Requirement to carry religious texts

sunshine and showers

I read this story with interest yesterday.

Genuine question - do you think in this modern age of Kindles, iPads and e-books that Judges in Ireland would accept the swearing of oaths on digital versions of religious texts?

It would be a much easier way to ensure sworn affadavits were actually sworn on the Bible/Koran/applicable text. It's been done on a number of occasions in the States using iPads and a Kindle.

I'm not qualified yet, so I'm not going to try it. I just thought it might be an interesting discussion point. Thoughts, anyone?

sconhome

Genuine question - why are you still required to swear on a religious book? If you are not religious surely the oath has no meaning. Would it be better to swear on the Court or the position you hold?

Speedwell

Just by way of illustration... I was required to take an oath in a courtroom several years ago in the US, and the court official rattled off the "do you swear to... so help you God?" nonsense. A Bible was on the table in front of me. Without touching it, I just quietly said, "I affirm" and that was taken absolutely without comment or hesitation.

Ghekko

sconhome wrote: »

Genuine question - why are you still required to swear on a religious book? If you are not religious surely the oath has no meaning. Would it be better to swear on the Court or the position you hold?

I don't get this either. Surely swearing on a bible if you don't believe is pointless. It's not going to stop a non religious person from telling a load of lies.

sunshine and showers

sconhome wrote: »

Genuine question - why are you still required to swear on a religious book? If you are not religious surely the oath has no meaning. Would it be better to swear on the Court or the position you hold?

If you're not religious then you don't have to swear on a religious book for a sworn affadavit. You can make an affirmation instead.

Speedwell

Ghekko wrote: »

I don't get this either. Surely swearing on a bible if you don't believe is pointless. It's not going to stop a non religious person from telling a load of lies.

It's not going to stop a religious person from telling a load of lies, either.

Ghekko

True.

iguana

People who choose to not swear on a religious text make an affirmation instead. But seeing as how there are more than just Muslims, Jews, Christians and atheists, agnostics and spiritualists/pagans (who'd in all likelihood choose the affirmation) in the country, carrying around a bible and a koran is hardly covering all bases. Solicitors can hardly carry around all religious texts of every religion in the country. What if the solicitor is dealing with a a Hindu who really wants to swear on the Bhagavad Gita? It would make more sense to scrap the option to swear on a religious text and have everyone do the affirmation.

MarkAnthony

I've met religious people with no morals and atheists with moral codes that would make the Pope look like he was a very naughty boy. You don't lie on the stand because you're not a scumbag, not because of the book your hand is on.

In Ireland you have the option to make a non-religious affirmation. Much of the ritual of the trial is exactly that, a ritual. You can debate that, and it's a very interesting debate but none of this is what the OP asked.

OP electronic devices are being used more and more in courts. However something that's used for 5 minutes a day is probably better left as hard copy. Have you ever tried to find a plug in the Four Courts?

Edit: @iguana one would hope the barrister calling the witness would have come prepared!

Speedwell

You might as well show a picture of a copy of the Bible (or Koran, or Principia Discordia) on the wall of the courtroom using an overhead projector, and ask the person to point to it.

mahoganygas

Can you swear an oath on a copy of the constitution?

Do any other states do this?

12Phase

It should all be affirmations. That way it's a level playing field.

I mean, a secular affirmation isn't in anyway offensive to a religious person and it does the job. Why have all the confusion and mixing up of religion and courtroom / state stuff?

At the end of the day, you tell the truth as you're an upstanding citizen and also on pain of prosecution for perjury and contempt of court should you lie. Its not because of holding a religious book in your hand.

To me the whole swearing on bibles thing just seems a bit of an anachronism and also a failure to move towards being an open, secular democracy.

Also, to some religious people swearing on a sacred text is actually offensive.

MarkAnthony

The issue in Ireland is we're a Republic but lets assume for a second we're the best functioning democracy in the world and we could all stand there as the Greeks did with a show of hands. The vote before us is are we a secular country? I see the nays have it - excellent back to bumming and reading books.

Pat Mustard

Law Reform Commission proposals for reform of the law in the area:

three broad possibilities for reform suggest themselves.

