A reminder to whom?
God, as you have said, already knows.
So it would appear that the only (relevant) person left
would be the person about to offer testimony. And that
person's moral standing surely would not be altered by the
necessity to speak an oath that they either already believe
to be of great importance, or see as nonsense.
Absolutely correct, but that persons moral standing "could" be altered by
the necessity to speak an oath that they either believe to be of great
importance. Or not. If he is truthful he may sleep better tonight.
The oath is for the person taking the oath.
Does this mean atheists can lie in court? No, there are laws against
that. So why bother with the pretense of "God" being "aware" of what
you are saying.
Its funny that we can giggle at kids when they have to behave because
"Santa is watching" then we mimic that same behavior in our Courts.
:Flame suit on::
No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on
tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any
Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with
the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally
retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves.
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.
You forgot to ask if that person had his fingers crossed at the time of the
Are you really at a loss for answers? Do you really need me to be your
guide. Are you trying to paint some kind of picture here?
Answering your question, the above statement describes a contradicting
situation. I would say that that person is having trouble in his faith. Do
you know a person like this?
Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.
I mentioned this in another post, EVERYONE stands in the same line, read
that as no one gets special treatment.
If you feel that you are being picked on because you are different, quit
being different. You have that choice.
That is good to know.
Better not get caught in court in Texas.
I went to the trouble of finding a person who sat on a jury in
Texas who took a secular juror's oath, and said a secular
oath was also permitted for witnesses, though they are
assumed to no object to the religious one unless they speak
Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
in the first place.
My former barber (30 year Air Force) was fond of saying, "What they lost
with the sword, they are taking back with the pecker."
Of course, that seemed to fit in with Orange County, birthplace of the John
The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.
As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
the later (if I was aware of their deception).
By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
under penalty of perjury?"
That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.