Never in my seventy-five years have I seen a single example of religion making a person honest. They are either honest or they are not, and I've known religious people I would never trust.
This brings to mind the joke about the cop having pulled over the car with two priests in it, and when they asked why the cop replied "We're looking for a couple of child molesters." They glanced briefly at each other and then brightly remarked "Okay, we'll do it!"
I think there are studies that show making people stop and think about what they're about to say, consider the consequences of lying, etc. makes them more honest. In that respect, an oath may have an impact. And presumably a religious person would take an oath to God more seriously than a generic oath.
So oaths in general may have an impact on testimony. But yeah, the jurors are acting irrationally if they think believers are more trustworthy than nones. Not only is that not true as a generalization, but jurors should not be generalizing at all. It is a specific person on the stand, not a group. Assess the person.
That should still not be a problem, and the secular alternative would be better.
A secular affirmation would have the same psychological effect: making people stop and think.
If these people think that not mentioning God excuses them from not telling the truth, they already have that disposition towards dishonesty, and it is doubtful if they would have been more inclined toward the truth if they had giving a religious oath.
So in general, swearing on God would make the overall situation MORE biased towards dishonesty.
I was once called on to be a witness in a low-stakes non-criminal trial. I approached the clerk of court (who was to do the swearing in) and said (quietly, so only the 2 of us could hear) "I don't do oaths." She gave a brief nod and used the words "solemnly affirm" rather than "solemnly swear" and said nothing about God. The jury was none the wiser that I'd done anything unusual and had simply followed the procedure as instructed.
Of course, this was in Madison, Wisconsin, home to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (whose national HQ was about 4 blocks away from the courthouse), so I'm not suggesting that the same tactic would've worked anywhere else, but it might be worth a shot.
"Some people argue that swearing a religious oath makes religious people more honest."
"France being a republican and secular State, the oath is not sworn hand on the bible, neither on any cult item or about any belief, even if one side ask for it. The formulation of the oath makes no reference to any religion or philosophy."
As an American who is at once sometimes proud of my country while simultaneously being aghast at some of the things that happen here, I'm here to tell you that you're not alone.
I've experienced local courts a few times in recent memory, and there were no bibles present nor gods invoked. Different judges, different courts (civil, criminal, family) and all were consistent in their oath/affirmation that fit all.
This is in Iowa, however...not sure how long before the Trumpublicans require court chaplains administer sacred oaths and sit with the judge to provide moral ̶t̶u̶r̶p̶i̶t̶u̶d̶e̶ ̶ guidance.
Honestly, can't say that I'm surprised at this one. Whether atheists continue to be the most distrusted segment of society in 2023 or not, I don't know, but that history, certainly in the US, is as long as it is problematic.
I would wonder if an instruction by a judge from the bench, to the effect of: "You shall not indulge in any untoward bias toward this witness / defendant / whatever, because of his/her beliefs or lack thereof," though that could just as likely further ingrain any such bias. The ultimate cure may be the plain fact that, as I've said many times, those of us who don't believe are slowly but surely becoming what may ultimately be a plurality, where those who continue to foster irrational beliefs are in decline.
A change in the oath itself would be helpful, certainly, but like so many other such things, it's up against social inertia, and such change won't come easily.
I suspect that simply introducing the idea into the jury's mind that there might be such a thing as religious bias would get them to thinking about THAT instead of straightforward questions of facts, guilt, innocence, credibility, circumstances, common sense, etc. It's like the legendary instruction introduced in the first Psych 101 exam of the semester: "Don't think of a pink elephant!"
If the bias is unconscious, nothing the judge says will cut through. The faithful will believe they find the witness or defendant dishonest simply because they find them dishonest. Reason and reflection don’t enter into it.
Make all public oaths secular OR make them private and sworn to court officials only. I favour the first one, myself- who’s to say you don’t find yourself in court with a religious judge? They’re out there.
Oh, hell, yeah, they're out there, and I've seen too many examples of such in the news.
