Swearing In vs. Affirmation

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Everyone's a bit biased, however the actions of Scientology are very well documented and unlike most religions they really are a homogeneous group (given that they would sue anyone trying to use the name that didn't fall in line).

Are they hampered by high-profile celebrity antics? (I'm looking at Travolta and Cruise on this one)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

However atheists have consistently been at the very bottom. It was only recently that Scientologists gained a larger scare factor to the public.

Or look at it this way: people honestly believe that Muslims are conquering Europe as we speak but when polled they still measure as more trustworthy than atheists.

For Muslims, just a little bit more. This War on Terror sure isn't helping their cause. Just last week, an Iranian principle in New York City was fired and rescinded of her benefits by the NY education board, because of "ties" alleged by distant relatives of so-called terror groups along the Iran-Afghan border. Hey... she looks Muslim and wears a burkha--says the ill-advised onlooker.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

A lot of people still equate atheism with communism or at least equate atheism with liberalism and liberalism with communism.

Mm..yeah. All the damn "ism"s start running into each other and pretty much lose their meaning. If you listen to Glenn Beck, fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism, hell even democracy will never be the same again.❌

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

My unfailing faith in Eru will shield me.

Is that the Elvish name for god in Tolkein's work... or the K-pop singer Tae Jin Ah?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Yes. Consider, the witness's beliefs about religion are irrelevant to any testimony they give but the jury's reaction to them is liable to be altered by knowing what they are. It's probably not going to make or break many cases but it makes more sense to just have everybody affirm their statement.

Well put.

Originally posted by Moscow
I hear you on the "peer" thing. How do you feel about a professional jury, like they have in some parts of Europe? A group of people undergo a thorough background, take an lengthy interview and do an extensive educational training in order to be a full-time jurist at various cases. The system claims that [B]this body would have a fuller understanding of the law.[/B]

I don't mind that idea. Personally I'd like to to train/hire more judges, and have multiple judges on cases on a rotating basis. Similar idea, and it would be their job to understand the law. I will say this though: if I were guilty, I'd want a jury of peers. If I were innocent, I'd want a professional jury and/or judges.

Originally posted by Moscow
Which is probably why the United States ranks quite low on intelligence tests like math and science and critical thinking compared to specific Central Asian and Far East Asian nations.

Not sure I follow. We're lower because teachers don't follow textbooks rigidly? I'd argue against that, at least as it pertains to the books in questions (Social Studies primarily), but I'm not sure if that's the point you're making.

Originally posted by Digi

I don't mind that idea. Personally I'd like to to train/hire more judges, and have multiple judges on cases on a rotating basis. Similar idea, and it would be their job to understand the law. I will say this though: if I were guilty, I'd want a jury of peers. If I were innocent, I'd want a professional jury and/or judges.

Multiple judges on a case for trial courts that are not appellate courts would make it more interesting I would think. That's a pretty good idea... I mean they allow multiple judges (at the same time, not rotating) looking over cases appealed to them, so why not at the very beginning?

Originally posted by Digi

Not sure I follow. We're lower because teachers don't follow textbooks rigidly? I'd argue against that, at least as it pertains to the books in questions (Social Studies primarily), but I'm not sure if that's the point you're making.

I was running two ideas at the same time. You were talking about textbooks, and I was thinking about polls and data that show that Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Thai and Japanese students score better on math, science and even history courses than American students do. I forgot to clarify.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't mind that idea. Personally I'd like to to train/hire more judges, and have multiple judges on cases on a rotating basis. Similar idea, and it would be their job to understand the law. I will say this though: if I were guilty, I'd want a jury of peers. If I were innocent, I'd want a professional jury and/or judges.

Well the idea of a jury of ones peers is that their ruling will represent the will of the community. I agree about having multiple judges, I've never understood why there are cases where a single person gets to decide the outcome like that.

anyways here is a link about what the bibles says about making oaths, swear, vows and promises...

basically anyone who believes he is a good christian, judeo follower is giving god a big F U with they swear on the bible or on the lords name......
http://www.gotquestions.org/vows-God.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/cussing-swearing.html

http://dianagrayministries.net/bible/bs_vows.html

lets not forget what the bible says about bearing false witness and what not... or judge not less ye be judged.. or what god thinks about lawyers, judges and scribes.. woe onto them turds.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/lawyers
http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm
http://bible.cc/matthew/23-27.htm
any religious follower should excuse themselves from court if they are followers of that particluar religion less they are being hypicrits in what they choice to believe and follow...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
anyways here is a link about what the bibles says about making oaths, swear, vows and promises...

basically anyone who believes he is a good christian, judeo follower is giving god a big F U with they swear on the bible or on the lords name......
http://www.gotquestions.org/vows-God.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/cussing-swearing.html

http://dianagrayministries.net/bible/bs_vows.html

lets not forget what the bible says about bearing false witness and what not... or judge not less ye be judged.. or what god thinks about lawyers, judges and scribes.. woe onto them turds.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/lawyers
http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm
http://bible.cc/matthew/23-27.htm
any religious follower should excuse themselves from court if they are followers of that particluar religion less they are being hypicrits in what they choice to believe and follow...

Very interesting, WS.

It seems dedicated religious people may be stuck between a rock and a hard place, though. They cannot simply refuse to excuse themselves from court.

if they are told to show up for jury duty they can exercise their religious beliefs to be excused from being picked for jury.

they really shouldnt be forced to go against their beliefs... pretty sure they would be dismissed if picked for jury duty..

What about as a witness?

Originally posted by Moscow
What about as a witness?

the only religious ppl that seriously have to worry about god are the lawyers who twist and turn and mislead the witness purposely... god dont like the lawyer or the judges or scribe...he made that very clear. ❌

My phone book contains 43 pages worth of lawyers of all kinds.

Reading about God's feelings towards lawyers means that all of these windbags better make plans to go to confession pretty soon.