Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should the courts be still using the bible?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    What would one swear on instead? :)
    Or should we drop the whole swearing-on-an-item-thing? :)


  • #33
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    LighterGuy wrote: »
    For the record I believe in God. This isnt an atheist vs religion thread (lets try to keep it that way too)

    But why do they still use it?

    - There's alot of liars out there who believe in god. That by placing their hand and swearing to tell the truth isnt going to change a thing.
    - There are a lot of atheists in this world. The idea of swearing on a book they dont believe in doesnt mean a thing.

    So .... why still continue to use it?

    I'm an atheist. The point isn't whether the bible is true or not, it's whether someone swearing on it takes it seriously and thinks it's important to swear on it. As long as I don't have to, it might be encouraging for them catholics to do so.


  • #34
    AeoNGriM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 712 ✭✭✭AeoNGriM


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    So christians get to swear on their book but those of other religons can't swear on their equivalent?

    Discrimination if you ask me.

    Der taykin ar Relijun!

    :pac:


  • #35
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,375 ✭✭✭source


    Right just to clear a few things up,

    In Irish courts, the default is to swear an oath on the Bible.

    If you're not religious you swear an affirmation on the Constitution.

    If you're Muslim you swear an affirmation on the Qur'an.

    I haven't seen anyone from any other religions swearing in court, but I would imagine they're catered for too.

    You choose according to your personal beliefs, if you don't believe in your beliefs strongly enough to take the oath seriously then that's your problem not the courts.


  • #36
    Niles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Niles


    What if you're agnostic? You might be telling the truth, you might not be, it doesn't really bother you either way... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,375 ✭✭✭source


    Niles wrote: »
    What if you're agnostic? You might be telling the truth, you might not be, it doesn't really bother you either way... :rolleyes:

    How is neither believing nor disbelieving there is a God going to stop the person telling the truth?

    Non-religious people take an affirmation on the constitution.


  • #38
    Niles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Niles


    source wrote: »
    How is neither believing nor disbelieving there is a God going to stop the person telling the truth?

    Non-religious people take an affirmation on the constitution.

    It's not, I didn't mean it literally...

    On a serious note perhaps it might be better to have an "affirmation on the constitution" as the standard for the courts, rather than a religious book. Of course liars are gonna lie... and then you have the hardcore Anti-treaty types who won't recognise that either.

    Just don't lie in court kids.


  • #39
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Sulmac wrote: »
    Those who aren't Christian can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible.
    I have heard from people involved in law that it may not be advisable to do this. The majority of judges in Ireland are Catholic, and while personal opinion or prejudice should not come into it- and probably doesn't, in the majority of cases - it may be better forgetting about your convictions and avoiding the risk of setting yourself apart from the get-go.


  • #40
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    source wrote: »
    I haven't seen anyone from any other religions swearing in court, but I would imagine they're catered for too.

    Maybe they can bring their own book in? I'd be surprised if every court in the country had, say, a copy of the Book of Mormon just on the unlikely off-chance that a Mormon witness or defendant needed one.


  • #41
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Some Christians have issues with swearing on the bible too
    source wrote: »
    Right just to clear a few things up,
    In Irish courts, the default is to swear an oath on the Bible.
    If you're not religious you swear an affirmation on the Constitution.

    I think Id struggle to decide which I believed in less TBH


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Desire2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭Desire2


    Thing about swearing on the Bible is it contains both an "eye for an eye" and turn the other cheek.:confused:


  • #43
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    I have personally seen Bibles, Torah and the Koran in Court. The reason for the requirement to swear on oath either on a book or affirmation, is that to lie under oath is the crime of perjury.


  • #44
    Desire2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭Desire2


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I have personally seen Bibles, Torah and the Koran in Court. The reason for the requirement to swear on oath either on a book or affirmation, is that to lie under oath is the crime of perjury.

    We give too little credit to those who are behind our laws so.
    Either which way we are gonna nick the peasants if they cross us.:eek:


  • #45
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Desire2 wrote: »
    We give too little credit to those who are behind our laws so.
    Either which way we are gonna nick the peasants if they cross us.:eek:

    I also believe that the maximum penalty for perjury is 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I don't think they ever repealed the laws in this area, suppose its a cheap way to get to Sydney.