Long ago, I decided that if I ever had to testify before a court of law, if the swearing in process included the phrase, "so help you god," my response would be, "Leave god out of it and we're fine." Yeah, I know it would raise hackles.
What if the judge, in front of the entire court, explained to the witness that lying to the court is a crime punishable by prison and asked if they understood. Then, the witness has to confirm that they understand and therefore do not have any excuse that they didn’t know they had to be honest. No god, no swearing, no muss, no fuss.
People lie whether they swear an oath or affirm it or not. There is no evidence showing religious people, faced with the eternal consequences of this type of oath, are more honest than anyone else, but they believe it to be true. Of course they believe in a hundred impossible things before breakfast, like talking snakes and god loves them.
This is the sobering reference. Penal servitude was abolished in 1948 so why is it still there? The Act does go on about other instances of perjury but the penalty is usually the same.
(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
Not any more than it surprises me that cops lie, all the time; are caught lying, all the time; lie under oath in courts--in cases where people end up in prison or executed because of cop testimony; and get jailhouse informants to lie. All good christians, of course. Any adult who doesn't realize this has been living under a rock for the last several decades or is, well, lying.
The last time I was called to serve on a jury, I was asked to swear on the Bible that I would blah blah blah. I said flat out, "I don't give this ancient book any validity whatsoever, and swearing on it would be of far less value than my word."
Our county does it as a group: all the jurors stand, all of them raise their hand at the same time, and all of them just say "I do" after the judge reads the "do you swear to..." oath. Which is non-religious. However I couldn't tell you what oath the *witnesses* and *accused* say. That went in one ear and out the other. As it should.
But none of this touches on the REAL discrimination...against lefties. When will society get over this transparently bigoted assumption that telling the truth is symbolized by an oath made with your right hand and right hand only? I demand justice! :)
There are a few perfect people, the rest are right handed.
I’m an anomaly in my family. Im the only lefty I know of, even in my extensive extended family.
Sometimes the left handed way is better. I knit for entertainment and the left handed style of knitting is more elegant and offers opportunities for new techniques. Where the right handed way is clunky and inefficient. A lot of right handed people knit the left handed way just because it’s easier.
Yeah, Yeah. You sinister lefties, always trying to force us to make the world revolve around you. Special scissors, special mice, special saws, even special golf clubs.
Am I the only one who was kind of hoping that Trump might try to make a break for it, yelling YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE, COPPER! yesterday and the cops bringing him down with tasers?
The pilot is probably SS as well. The only way it might have turned east is if Trump grabbed the controls and then it would have spun into the ground, probably somewhere in the Carolinas. Probably get some innocent people on the ground hurt. Not to mention the SS agents who are just trying to do their jobs.
He'd be more likely to blow himself up--along with everything else he could reach--like Cagney at the end of White Heat. But take heart--as the indictments against him get stronger, we may still see him do a runner.
This cracks me up.... "Some people argue that swearing a religious oath makes religious people more honest. Humanists UK knows of no evidence for that," With today's Republican Christian, lying is expected.
OT: The Catholic church is losing its stranglehold on still another country it has traditionally dominated. This time it's Poland. Click through to the article about John Paul II. Regulars here know that I have a personal interest in the Catholic clerical abuse scandal and I follow it pretty assiduously, but somehow this had escaped me before now. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/05/catholic-church-poland-law-and-justice-party-young-voters
Hey, watch it. You're talking about a saint. You know, just like all those other saints who burned people at the stake, tortured Jews into converting, and fucked children.
I'm a scientist. I value experiments. However in this case I am quite skeptical that the controlled game-like tests tell you how people really make judgments in a courtroom setting. If for no other reason than by the time the Jurors are finished hearing evidence, convening together, discussing it, etc., who swore what oath may not even be in anyone's mind.
