Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
Atheists will try to promote an absolute secular no God world, but if it came to a criminal charge against an atheist for a crime not committed... which witness below would be preferred:
( Testimony: an atheist witness
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help yourself...? or
( Testimony: a God believer witness
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you God..?
First, I see no evidence that atheists are trying to promote anything. Secondly, having no belief in any gods, saying "so help me God" has absolutely zero impact on an atheist. It means exactly the same thing as if it were not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Some people choose not to say "so help me God." Some courts do not even use it. They say, "Do you swear (or affirm) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in these proceedings?" There is also no requirement to place your hand on a Bible either. (That would be meaningless to a follower of Hinduism anyway.)
Did you know that "so help me God" is not a part of the Oath of Office for the President of the United States?
How would the things you wrote make any difference in a court of law?
I asked how people saying something other than "so help me God" would make any difference in a court of law. Remember, if it is an atheist testifying, the phrase has NO meaning anyway. Your comments indicate that saying "so help me God" carries the same weight for everybody, but it does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1
1) swear on what, the possible and usual implications to the witness and the days proceedings? or to order in of itself, Two different things
2) why did so help me god became what it is?
3) Law and justice only strives toward order.
4) There are endless examples ...why do jurors get threatened and the rest of it? to swear only on behalf of themselves and the particular days proceedings or to tell the truth in Gods presence? Possibly a felt corupt proceeding. Wheres the deal with the proceedings?...theres no logical rule supporting an honorary allegiance to the proceedings.
5) When implicated, which would be most of the time, people have trouble telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help myself or any human proceeding. ( this is not my fault
6) speaking on behalf of a Hindu individual goes in the bin.
what would be the atheist's complaint if ALL atheists convicted of a crime were restricted to ALL atheist jurors, would this be ok? .. It may be helpful to try a few imaginary examples, with an imaginary stay at the crow bar hotel .
Remember, this is not about somebody's defiance or anger; it is simply about some peoples' beliefs. Since, to an atheist, there is no such thing as "God's presence," it is probably very difficult for you to understand just how completely they are unaffected by saying such a thing.
What I meant when I referenced your last comment is that it would by unconstitutional for a government to pass a law restricting the makeup of juries, even in limited circumstances, to atheists. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Between the prohibition regarding laws respecting or prohibiting religion and the freedom of speech, I'm sure no such law would survive the first level of appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
What point are you trying to make here?
The 1st Amendment would prohibit the government from creating a law regulating the religious views (or non-views) of potential jurors.
You said "why did so help me God become what it is, law and justice strive toward order, you said jurors get threatened, you said something about corrupt proceedings, and something about a Hindu going into a bin." Not understanding what any of these things means, I asked what the point was in saying them. Maybe I should have just asked what they mean in real life, or perhaps, in the context of this thread, in the context of a world populated entirely by atheists (meaning that no one at all has even the slightest, little, tiny bit of religious feeling or things).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1
a golf ball is round.....iow
I'm sorry but I don't know what your talking about relative to my entry.
What does the shape of a gold ball have to do with a potential atheist population?
I've explained what I said and asked my questions all over again, in plain English. What's not to understand?
God puts those involved in any human interaction into a state of higher mindedness. In CANADA the preamble of our Bill of Rights states "The Supremacy of God and the rule of law there under".......Whether you are a believer or not it is a good idea..If you don't stick force higher than a human can climb - humans will attempt to displace and take the place of God- with that comes abuse. God is a good idea...so is the vision of a Supreme Being...better we have even an imaginary superior than have YOU as my superior.
I do believe in God- and rule of law. The atheist may not in time adhere to the rule of law but try to become the law...That I don't need.
God puts those involved in any human interaction into a state of higher mindedness. In CANADA the preamble of our Bill of Rights states "The Supremacy of God and the rule of law there under".......Whether you are a believer or not it is a good idea..If you don't stick force higher than a human can climb - humans will attempt to displace and take the place of God- with that comes abuse. God is a good idea...so is the vision of a Supreme Being...better we have even an imaginary superior than have YOU as my superior.
I do believe in God- and rule of law. The atheist may not in time adhere to the rule of law but try to become the law...That I don't need.
Goodness; I'm starting to like you Oleg Bach; stunning post!
Because I really believe in my heart that both science and Atheist; are searching for the truth.
Based on the observation of the 3-4 atheists I know (who have told me of their non-beliefs), I am not convinced that atheists are looking for ANYTHING in the belief/truth arena. They shrug a lot and indicate don't care attitudes when discussions turn to such things. As a matter of fact, their belief is that their non-belief IS the truth.
Based on the observation of the 3-4 atheists I know (who have told me of their non-beliefs), I am not convinced that atheists are looking for ANYTHING in the belief/truth arena. They shrug a lot and indicate don't care attitudes when discussions turn to such things. As a matter of fact, their belief is that their non-belief IS the truth.
Yeah but eventually non belief gets boring and leads to a search for excitement.
Yeah but eventually non belief gets boring and leads to a search for excitement.
Where do you come up with such nonsense? In any case how would you even know anything at all about non belief? Reality is far more exciting than the never changing belief in the bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
