Editorial published again

[UltraShy]

Didn't notice till now that I got another editorial published a couple weeks back. Here it is for all of you to enjoy:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...letters/463720

[millenniumman75]

The bigotry issue in the jury would have to be handled prior to the court case, I would think. The Bible is for telling the truth. We NEVER swear on it in real life, so there is something about this oath that makes it even more serious for Christians. We put our integrity on the line when we make an oath like that. It's REALLY big stuff .

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

The Bible is for telling the truth. We NEVER swear on it in real life, so there is something about this oath that makes it even more serious for Christians.

Plenty of people lie in court and we all know it. Such an oath may mean something to the most devoted of Christians such as you perhaps, but it appears to have as much meaning as swearing on a phone book to much of the general population. I doubt many sit in the witness seat fearing a bolt of lightening will strike them dead if they lie.

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

We put our integrity on the line when we make an oath like that. It's REALLY big stuff .

Then shouldn't we have a whole array of holy texts to choose from depending on one's religion? How much meaning does a Christian bible have to believers in non-Christian religions?

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

The bigotry issue in the jury would have to be handled prior to the court case, I would think. The Bible is for telling the truth. We NEVER swear on it in real life, so there is something about this oath that makes it even more serious for Christians. We put our integrity on the line when we make an oath like that. It's REALLY big stuff .

Sorry but I have to agree with Karl here. For lots of people, swearing on the Bible IS the equivalent of the phone book.

The bible has no place in a court and if one truly reads what the New Testament says, I dont see why one would even support such a thing. Its not a "worldly" thing to do; now is it? So how could one expect it to "mean" something to someone who has no belief in God, or should I say the God of the Christian faith.

I do adhere to the Christian faith but not in the same way that most of the churches do. I dont believe in works; one cannot work or buy their way.

And this is polar opposite of Karl in that respect.

But I do agree with Karl that the Bible has no place in the court; nor the ten commandments outside a courthouse. There should be a clear difference between the two; hence the separation of church and state.

If one wants to truly adhere to the guarantees of the constitution (like the right wingers claim) then truly isnt freedom of religion a guarantee and shouldnt our courts be free of that?

And, as a Christian, shouldnt one embrace freedom of religion because it guarantees one's OWN freedom of religion, as it does for those of other faiths? I respect those of other faiths as I would want them to respect mine....this is one great thing about America (maybe the only one) that I can embrace; the freedom to believe what one wants without interference of the government or "state".

But that isnt the case most of the time is it?

The "Christian Right" forces their ideas and an incredibly wrong ideology down people's throats in this country. You cussing or not cussing wont get you into heaven; reread your bible if you think otherwise. You cannot be "good" enough in the Christian religion; its not possible. Rather you admit you are flawed and accept the gift. That is it in a nutshell; I am sure many will disagree.

[IDK]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

Plenty of people lie in court and we all know it. Such an oath may mean something to the most devoted of Christians such as you perhaps, but it appears to have as much meaning as swearing on a phone book to much of the general population.

Exactly, so what is the problem? The book doesn't mean anything, it is merely an formality, and if you break your oath, god isn't going to punish you, the court will. Refusing to take an oath on the bible based on principle is just as absurd as having to do it in the first place, why? because it doesn't matter one bit. This issue is completely frivolous.

There are many more real problems with our judicial system that should be addressed before this trivial problem gets attention.

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by IDK

There are many more real problems with our judicial system that should be addressed before this trivial problem gets attention.

I disagree. It shows a prejudice of the court. If I swear on the Koran I would worry about the fairness of the court if I dont adhere to their faith. The Bible should be removed from the courts.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by IDK

Refusing to take an oath on the bible based on principle is just as absurd as having to do it in the first place, why? because it doesn't matter one bit. This issue is completely frivolous.

I'm sure the vast majority of non-believers simply say "Yes" when asked to swear upon a bible they deem nonsense to a god in which they don't believe. After all, it's the easy way out and most people will take the easy path.

