How about this concideration

[ippy]

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

[floo]

I think the none religious oath should be adopted by all courts as the swearing by god is so outdated.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.

[Robbie]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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?

[Owlswing]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

Isn't that down to the public face of atheism?

Does it have one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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!

[floo]

Yes Shaker, you're it!

Did you have a liquid lunch, dear?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you have a liquid lunch, dear?

Good Idea.....after all there are so many bonfires on this forum requiring micturation.

[Shaker]

Yes Shaker, you're it!

I have a public now? Blimey ... never knew I was so important.

[Rhiannon]

Yes Shaker, you're it!

Which makes you the public face of Christianity. And it's not exactly an honest one, hence my bafflement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a public now? Blimey ... never knew I was so important.

You have me Shaker, you entertain me no end.

[Shaker]

Which makes you the public face of Christianity.

Bloody hell, I knew things were bad; but ...

[floo]

Bloody hell, I knew things were bad; but ...

But not that bad.

[ProfessorDavey]

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."

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Nearly Sane]

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.