I think a much better way of looking at this effect might be to anonymously survey jurors after their duty to ask them what most impacted their decision, who they thought was telling the truth on the stand, and then (in the demographics section of the survey, separated from those questions so that the survey-ees are not likely to game their answers), as whether they are religious or not and how often tehy attend church. Then you look for correlations between religion, church attendance, and how they answered 'who was trustworthy on the stand'. The people conducting this survey then separately get info from the court record on who said what oath, so that the participants don't know that's what they are looking at.
No, that won't work. If the defendent's lawyer thinks taking a religious oath makes their client more trustworthy, and the defendent did that, then the very first question they'll put to their client when they're on the stand is "did you also take a religious oath in private in front of court officials?" And conversely, if the prosecutor thinks abstaining from the private oath makes the accused less trustworthy, and they know the accused didn't take the oath, they will also ask that same question when the person is on the witness stand.
Get rid of it or don't, but don't try and hide it from the jury.
You make some good points. As long as our jury pool includes people who think that not swearing a religious oath makes someone's testimony less valid, the possibility of bias exists. Considering all the lies spouted by prominent religious groups and people, you have to wonder if religious oaths will eventually be treated as lies themselves.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Sorry, I'm not doing that.
This study was done in the U.K. And I don't recall anyone saying we were in a "post-Christian America", I've seen people saying we are heading that way, and this doesn't invalidate that statement.
When larry parker told him "Nobody has that idea," S. Arch replied "You're wrong. I've read that exact phrase used by bloggers and commenters many times over the past few years."
What he completely failed to do is give a single example to back up what he asserted.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Peruse the comments sections of stories about the so-called "rise of the nones" and religious decline in America and you'll find them. Here are a few examples of the "post-Christian" fallacy.
As cdbunch said when you posted these to him, not a single one them stated that we're living in a Post-Christian America. Only that we were headed that way. Not the same thing at all.
He's also right about this study doing nothing to contradict that.
Well, if you are going to insist on exact, literal, legalistic speech, then I never claimed that anyone claimed that we are currently living in a post-Christian America. I claimed that people are using the phrase, and that the rhetoric around such ideas is exaggerated and premature. Even my original post implies no more than that.
But to put the discussion back on track, "heading that way" does not impress me. We are only "heading that way" until we aren't heading that way. In the long run, "heading that way" will turn out to be a short-lived historical anomaly. Human beings have clung to superstition for tens of thousands of years. A decades-long move towards secularism hardly merits being called a trend. Especially since we are already seeing cracks in it.
You're lying, or you have me confused with someone else. I don't recall you ever "challenging" me to cite sources. On the other hand, you do "like" ever single one of my comments.
If it's true in the UK, then it's true in the US as well, because, as many studies have shown, Christian bias is much more rampant in the US than in the UK.
Just because you "don't recall" anyone saying we are in a post-Christian America, doesn't mean no one did. I DO recall bloggers and commenters using that exact phrase and similar rhetoric expressing the same idea, often in connection with the so-called "rise of the Nones" and declining church attendance.
The study largely invalidates the belief, common among secularists, that secularism has triumphed, and that superstition no longer dominates/perverts our institutions and society.
I think you're overstating what people have said. I know no secularists who think secularism has won. I don't know anyone who claims that superstition no longer dominates our institutions and society. That would be absurd and counter to all evidence. But the evidence does show declining influence in society if not in government. It may take a Civil War to uproot it from our government, but yes, society seems to be heading toward a more secular outlook.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Peruse the comments sections of stories about the so-called "rise of the nones" and religious decline in America and you'll find them. Here are a few examples of the "post-Christian" fallacy.
Never in my seventy-five years have I seen a single example of religion making a person honest. They are either honest or they are not, and I've known religious people I would never trust.
This brings to mind the joke about the cop having pulled over the car with two priests in it, and when they asked why the cop replied "We're looking for a couple of child molesters." They glanced briefly at each other and then brightly remarked "Okay, we'll do it!"