One can hear Christians talk about "values" and how their religion provides them with such values. Some act as if Atheists lack values, morals, and integrity. Seems to me it takes some real integrity to actually stand up for your world view and refuse to swear to something you don't believe in simply because it's the easy thing to do.

An Atheist with the integrity to tell the truth and thus refuse to swear to a god they don't believe in ends up facing potential bias & discrimination. An Atheist who just goes with the flow and says "Yes" to "...so help me god" (which has them lying with the first word out of their mouth) is, ironically, more likely to be believed by a jury. Ironic that the liar is given more credibility than the honest Atheist who has too much integrity to hide who they are and lie when being sworn in.

Originally Posted by IDK

There are many more real problems with our judicial system that should be addressed before this trivial problem gets attention.

That old "there are more important things" argument can be dragged out for almost any topic. Unless you are literally doing the most important thing in the world (not sure what that would be) there will always be something more important you could be doing. Does this mean we should ignore all that isn't #1 on the list of importance? Consider how much time folks spend playing video games or watching TV for example. Is separation of church & state at least more important than who can get the highest score in a video game?

[IDK]

The court system is not a religious based justice system. People are not judged based on religious law.

Just because there is a bible, doesn't mean you are going to be judged based on religious principles, because you will not. I'm sure every defense lawyer in existence would never allow for such a thing to happen. And every juror with a potential religious bias will be filtered out.

The vast majority of courts do not even use the bible to swear in on anymore for this exact reason. And now that I think about it... I do not even know of a single court that still uses the bible to swear in on. If there is a court that still uses bibles, it would possible to request a Koran or choose nothing at all.

Swearing in on the bible is merely for ceremony, someone like the president would do it nowadays but that's about it. So, when you become the president then feel free to reject swearing in on the bible.

[Jnmcda0]

Just do as George Carlin suggested...when they tell you to put your hand on the Bible and ask if you swear to tell the truth, say "yeah, I'll tell you as much truth as they people that wrote that Bible".

Carlin also brought up some other interesting points...what if they are holding the Bible upside down or backwards? Does that count? What if there are pages missing? What if it's a Catholic Bible and you're not Catholic (or vice-versa)? Can you choose which version of the Bible to use? What if you want to use the lolcat Bible? How about the Quran?

In many (perhaps even most) courts, they don't even use a Bible to swear people in anymore. They just affirm to tell the truth.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by IDK

The court system is not a religious based justice system. People are not judged based on religious law.

Polls indicate that atheists are deemed the least trustworthy of any minority group by the general population. Whipping out a bible and asking one to swear upon it is effectively the same asking "Are you an atheist?", a question that does nothing but introduce potential bias. Is it fair to ask a question that is totally irrelevant & may produce bias?

A jury is supposed to be unbiased, but does anybody really believe that a jury totally devoid of bias actually exists in the real world? Everyone is biased in various ways, even if they deny it, and even if they don't consciously realize it. Some people are blatant bigots, but most are vastly more subtle and many honestly don't even realize they have any bias at all regarding anything (I mean bias of any sort, not just religion).

If bias didn't exist we wouldn't have defense attorneys making sure their client was well-groomed and wearing a nice suit. They will do a makeover on even the baddest of gang members -- the kind of guy who'd kill his own mother for $50 -- and have him sitting in court looking like a choir boy. There should be no bias on looks, but they don't go through the trouble of making the meanest SOBs looks all warm & cuddly for nothing. They do so because there is a bias. And any man on trial for rape (of a woman) will definitely want a female defense attorney because he can use that bias in his favor. And if a white supremacist is on trial for some hate crime, he may find that he'd really love a black defense lawyer who will convey the message of how very much he embraces racial diversity, putting bias on their side again.

If there is a court that still uses bibles, it would possible to request a Koran or choose nothing at all.

Since 9/11 I think requesting a Koran would be a very bad idea, since that says one is a Muslin, a group that has faced a great deal of bias for the actions of a few extremists.

Swearing in on the bible is merely for ceremony, someone like the president would do it nowadays but that's about it. So, when you become the president then feel free to reject swearing in on the bible.

