to the people who are willing to discuss it with you! (which is where such a post should belong)
If you do, you could include a link to the new thread in this forum, so that interested parties could see how the discussion shapes up.

38

What JRDelirious said.

39

The supposed intimidating effect on Christians seems kind of silly to me anyway. Are we to believe that someone who would be swayed by the fact they were swearing on the Bible, would be the sort of person who felt it was all right to lie in court in the first place, as long as they hadn’t said the magic words “I swear”?!

40

Cecil’s an equal opportunity misanthrope. That’s what makes him such a cute widdle gwouchy cowumnist.