I think there are studies that show making people stop and think about what they're about to say, consider the consequences of lying, etc. makes them more honest. In that respect, an oath may have an impact. And presumably a religious person would take an oath to God more seriously than a generic oath.
So oaths in general may have an impact on testimony. But yeah, the jurors are acting irrationally if they think believers are more trustworthy than nones. Not only is that not true as a generalization, but jurors should not be generalizing at all. It is a specific person on the stand, not a group. Assess the person.
That should still not be a problem, and the secular alternative would be better.
A secular affirmation would have the same psychological effect: making people stop and think.
If these people think that not mentioning God excuses them from not telling the truth, they already have that disposition towards dishonesty, and it is doubtful if they would have been more inclined toward the truth if they had giving a religious oath.
So in general, swearing on God would make the overall situation MORE biased towards dishonesty.
I was once called on to be a witness in a low-stakes non-criminal trial. I approached the clerk of court (who was to do the swearing in) and said (quietly, so only the 2 of us could hear) "I don't do oaths." She gave a brief nod and used the words "solemnly affirm" rather than "solemnly swear" and said nothing about God. The jury was none the wiser that I'd done anything unusual and had simply followed the procedure as instructed.
Of course, this was in Madison, Wisconsin, home to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (whose national HQ was about 4 blocks away from the courthouse), so I'm not suggesting that the same tactic would've worked anywhere else, but it might be worth a shot.
Solid move, man! Bravo!
"Some people argue that swearing a religious oath makes religious people more honest."
"France being a republican and secular State, the oath is not sworn hand on the bible, neither on any cult item or about any belief, even if one side ask for it. The formulation of the oath makes no reference to any religion or philosophy."
My whole country is dishonest 😁
As an American who is at once sometimes proud of my country while simultaneously being aghast at some of the things that happen here, I'm here to tell you that you're not alone.
I imagine DM's grandfather reaction if he had to swear an oath on a bible. He would have exploded.
I've experienced local courts a few times in recent memory, and there were no bibles present nor gods invoked. Different judges, different courts (civil, criminal, family) and all were consistent in their oath/affirmation that fit all.
This is in Iowa, however...not sure how long before the Trumpublicans require court chaplains administer sacred oaths and sit with the judge to provide moral ̶t̶u̶r̶p̶i̶t̶u̶d̶e̶ ̶ guidance.
Honestly, can't say that I'm surprised at this one. Whether atheists continue to be the most distrusted segment of society in 2023 or not, I don't know, but that history, certainly in the US, is as long as it is problematic.
I would wonder if an instruction by a judge from the bench, to the effect of: "You shall not indulge in any untoward bias toward this witness / defendant / whatever, because of his/her beliefs or lack thereof," though that could just as likely further ingrain any such bias. The ultimate cure may be the plain fact that, as I've said many times, those of us who don't believe are slowly but surely becoming what may ultimately be a plurality, where those who continue to foster irrational beliefs are in decline.
A change in the oath itself would be helpful, certainly, but like so many other such things, it's up against social inertia, and such change won't come easily.
I suspect that simply introducing the idea into the jury's mind that there might be such a thing as religious bias would get them to thinking about THAT instead of straightforward questions of facts, guilt, innocence, credibility, circumstances, common sense, etc. It's like the legendary instruction introduced in the first Psych 101 exam of the semester: "Don't think of a pink elephant!"
If the bias is unconscious, nothing the judge says will cut through. The faithful will believe they find the witness or defendant dishonest simply because they find them dishonest. Reason and reflection don’t enter into it.
Make all public oaths secular OR make them private and sworn to court officials only. I favour the first one, myself- who’s to say you don’t find yourself in court with a religious judge? They’re out there.
Oh, hell, yeah, they're out there, and I've seen too many examples of such in the news.
Long ago, I decided that if I ever had to testify before a court of law, if the swearing in process included the phrase, "so help you god," my response would be, "Leave god out of it and we're fine." Yeah, I know it would raise hackles.
