Would you swear an oath?

Dughorm

Saw Brian Cowen swearing an oath on the tele today.

It got me thinking about whether I would swear an oath on the Bible in court or becoming president or whatever? I don't think I'd want to, regardless of whether I felt religious or not.

If I tell the truth I tell the truth so what's the point of the oath?

Would it look like I would be less honest if I didn't swear an oath?? :mad:

Sheep Lover

I love a big bowl of oath in the morning

Raging_Ninja

Dughorm wrote: »

Saw Brian Cowen swearing an oath on the tele today.

It got me thinking about whether I would swear an oath on the Bible in court or becoming president or whatever? I don't think I'd want to, regardless of whether I felt religious or not.

If I tell the truth I tell the truth so what's the point of the oath?

Would it look like I would be less honest if I didn't swear an oath?? :mad:

The point of swearing an oath is that there are legal consequences to not telling the truth. If you don't swear an oath, then you aren't committing perjury if you tell lies or make omissions.

368100

Irrelevant to anybody who isn't religious.

Bongalongherb

I'm atheist, so if the judge said... will you swear an oath to magic mushrooms and beer ? I would most definitely swear an oath. But swearing an oath to fairies in the sky, not a chance.

NIMAN

Did Cowan swear on a Bible?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

368100 wrote: »

Irrelevant to anybody who isn't religious.

You don't have to swear on the holy bible.

Dughorm

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The point of swearing an oath is that there are legal consequences to not telling the truth.

But why can't we let the evidence decide whether someone is telling the truth instead of an oath?

Bongalongherb

Dughorm wrote: »

But why can't we let the evidence decide whether someone is telling the truth instead of an oath?

Because there is No evidence, as it was all burned a long time ago.

The Backwards Man

I'd swear by the moon and the stars in the sky

Dughorm

NIMAN wrote: »

Did Cowan swear on a Bible?

Pretty sure there was a book that looked like a bible there.

Raging_Ninja

Dughorm wrote: »

But why can't we let the evidence decide whether someone is telling the truth instead of an oath?

tradition maybe?

Cee-Jay-Cee

I swear to god almighty in heaven above and on all that is good and holy that I will never swear an oath of any sort.

Clareman

You don't swear an oath, you affirm, you also don't have to use a bible if you chose not to.

Dughorm

According to this journal article about the banking inquiry:
http://www.thejournal.ie/bankers-oath-banking-inquiry-2064790-Apr2015/

"There’s also an affirmation available for those who are not religious, which reads:
I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Why can't there be an affirmation for everyone or none at all - what's the point of bringing someone's religion or non-religion into it?

Robert McGrath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'd swear by the moon and the stars in the sky

I'll be there

368100

The Cunning Linguist wrote: »

You don't have to swear on the holy bible.

I never mentioned the holy bible. My point is if you're not religious, then swearing on any kind of religious object of any different religion means nothing.

Bongalongherb

Fairies are generally described as human in appearance and having magical powers. Their origins are less clear in the folklore, being variously dead, or some form of demon, or a species completely independent of humans or angels.

The concept of "fairy" in the narrow sense is unique to English folklore, conflating Germanic elves with influences from Celtic and Romance (French) folklores, and later made "diminutive" according to the tastes of Victorian era "fairy tales" for children. The English term "fairy" can be applied to comparable beings in any of these cultures, more generally to similar beliefs in other European folklores.

Sounds like Brian Cowen imo, and the other politicians.

Very Bored

Its an outdated tradition. Used to mean something when people were God-fearing. Today most people could swear to God one second and lie the next as generally people aren't religious anymore. Personally, I'm atheist, so swearing on a Bible means nothing to me. I don't see any reason for insulting anyone who has different beliefs to myself, or indeed in insulting those beliefs in their own right, but the Bible to me is just another book.

SimonTemplar

I'm an atheist so swearing an oath with my hand on a bible would be meaningless for me.

If I had to swear an oath, I'd rather have my hand on a copy of Lord of the Rings.

Dughorm

Very Bored wrote: »

Its an outdated tradition. Used to mean something when people were God-fearing. Today most people could swear to God one second and lie the next as generally people aren't religious anymore. Personally, I'm atheist, so swearing on a Bible means nothing to me. I don't see any reason for insulting anyone who has different beliefs to myself, or indeed in insulting those beliefs in their own right, but the Bible to me is just another book.