First, the law could provide that any person should be entitled to affirm, instead of taking the oath, as of right and without having to satisfy the court as to his conscientious grounds (if any) for taking that course. Under this option, those who wish to do so could continue to give evidence on oath.

Second, the taking of oaths could be abolished completely, all witnesses being required, however, to make some form of affirmation before giving evidence.

Third, the law could be altered so as to enable all evidence to be given without the taking of any oath or affirmation.

The third option would be preferable, in my view.

This business of having religious texts may be law but it is based on legislation from 136 years ago.

Time to change it.

MarkAnthony

Do you mind me asking why option three?

Would it be fair to say we've become less honest, possibly due to being less God fearing (a sad side effect of a positive development IMHO)?

Would this mean we would have to have prosecute more people for perjury as a deterrent? Would this devalue the need to be honest in giving evidence or is that particular ship sailed in your opinion, or indeed are people aware of that fact without the need for an affirmation?

I hope you don't mind me asking. OP if this is derailing your thread please say and I shall not continue.

12Phase

I would strongly suspect there's never been any study done to see which kind of oath holds up best. It's all just based around tradition and an inability to move away from the status quo. Look how long it's taken for things like wigs to begin to change, or use of outdated terminology to address judges.

As I see it, the court itself and the process is what you're supposed to be respecting.
It's a civil, legal process, not confession at a church or similar.

mahoganygas

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Would it be fair to say we've become less honest, possibly due to being less God fearing (a sad side effect of a positive development IMHO)?

On the contrary I think we have become more honest, both with ourselves and each other.
Suppressed sexuality and refusing to publicly discuss things like suicide, abortion and contraception springs to mind.

Either way, it's a silly tradition in my opinion. Do people really think swearing on a bible (physical or digital) would make a difference to a person's testimony?

If a digital bible speeds up the process then I'm all for it. A step in the right the direction.

ectoraige

What would the position be if somebody wanted to swear an oath on what they personally deemed to be a religious text such as the Beano, or Mein Kampf, and did not accept the option of making an affirmation? Would they ultimately end up in contempt?

Grolschevik

12Phase wrote: »

I would strongly suspect there's never been any study done to see which kind of oath holds up best. It's all just based around tradition and an inability to move away from the status quo. Look how long it's taken for things like wigs to begin to change, or use of outdated terminology to address judges.

As I see it, the court itself and the process is what you're supposed to be respecting.
It's a civil, legal process, not confession at a church or similar.

ectoraige wrote: »

What would the position be if somebody wanted to swear an oath on what they personally deemed to be a religious text such as the Beano, or Mein Kampf, and did not accept the option of making an affirmation? Would they ultimately end up in contempt?

The Law Reform Commission's 1990 report on oaths and affirmations noted that the number of possible binding forms of the oath is as extensive as the possible permutations of human faith.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rOaths.htm

Also, there was an English case that hinged on the principle that that the lawfulness of administering oath doesn't depend upon the details of the particular religion, but whether the oath appears to the court to be binding on the conscience of the witness and whether the witness considers it to be binding upon their conscience.

12Phase

You can tell that report was written in 1990. To get a comparable era elsewhere, subtract 50.

The_Minister

Speedwell wrote: »

It's not going to stop a religious person from telling a load of lies, either.

Not true.
Anecdotally, I've heard of loads of cases where people's stories changed once they were reminded that they'd need to swear on the Bible.
A surprsising number of people take the Oath seriously.

(By way of fun anecdote, I saw a case in one of the lower courts where a plaintiff wearing a massive cross around the neck chose to affirm, to the raised eyebrows of all present - soon became clear that she was lying through her teeth)

MarkAnthony

mahoganygas wrote: »

On the contrary I think we have become more honest, both with ourselves and each other.
Suppressed sexuality and refusing to publicly discuss things like suicide, abortion and contraception springs to mind.

Either way, it's a silly tradition in my opinion. Do people really think swearing on a bible (physical or digital) would make a difference to a person's testimony?

If a digital bible speeds up the process then I'm all for it. A step in the right the direction.