At my age (73), I just don't give a shit.
What if the judge, in front of the entire court, explained to the witness that lying to the court is a crime punishable by prison and asked if they understood. Then, the witness has to confirm that they understand and therefore do not have any excuse that they didn’t know they had to be honest. No god, no swearing, no muss, no fuss.
People lie whether they swear an oath or affirm it or not. There is no evidence showing religious people, faced with the eternal consequences of this type of oath, are more honest than anyone else, but they believe it to be true. Of course they believe in a hundred impossible things before breakfast, like talking snakes and god loves them.
This is the sobering reference. Penal servitude was abolished in 1948 so why is it still there? The Act does go on about other instances of perjury but the penalty is usually the same.
I was searching while you were writing.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6
Perjury Act 1911 c 6
1 Perjury
(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
Is holding an upside-down bible good enough?
Only if your skin is orange and you show signs of dementia.
And backwards.
As a photo op in front of a church you've never been inside and have no intention of ever entering.
Why would he go in there? Are there any porn stars inside?
Unless he kept classified documents there. THAT might give him a reason to come and go.
At least you didn't spell it cum. Then I'd have to put in another 6 week order for brain bleach.
Dogma is never based on inclusivity. It is all about punishing other tribes.
And keeping the tribe in line! Control is kind of like inclusivity, right? No? Fine.
And this surprises who?
Not any more than it surprises me that cops lie, all the time; are caught lying, all the time; lie under oath in courts--in cases where people end up in prison or executed because of cop testimony; and get jailhouse informants to lie. All good christians, of course. Any adult who doesn't realize this has been living under a rock for the last several decades or is, well, lying.
I told the story before.
The last time I was called to serve on a jury, I was asked to swear on the Bible that I would blah blah blah. I said flat out, "I don't give this ancient book any validity whatsoever, and swearing on it would be of far less value than my word."
There's a chunk of me that, if someone wanted me to swear, "so help me, god," my response would be, "Leave god out of it and we're good."
Hasn't happened ... YET.
Our county does it as a group: all the jurors stand, all of them raise their hand at the same time, and all of them just say "I do" after the judge reads the "do you swear to..." oath. Which is non-religious. However I couldn't tell you what oath the *witnesses* and *accused* say. That went in one ear and out the other. As it should.
But none of this touches on the REAL discrimination...against lefties. When will society get over this transparently bigoted assumption that telling the truth is symbolized by an oath made with your right hand and right hand only? I demand justice! :)
LEFTIES UNITE!!!
My Dad was a lefty. He installed the pencil sharpener backwards. : )
Wasn't it hard to sharpen it from the eraser end?
There are a few perfect people, the rest are right handed.
I’m an anomaly in my family. Im the only lefty I know of, even in my extensive extended family.
Sometimes the left handed way is better. I knit for entertainment and the left handed style of knitting is more elegant and offers opportunities for new techniques. Where the right handed way is clunky and inefficient. A lot of right handed people knit the left handed way just because it’s easier.
Yeah, Yeah. You sinister lefties, always trying to force us to make the world revolve around you. Special scissors, special mice, special saws, even special golf clubs.
😝
*Flip a sinister bird*
You sinister bastard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinister#Left_side
Or, to put it another way- jurors are more likely to shirk their duty to render impartial judgment if they're religious.
OT
Am I the only one who was kind of hoping that Trump might try to make a break for it, yelling YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE, COPPER! yesterday and the cops bringing him down with tasers?
Just a thought.
Trump run? It'll never happen. He can barely walk.
He could hijack a golf cart.
Notice I said "break" and not "run?" :)
Trump has all the grace of a constipated water buffalo.
When they were tracking his plane flying to NY on Monday, I was really hoping it would suddenly swing east and head for Russia.
I'd guess Saudi.
Little Rocket Man will be disappointed.
When he discontinues SS protection, that's when you know he's going to run.
