There’s a recent stink in North Carolina between the ACLU and the courts. The http://www.wral.com/news/4771279/detail.html ACLU wants the courts to accept alternate religious texts alongside the bible for witnesses to be sworn on. What strikes me as interesting is that the ACLU is supporting any religious texts in the courtroom. Aren’t the ACLU known for their anti-religion stance? Or is that only anti-christian? Maybe I’m the confused one here, but I digress…
Here’s what I would propose, were someone to ask me:
Remove the requirement for any religious texts from the court’s “swearing in of witnesses” process. Leave it as an option if requested (to keep the traditionalists happy), but make the official “swearing in” a simple statement on perjury and the punishments for commission of perjury.
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and under threat of perjury punishable by [whatever appropriate punishment applies]?”
As it stands, non-christians are taking oaths with their hand on a book filled with words they don’t hold sacred, and christians are committing http://jonathanmurray.com/greymatter/archives/00000722.htm idolotry by holding a book in the same regard as their god.
Do away with them all. People who believe they are obligated to tell the truth because of something their religion tells them will continue to do it. People who have no such beliefs can feel the obligation to tell the truth because to do otherwise will have legal repurcussions.
And people who lie on the stand, despite the fear of “god” or the law… will continue to do so.