Would you still go along with it though if you were in court? Would a jury think you were less honest if you didn't? That's what annoys me about it.

Magnate

Clareman wrote: »

You don't swear an oath, you affirm, you also don't have to use a bible if you chose not to.

Swear an oath on a religious text, make an affirmation in place of an oath.

Ruu

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

368100

Dughorm wrote: »

Would you still go along with it though if you were in court? Would a jury think you were less honest if you didn't? That's what annoys me about it.

Probably, it's like participating in religious milestones, christening, communion, confirmation, church wedding just beause of other people's expectations. Not right that it happens but just goes to show our little country still has a bit to go on things like this.

Bongalongherb

Happy Gilmore got legal advice on this matter...

In the presence of Almighty God. Of which cannot be proven to exist. Crazy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/agnostic-gilmore-got-legal-advice-on-swearing-religious-oath-1.1476539

kneemos

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The point of swearing an oath is that there are legal consequences to not telling the truth. If you don't swear an oath, then you aren't committing perjury if you tell lies or make omissions.

This makes sense.


Lets ignore it.

Very Bored

Dughorm wrote: »

Would you still go along with it though if you were in court? Would a jury think you were less honest if you didn't? That's what annoys me about it.

I think, sadly, a court probably would think I was less honest if I openly refused to do so, certainly amongst older members of the jury. If it was prearranged so the issue didn't materialise in front of their eyes then they probably wouldn't notice. The daft thing is I would be no less likely to lie after swearing on it. I probably would do so to avoid hassle. It would be futile though as I have no fear of what is, to me, a non-existant God.

Magnate

368100 wrote: »

Probably, it's like participating in religious milestones, christening, communion, confirmation, church wedding just beause of other people's expectations. Not right that it happens but just goes to show our little country still has a bit to go on things like this.

Yeah, I'm an atheist myself but swore on an oath in a small claims court case just to please the judge, won in the end

An oath is a solemn promise. You don't have to make it on the bible, though that's the tradition. I've no problem with making a solemn promise to be truthful in court. I think it lends it a bit of appropriate gravitas.

If you could choose what to swear your oath on, I suspect most Irish people would elect to swear on their grannys grave.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Would you still go along with it though if you were in court? Would a jury think you were less honest if you didn't? That's what annoys me about it.

Considering I have seen members of a jury affirm when sworn into a jury I don't see why.

Pro Hoc Vice

Magnate wrote: »

Yeah, I'm an atheist myself but swore on an oath in a small claims court case just to please the judge, won in the end

Why did you not afirm.

Very Bored

Dughorm wrote: »

According to this journal article about the banking inquiry:
http://www.thejournal.ie/bankers-oath-banking-inquiry-2064790-Apr2015/

"There’s also an affirmation available for those who are not religious, which reads:
I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Why can't there be an affirmation for everyone or none at all - what's the point of bringing someone's religion or non-religion into it?

I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.

Pro Hoc Vice

Very Bored wrote: »

I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.

History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.

nullzero

Fuggedaboubit

Dughorm

Very Bored wrote: »

I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.

+1

Great example. Just don't get it to be honest, are you supposed to become a better person by swearing an oath than otherwise?

If anything, fear of public perceptions cajoling people into taking oaths they don't believe in is worse than swearing no oaths at all?

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.

Why can't telling a lie in court in itself be called perjury instead of bringing oaths into it.

I'm sure being in the court itself is a reminder that things are serious!

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

+1

Great example. Just don't get it to be honest, are you supposed to become a better person by swearing an oath than otherwise?

If anything, fear of public perceptions cajoling people into taking oaths they don't believe in is worse than swearing no oaths at all?

An affirmation is not an oath. The oath or affirmation reminds the person that this is a court and they commit a crime if they lie. I don't see any issue as long as affirmation is an option.

Very Bored

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.