The pilot is probably SS as well. The only way it might have turned east is if Trump grabbed the controls and then it would have spun into the ground, probably somewhere in the Carolinas. Probably get some innocent people on the ground hurt. Not to mention the SS agents who are just trying to do their jobs.
I'm not sure Putin would want him. He's got enough problems already.
Somebody's been watching that video of Steve Anderson.
Fun for the whole family.
He'd be more likely to blow himself up--along with everything else he could reach--like Cagney at the end of White Heat. But take heart--as the indictments against him get stronger, we may still see him do a runner.
I'm seeing him in a Dog Day Afternoon standoff in the street.
Instead of yelling ATTICA! he'd be shouting WITCH HUNT!
This cracks me up.... "Some people argue that swearing a religious oath makes religious people more honest. Humanists UK knows of no evidence for that," With today's Republican Christian, lying is expected.
OT: The Catholic church is losing its stranglehold on still another country it has traditionally dominated. This time it's Poland. Click through to the article about John Paul II. Regulars here know that I have a personal interest in the Catholic clerical abuse scandal and I follow it pretty assiduously, but somehow this had escaped me before now. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/05/catholic-church-poland-law-and-justice-party-young-voters
Huh, the OG PR Pope was also garbage. I’m all shocked and stuff.
Hey, watch it. You're talking about a saint. You know, just like all those other saints who burned people at the stake, tortured Jews into converting, and fucked children.
And denied people real medical care because they thought suffering was beautiful.
(Suffering is never beautiful for themselves, of course)
Another one of those people who make me want Hell to be real.
Yeah, he can miracle my ass if he’s upset. 🤷♂️
saint genevieve by her braying would have saved Paris* from Attila. Actually, he assieged Orleans instead but what's a 130 kilometres difference ?
* Paris was not a important city at that time.
Brawo! (Polish for "Way to go!')
A gut punch to the bloated belly of (Un)Holy Mother Church.
𝐼𝑛 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡...
I'm a scientist. I value experiments. However in this case I am quite skeptical that the controlled game-like tests tell you how people really make judgments in a courtroom setting. If for no other reason than by the time the Jurors are finished hearing evidence, convening together, discussing it, etc., who swore what oath may not even be in anyone's mind.
I think a much better way of looking at this effect might be to anonymously survey jurors after their duty to ask them what most impacted their decision, who they thought was telling the truth on the stand, and then (in the demographics section of the survey, separated from those questions so that the survey-ees are not likely to game their answers), as whether they are religious or not and how often tehy attend church. Then you look for correlations between religion, church attendance, and how they answered 'who was trustworthy on the stand'. The people conducting this survey then separately get info from the court record on who said what oath, so that the participants don't know that's what they are looking at.
𝐴𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑠, 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠
No, that won't work. If the defendent's lawyer thinks taking a religious oath makes their client more trustworthy, and the defendent did that, then the very first question they'll put to their client when they're on the stand is "did you also take a religious oath in private in front of court officials?" And conversely, if the prosecutor thinks abstaining from the private oath makes the accused less trustworthy, and they know the accused didn't take the oath, they will also ask that same question when the person is on the witness stand.
Get rid of it or don't, but don't try and hide it from the jury.
You make some good points. As long as our jury pool includes people who think that not swearing a religious oath makes someone's testimony less valid, the possibility of bias exists. Considering all the lies spouted by prominent religious groups and people, you have to wonder if religious oaths will eventually be treated as lies themselves.
Strangely enough, here in the Bibble Belt, many people choose to affirm or solemnly state. Matthew 25 tells them they must not swear, so they don't!
So much for the idea of "post-Christian America."
Nobody has that idea.
You're wrong. I've read that exact phrase used by bloggers and commenters many times over the past few years.
Not on this blog.
Citations, please.