  • #46
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    There is also the issue where an atheist who may be the accused or witness for the accused in a case who chooses not to swear on a bible suddenly becomes a disreputable character in the eyes of a jury who more often than not are pillars of the local community (Church goers). This prejudices the case.
    No i dont have a link to such but I have a gut feeling that this may well happen.


  • #47
    Desire2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭Desire2


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I also believe that the maximum penalty for perjury is 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I don't think they ever repealed the laws in this area, suppose its a cheap way to get to Sydney.

    Pfffftttt that is less than decent law abiding People have been sentenced to already by the bailouts!:D


  • #48
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Desire2 wrote: »
    Thing about swearing on the Bible is it contains both an "eye for an eye" and turn the other cheek.:confused:

    What an awesome defense.
    Yes, your honour. I did it, but Jesus said to turn the other cheek. :)

    I was asked to swear on the Bible, but refused to. They got me to made some sort of pledge. Can't remember what it was.
    Anyway, I was guilty and was pleading guilty, so it didn't really matter.


  • #49
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Interestingly, the second to last time I was up in a district court, when I was being sworn in they just had me do the 'secular' affirmation straight off, no Bible, no mention of God. If I remember correctly it was the same with the other cases there.

    In a different DC they definitely had me do the Bible one (I'm not a Christian but I just did it, not pushed either way tbh), same in the CC in the Four Courts.

    Maybe it's at the discretion of the sitting Judge which they use as the 'standard' one? Any law type people shed some light on this? Or anyone else been in court where the 'secular' one was the standard one people were being asked to repeat?


  • #50
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    As a Christian I would ask for an alternative oath.
    Matthew 5:34-37 wrote:
    But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.


  • #51
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    philologos wrote: »
    As a Christian I would ask for an alternative oath.

    Lol. Jesus man, do you not think the poor bastards are confused enough? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I mean I'd take the non-Bible one. I don't plan on being in court though :)


  • #53
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,658 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    You have a point.
    It's a load of ****e and they should just use lie detectors.
    Deus Ex Machina wrote: »
    Lie detectors don't exist.

    The actual name of the machine is called a polygraph. It works by recording a number of physical responses on a person when they're asked a series of questions. things like heart-rate, perspiration and such that CAN be indicators of lying.

    It's very inaccurate and has a hit ratio of just above 50% (so only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin) and because of this (and it's ridiculous nick-name) people tend to swear by it and it leads to a lot of false positives.


  • #54
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    philologos wrote: »
    I mean I'd take the non-Bible one.

    Oh I know man. I got your meaning. I just think the idea of you standing up and saying "Sorry Judge, I can't swear on the Bible, it's against my religious beliefs" and then adding "I'm a Christian, you see" might be somewhat confusing to some poor Judge.


  • #55
    Desire2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭Desire2


    strobe wrote: »
    do you not think the poor bastards are confused enough? :pac:

    You really should not say that about Judges strobe,i mean you really should'nt!:eek:


    Kidding aside as others have said a lot of them and many Jurors would hold it against a defendant (even if they would say they would not when they were selected)

    The system really was set up to protect the rich and some Garda get promoted on the 'easy' offenders they have managed to add to their arrest and conviction list.


  • #56
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    There is also the issue where an atheist who may be the accused or witness for the accused in a case who chooses not to swear on a bible suddenly becomes a disreputable character in the eyes of a jury who more often than not are pillars of the local community (Church goers). This prejudices the case.
    No i dont have a link to such but I have a gut feeling that this may well happen.

    Jury's have to swear as well an I don't think I have ever seen a jury sworn with out at least one asking to affirm. So I don't really think its an issue.


  • #57
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    strobe wrote: »
    Oh I know man. I got your meaning. I just think the idea of you standing up and saying "Sorry Judge, I can't swear on the Bible, it's against my religious beliefs" and then adding "I'm a Christian, you see" might be somewhat confusing to some poor Judge.

    I think all judges understand that the usual reason to affirm is by Christians who have a issue with swearing on the bible for religious reasons. Affirming has been around since the late 1800's for that very reason. I have never seen a judge so much as bat an eyelid as long as the person takes an oath. On an average day I would guess at least 1 in 10 affirm.


Advertisement
Advertisement