I think we're quite willing to discuss those things, and that's a step in the right direction. How much one's neck hurts after an accident though - you think we're more honest about those things than 50 years ago?

Speedwell

The_Minister wrote: »

Not true.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac: :rolleyes:

Pat Mustard

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Do you mind me asking why option three? Would it be fair to say we've become less honest, possibly due to being less God fearing (a sad side effect of a positive development IMHO)?

I don't know.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Would this devalue the need to be honest in giving evidence or is that particular ship sailed in your opinion, or indeed are people aware of that fact without the need for an affirmation?

In relation to these points, I only skimmed the Law Reform Commission report but it has referred to the previous thinking that people may not have been inclined to tell the truth unless they thought that their souls were in peril, if they did not.

Whether or not this was effective, it seems unlikely to me that this would continue to be effective in the present day. If I am correct, we could consider dispensing with these forms of words which have no real effect, of themselves.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Would this mean we would have to have prosecute more people for perjury as a deterrent?

I think that this is the type of deterrent which is required. I would like to see it happen more often.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me asking. OP if this is derailing your thread please say and I shall not continue.

Not at all. Those questions make sense to me.

Dublinensis

The rationale underpinning the oath to tell the truth is that, while lying may be wrong, breaking a solemn oath is very wrong. So while being made to swear to tell the truth is unlikely to make much difference to the testimony of the utterly honest or to that of the amoral, it might provide an additional moral incentive to people somewhere in between.

More particularly, in Catholic moral theology, lying is often only a venial sin, while oath-breaking is in normal circumstances a mortal sin (the kind that sends you to hell if you die without properly repenting of it). I think this idea may have been carried over into Anglicanism.

The rule that an accused cannot be forced to give evidence against himself was originally motivated by a sense that it was unfair to place someone in a situation where they would have such a strong incentive to break an oath, the only other options being undermining their own defence or contempt of court (the "cruel trilemma").

That said, the use of a religious text in the oath-swearing ceremony is, as far as I know, of purely symbolic significance.

Speedwell

Grolschevik's link to the discussion of the applicable law is well worth reading. Among the official findings was that a religious oath is statistically no different from an affirmation with regard to truth-telling, even though an oath is regarded superstitiously as being somehow more binding than an affirmation. (Magical thinking.) Since an affirmation is as good as an oath, but is regarded as less good in the courtroom, the finding was that having both as options impermissibly fed prejudice against those whose consciences would not permit them to take the available religious oaths. It was recommended that everyone be required to take the same neutral affirmation, plus a short statement verifying they understood about perjury. I presume that a religious person's integrity in the courtroom would then be a matter between themselves and their deity of choice.

sunshine and showers

MarkAnthony wrote:

OP electronic devices are being used more and more in courts. However something that's used for 5 minutes a day is probably better left as hard copy. Have you ever tried to find a plug in the Four Courts?

I was more talking about the fact Kelly J seems to be saying solicitors should carry religious texts at all times, or keep them all at their office, in case they have to act as a commissioner for oaths. I was wondering if an electronic copy would stand up in court.

The debate on oaths in general is interesting. The fact that one has to swear a religious oath to take certain offices in Ireland is beyond backwards. That would have been a better referendum than lowering the voting age to 16.

MarkAnthony

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I was more talking about the fact Kelly J seems to be saying solicitors should carry religious texts at all times, or keep them all at their office, in case they have to act as a commissioner for oaths. I was wondering if an electronic copy would stand up in court.

The debate on oaths in general is interesting. The fact that one has to swear a religious oath to take certain offices in Ireland is beyond backwards. That would have been a better referendum than lowering the voting age to 16.

It's a very interesting question - I'm not sure the actual text is the issue but the book itself. When is a bible not a bile perhaps? Do they need some sort of magic worked on them after they're printed? What about for other religions? No idea myself.

It's not wholly unreasonable for the major religious texts to be floating around a solicitors office IMHO.

As for it being beyond backwards, not a religious person myself but a Barrister I know who always managed to put himself forward to students as much less wise than he actually is said one day that being anti-religious is very fashionable these days but it's not necessarily intelligent. Now I'm sure your views are well thought through however I do get the impression the majority's are not - and while we're on the subject of majority the majority of the country - rightly or wrongly - are religious.