He posted these same "sources" to you that posted 2 other times and not one of them said what he claimed.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Sorry, I'm not doing that.
https://www.deseret.com/2022/3/21/22989309/perspective-our-new-poll-shows-were-watching-post-christian-america-unfold-in-real-time-faith-church
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-1/
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-2/
https://onlysky.media/ccassidy/rights-consumers-post-christian-marketplace/
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/lets-celebrate-this-list-of-the-most-post-christian-cities-in-america/
This study was done in the U.K. And I don't recall anyone saying we were in a "post-Christian America", I've seen people saying we are heading that way, and this doesn't invalidate that statement.
Don't waste your time. A while ago I challenged him to cite his sources, and received no response.
When larry parker told him "Nobody has that idea," S. Arch replied "You're wrong. I've read that exact phrase used by bloggers and commenters many times over the past few years."
What he completely failed to do is give a single example to back up what he asserted.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Peruse the comments sections of stories about the so-called "rise of the nones" and religious decline in America and you'll find them. Here are a few examples of the "post-Christian" fallacy.
https://www.deseret.com/2022/3/21/22989309/perspective-our-new-poll-shows-were-watching-post-christian-america-unfold-in-real-time-faith-church
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-1/
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-2/
https://onlysky.media/ccassidy/rights-consumers-post-christian-marketplace/
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/lets-celebrate-this-list-of-the-most-post-christian-cities-in-america/
As cdbunch said when you posted these to him, not a single one them stated that we're living in a Post-Christian America. Only that we were headed that way. Not the same thing at all.
He's also right about this study doing nothing to contradict that.
Well, if you are going to insist on exact, literal, legalistic speech, then I never claimed that anyone claimed that we are currently living in a post-Christian America. I claimed that people are using the phrase, and that the rhetoric around such ideas is exaggerated and premature. Even my original post implies no more than that.
But to put the discussion back on track, "heading that way" does not impress me. We are only "heading that way" until we aren't heading that way. In the long run, "heading that way" will turn out to be a short-lived historical anomaly. Human beings have clung to superstition for tens of thousands of years. A decades-long move towards secularism hardly merits being called a trend. Especially since we are already seeing cracks in it.
You're lying, or you have me confused with someone else. I don't recall you ever "challenging" me to cite sources. On the other hand, you do "like" ever single one of my comments.
If it's true in the UK, then it's true in the US as well, because, as many studies have shown, Christian bias is much more rampant in the US than in the UK.
Just because you "don't recall" anyone saying we are in a post-Christian America, doesn't mean no one did. I DO recall bloggers and commenters using that exact phrase and similar rhetoric expressing the same idea, often in connection with the so-called "rise of the Nones" and declining church attendance.
The study largely invalidates the belief, common among secularists, that secularism has triumphed, and that superstition no longer dominates/perverts our institutions and society.
I think you're overstating what people have said. I know no secularists who think secularism has won. I don't know anyone who claims that superstition no longer dominates our institutions and society. That would be absurd and counter to all evidence. But the evidence does show declining influence in society if not in government. It may take a Civil War to uproot it from our government, but yes, society seems to be heading toward a more secular outlook.
"I know no secularists who think..."
"I don't know anyone who claims..."
Whether you know about it or not is irrelevant.
So you got any examples to prove me wrong? If you're so sure that people are making such absurd claims, you should be able to provide some examples.
There have been so many over the past few years from both bloggers and commenters alike, but I didn't bookmark them. What am I supposed to do, save every single comment in which someone spouts exaggerated rhetoric about a post-religious America? Peruse the comments sections of stories about the so-called "rise of the nones" and religious decline in America and you'll find them. Here are a few examples of the "post-Christian" fallacy.
https://www.deseret.com/2022/3/21/22989309/perspective-our-new-poll-shows-were-watching-post-christian-america-unfold-in-real-time-faith-church
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-1/
https://onlysky.media/alee/americas-post-christian-future-part-2/
https://onlysky.media/ccassidy/rights-consumers-post-christian-marketplace/
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/lets-celebrate-this-list-of-the-most-post-christian-cities-in-america/