No atheist has any chance of becoming president. The other year I asked on SAS if anyone could name the highest ranking elected official who's is openly an atheist. The highest anyone could come up with was some US Congressman who I think represents the San Francisco area. I believe he openly admitted to being an atheist at the age of 78 or so. Well, he need not worry what voters think of atheists since at that advanced age he's clearly ready for retirement (or death) anyhow. Say "I'm an atheist" when running for political office at age 36 and you'll be ready for a very early retirement.

[STKinTHEmud]

Originally Posted by WineKitty

But I do agree with Karl that the Bible has no place in the court; nor the ten commandments outside a courthouse. There should be a clear difference between the two; hence the separation of church and state.

If one wants to truly adhere to the guarantees of the constitution (like the right wingers claim) then truly isnt freedom of religion a guarantee and shouldnt our courts be free of that?

...

The "Christian Right" forces their ideas and an incredibly wrong ideology down people's throats in this country. You cussing or not cussing wont get you into heaven; reread your bible if you think otherwise. You cannot be "good" enough in the Christian religion; its not possible. Rather you admit you are flawed and accept the gift. That is it in a nutshell; I am sure many will disagree.

Good post, Winekitty! I agree with your interpretation of constitutional law and the New Testament (but I'm not Christian). Many Americans don't really seem to understand what the freedom granted by the constitution really means, and many Christians don't really seem to comprehend what was going on in the Gospels and Acts. (Of course, that's right there in the Bible, too: the Gospels are full of people not really understanding what's going on.)

[UltraShy]

What's funny is how many dismiss atheist discontent with swearing on a bible as trivial, but I suspect many of those same people would find it to be of exceptional importance if we swapped the Satanic Bible for the King James Bible. I'm betting the Bible is only trivial if it happens to be the version they agree with.

Unlike the x-tian one, I've actually read the Satanic Bible. It's a short read and written in modern (now 40-year old) language, generally conveying a common sense libertarian & atheistic view of the world.

[Thomas Paine]

It really is impressive how many letters to the editor you get published. I honestly think you should write a short e-book on how to get one published, make a small site for it with links to your success, and charge a small fee for downloading it.

PM me if you want to know how to do this successfully!

[Zephyr]

Is this your first editorial not on the gun topic?

[millenniumman75]

***Thread Lock Watch***
Wow - this thread's gone pretty far. It's the same stuff every time it comes up.

[coldmorning]

It's a fascinating topic. I have to admit I never really thought of this even though I've been on jury duty. I'm surprised some attorney hasn't tried using this against a witness yet.

MM75- are you reading the same thread I am? I don't see anything that might warrant a lock watch.

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by coldmorning

MM75- are you reading the same thread I am? I don't see anything that might warrant a lock watch.

Neither do I. Perhaps the offending post should be pointed out, how else will we know what we can and cannot say, what is offensive v. nonoffensive.

[millenniumman75]

It is for the potential of argument - you know it is bound to happen.

[Cerberus]

There seems to be a prejudice that the mods have towards certain topics on this board, and they've become more comfortable locking certain topic threads over others. I speculate that some of them have developed a "what the hell -- this thread is going to break down anyway" mentality, and thus lock it earlier than other controversial threads. This is not an objective way of moderating, but perhaps it is easier because they don't want to deal with it.

Then again, I'm not a mod, so I don't know the full story, and thus I can only speculate.

As for religious threads, specifically, many express they're tired of such threads because of repetition. However, we've discussed political hypocrisy, libertarianism, gay rights, and other issues over and over again. The specifics differ, but the theme or underlying ideological arguments are the same, so it cannot be that they're tired of religious threads because of repetition. No, I think it has to do with religion being considered a taboo subject, and it makes people uncomfortable, which again, probably makes such threads easier to lock because many probably want that anyway.

This is why I think such threads get locked more easily than others, and why we feel as though we have to walk on egg shells when discussing certain topics. Feeling as though we have to walk on egg shells can't be good for anxiety.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

It is for the potential of argument - you know it is bound to happen.

If anything you seem to be provoking an argument here. The bottom line: we aren't allowed to discuss topics which are genuinely controversial.