By the by - an excellent thread I wish more discussions like this were opened rather than links to tabloid nonsense and questions about whether hemorrhoids can be blamed on an employer's choice of chair. I supose I'm as much to blame there as anyone else.

sunshine and showers

MarkAnthony wrote: »

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I was more talking about the fact Kelly J seems to be saying solicitors should carry religious texts at all times, or keep them all at their office, in case they have to act as a commissioner for oaths. I was wondering if an electronic copy would stand up in court.

The debate on oaths in general is interesting. The fact that one has to swear a religious oath to take certain offices in Ireland is beyond backwards. That would have been a better referendum than lowering the voting age to 16.

It's a very interesting question - I'm not sure the actual text is the issue but the book itself. When is a bible not a bile perhaps? Do they need some sort of magic worked on them after they're printed? What about for other religions? No idea myself.

It's not wholly unreasonable for the major religious texts to be floating around a solicitors office IMHO.

As for it being beyond backwards, not a religious person myself but a Barrister I know who always managed to put himself forward to students as much less wise than he actually is said one day that being anti-religious is very fashionable these days but it's not necessarily intelligent. Now I'm sure your views are well thought through however I do get the impression the majority's are not - and while we're on the subject of majority the majority of the country - rightly or wrongly - are religious.

By the by - an excellent thread I wish more discussions like this were opened rather than links to tabloid nonsense and questions about whether hemorrhoids can be blamed on an employer's choice of chair. I supose I'm as much to blame there as anyone else.

Perhaps I should have been more clear - I don't think religious oaths are backwards. I don't have an issue with them at all where there's a secular alternative.

The issue I have is with offices of the State - President, Judge, etc - requiring a religious oath. There is no non-religious alternative to those oaths in the Constitution. Eamon Gilmore sought legal advice on it (I believe when joining the Council of State, but open to correction) as he's stated publicly that he's agnostic. He still ended up having to take the oath under "Almighty God".

12Phase

What if you think that the text is meaningless or that you're of the opinion that's it's all about forgiving everything or just think it's a good luck charm.

It just seems ritualistic and of a bygone era.

It's also very puritanical as a concept and seems to rely on 'God fearing'

Grolschevik

12Phase wrote: »

You can tell that report was written in 1990. To get a comparable era elsewhere, subtract 50.

You reckon? First line of chapter 4: "Clearly, the present law is in a number of respects unsatisfactory. In the first place, it has been seen that many forms of oath are at best embarrassing and at worst offensive to the religious beliefs of the persons to whom they are meant to apply."

MarkAnthony

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Perhaps I should have been more clear - I don't think religious oaths are backwards. I don't have an issue with them at all where there's a secular alternative.

The issue I have is with offices of the State - President, Judge, etc - requiring a religious oath. There is no non-religious alternative to those oaths in the Constitution. Eamon Gilmore sought legal advice on it (I believe when joining the Council of State, but open to correction) as he's stated publicly that he's agnostic. He still ended up having to take the oath under "Almighty God".

Thanks for the clarification and I take your point. Given there's only one challenge that you know of (I suspect there have been more quietly) it only goes to show how we are as a state, IMHO. I would fully agree that a secular alternative should always be available, all beliefs should be equally respected. The only point I'm making is the majority of people want people in authority to be God fearing folk. It's worked wonders for the US of course! :pac:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Isn't it ironic that de Valera could both incorporate religious aspects into the constitution and regard a sworn oath as an empty formula of words. A true a la carte Catholic.

Carawaystick

The law is ludicrous for the simple fact that a catholic may use a protestant bible and a protestant a catholic one.

It probably has no Irish translation either so discriminates against aetheist Gaelgeoirí
And it probably violates the right to privacy w.r.t not being forced to proclaim your religious views in public

12Phase

Any chance it will be changed?

nuac

After many years practice as a solicitor I believe that most people have utter disregard for their obligations in giving sworn evidence in court or in swearing affidavits,,