Obviously history is the main reason behind it. However, I disagree with the concept of swearing an oath being necessary to prevent perjury. No, telling a lie is not a crime. If I go down the pub and I tell my wife I drank only three pints of porter when I had seven I won't have any guards breathing down my neck. However, standing up and giving evidence in court should carry with it a certain gravitas so if you lie, regardless of swearing an oath or otherwise, you're in trouble. As I said, if I feel like phoning 999 and calling an ambulance when there isn't a necessity, then that is a dishonest act and I can expect to be punished (correctly). I don't have to swear an oath before I make an emergency call but to make a dishonest one is illegal, I don't see why court should be different.

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

An affirmation is not an oath. The oath or affirmation reminds the person that this is a court and they commit a crime if they lie. I don't see any issue as long as affirmation is an option.

Does someone commit perjury if they lie after making an affirmation? Then why can't there be an affirmation for everyone (or no affirmation at all) and leave someone's religion out of it?

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Why can't telling a lie in court in itself be called perjury instead of bringing oaths into it.

I'm sure being in the court itself is a reminder that things are serious!

The law could be set up that way, but as through out history we have had the oath it has become engrained in the legal structure. I would think if oath and affirmation removed then the judge or someone in court would have to give a warning to every witness that they commit an offence if telling lies.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Does someone commit perjury if they lie after making an affirmation? Then why can't there be an affirmation for everyone and leave someone's religion out of it?

Yes of course perjury is telling a lie under oath or after affirmation.

Magnate

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why did you not afirm.

The judge seemed like the old-fashioned religious type. I made myself more relatable to her, it was psychology 101. Besides, I'm not the type that feels the need to broadcast my religious views, or lack thereof.

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The law could be set up that way, but as through out history we have had the oath it has become engrained in the legal structure. I would think if oath and affirmation removed then the judge or someone in court would have to give a warning to every witness that they commit an offence if telling lies.

Every witness at the moment has to give an oath/affirmation anyway so I don't see the additional burden here?

CarrickMcJoe

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'm atheist, so if the judge said... will you swear an oath to magic mushrooms and beer ? I would most definitely swear an oath. But swearing an oath to fairies in the sky, not a chance.

But, would you tell the truth? Just because you are an atheist doesn't make you a liar.

For every case in court at least one of the people involved has to be lying even though they took an oath.

Dughorm

Magnate wrote: »

Besides, I'm not the type that feels the need to broadcast my religious views, or lack thereof.

Exactly! And by having the oath / affirmation distinction the court seems to be forcing you to do just that. Affirmations for all or none at all seems a much fairer way to administer things.

Magnate

Dughorm wrote: »

Exactly! And by having the oath / affirmation distinction the court seems to be forcing you to do just that. Affirmations for all or none at all seems a much fairer way to administer things.

Yep agree with you there.

darkpagandeath

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

tradition maybe?

Licking a persons nipple used to be tradition too.

Very Bored

I don't get why there should be a warning if there is no oath. Perjury is a criminal offence. If you commit it and you get caught you get punished, simple as. No-one pops up before some nutter murders or rapes someone and says "careful now, that's illegal". Any sane, reasonably educated person knows what's illegal and what isn't. I'm not arguing that perjury shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that it shouldn't have a special status above other crimes.

Pro Hoc Vice

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

But, would you tell the truth? Just because you are an atheist doesn't make you a liar.

For every case in court at least one of the people involved has to be lying even though they took an oath.

Not always truth is each persons version. Also in criminal cases usually the accused never takes the box so the only sworn evidence given is that of the prosecution witnesses. So in many trials there is often no clash of evidence and where there is it might come down to interpretation rather than lies by one side or the other.

But of course in many cases it is obvious one side or the other is telling lies.

Dughorm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Licking a persons nipple used to be tradition too.

Before they testified in court? :eek:

Pro Hoc Vice

Very Bored wrote: »

I don't get why there should be a warning if there is no oath. Perjury is a criminal offence. If you commit it and you get caught you get punished, simple as. No-one pops up before some nutter murders or rapes someone and says "careful now, that's illegal". Any sane, reasonably educated person knows what's illegal and what isn't. I'm not arguing that perjury shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that it shouldn't have a special status above other crimes.

Telling a lie is of itself often not a crime, murder and rape always are. perjury is by law defined as telling a lie under oath and later under affirmation. So to have perjury there must be an oath or affirmation.