What about the oath that every witness has to take?
I know they can pick which deity (or none) that they would like to swear by, but the whole thing is theatrical nonsense.
2 Likes
You can choose to affirm that you are telling the truth too if youāre not religious.
As I said āor noneā
1 Like
Sorry, missed that.
1 Like
Not really. Not least because there is demonstrable evidence that West Ham actually exists.
Erm there is also reliable empirical evidence of vegans and so veganism.
This is the whole point of the judgement. People who practice acts of faith like being vegan or vegetarian are protected because of their recognised religion, the religion they would swear by in court. People who practice the same because it is an ethical decision did not previously enjoy that protection yet their same ethical code is worthy of holding them to be truthful in a court of law. There was only one decision the judge could make.
On the contrary. The oath is an important acceptance that you have entered into the judicial process with the aim of helping it deliver a true outcome. If you then go on to lie you lay yourself open to the charge of perjury. The point is the promise - youāve promised to tell the truth. Promises are enshrined in law in lots of ways (see contract law for example, or marriage law) and I donāt have a problem with that. Itās the imaginary part which is completely optional. You can say it if you want or, as youāve pointed out, you can promise on no belief at all.
VB
1 Like
True. I failed to choose my words well enough. We donāt do that, but that is how many choose to interpret and represent attempts to prevent discrimination against them. It is also invoked (not necessarily successfully) to shut down valid criticism of religions in particular. While not usually something that stands up in a court, elsewhere, bodies like employers, media organisations etc often take the line of least resistance and forbid or avoid critical examination of sensitive topics rather than have to deal with threats of legal action.
Iām not even sure where Iām going with this, just a gut feeling that weāre protecting the wrong things, in the wrong ways, for the right reasonsā¦
No question, but weāre already deep into a global ecological crisis, and overpopulation is at the core of it. Thereās a profound belief in technology being our saviour, but humanity is too reproductively incontinent for that to do more than delay things. Only sustained population reduction can give us the foundation to mitigate ultimate ecological disaster, and it seems weāll do anything but thatā¦
The recognition that you have to tell the truth or the law will shit on you from a great height is important.
The whole usher bringing your favourite magic book of choice and a the āSo help me Godā stuff is theatrical nonsense.
A mate of mine went to the London Probate dept in Holborn as he was an only son and his fatherās estate was very simple, he did it all for free himself. Part of the process was he had to swear an oath. he was given a bible, he told the person he was an atheist, and the bloke said ā I know itās bollocks mate but just take the book and say the words and I will sign off he formsā
So even the people administering all this know it is nonsense.
And there is the nub of the problem.
1 Like
Iirc the legal form of words is ā I do sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Bollocks or not, the bible doesnāt have to be involved at all.
Itās been a while thoughā¦
I get the fact that in court it neednāt have a religious form of words, my point is that there is no need for anything else.
My mates experience last year at the Commissioner for Oaths was that the religious version is still the default
Well actually, only a combination of all 3 - technology, population control and lifestyle change is likely to be the the answer.
But your deep-seated and fervent desire to feed enormous numbers of people into massive mincing machines is laudable 
2 Likes
Iām certain itās complete and utter bollocks that you have to swear to a deity for any legal purpose whatsoever. @akaYoda should be able to clear it up.
As for making a promise to tell the truth, thatās merely a mechanism to open up a charge of perjury.
I think we do, we just choose not to do do it.
was listening to a bod on R4 the other day (some Prof, canāt remember the name). His point was quite simple, to reduce population in the short term do two things; cure malaria and provide clean water for those within a couple of thousand miles of the equator. Family size increases the nearer you live to the equator, and the two biggest killers are water bourne disease and malaria. This encourages large families and hinders economic development.
We rid the world of Small Pox, we could achieve these two things.
Ironically, for those who choose to swear on the Bible, it is one of the very things the words in the Bible prohibit. Thanks R4, The Unbelievable Truth.
Delicious, thanks for that, I shall enjoy disseminating that nugget!
The point that almost everyone (not just on the AA) seems to be missing, is the much lauded phrase saving the planet is actually utter bollocks. Nobody actually means that, they usually mean saving the human race which is a completely different matter. The planet will survive, along with thousands of other species that will survive and evolve, long after we have gone.
I have no doubt, it will be a better place.
4 Likes
Heās just after a Soylent Green burger.
1 Like