Swearing in court - what's the Buddhist equivalent?
Trent SC
the beginning of my evidence, to swear an oath. As a Buddhist, what would
be the appropriate oath/affirmation, and is there a particular book that
would be used?
Many thanks.
robert
your personal beliefs - no one can really tell you what is appropriate.
And there is always an affirmation.
Mike Bristow
Trent SC <Tre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm shortly going to be giving evidence in court and will be required, at
> the beginning of my evidence, to swear an oath.
You may make an affirmation instead, for which the words usually used are:
'I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will
faithfully try the defendant(s) and give a true verdict (true
verdicts) according to the evidence.'
> As a Buddhist, what would
> be the appropriate oath/affirmation, and is there a particular book that
> would be used?
Do anything you like, provided that the oath is binding upon your
conscience (but doing the 'usual thing' for Buddhists means that
you won't have to persuade the court that it is binding upon your
conscience).
It would be worth contacting the court in which you will be giving
evidence; they will be able to give you accurate advice.
--
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com
Desk Rabbit
Dr Zoidberg
"Trent SC" <Tre...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hihnjr$m42$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Buddhist?
As has also been said , there's a generic affirmation that's used by those
with no particular religious belief which is what I used.
--
Alex
Peter Parry
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/etac/etbb/benchbook/et_03/et_mf04.htm
and
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/etbb/etbb_3_religion_08.pdf
(Page 3-21)
covers it all in detail.
Goldenwight
people who, at the last census, registered their religion as "jedi
knight?" Do they swear on George Lucas' biography?
Seriously, though, I recall that there is an option when swearing in
to take a non-denominational oath.
Steve Firth
In Australia the following oath was suggested for use by Buddhists:
"In accordance with the Buddhist* precept of
truthful speech and mindful of the consequences of
false speech, I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly
declare that I will tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth."
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycswym6
I don't know if that helps you.
smr
On the other hand what you're looking for is to not lie. The oath is a
public declaration that you vow to tell the truth rather than an
evangelical statement of theology. It's a perfectly moral action to
promise to give true testimony, as long as you then do so, even if the
specific words and actions used to do that don't conform with your
beliefs on a separate topic - Buddhists may not believe in the Bible
but they're fine with the idea of telling the truth in court.
If your religious beliefs were such that you couldn't tell the truth
then you would be unable to take the oath or any other form of
affirmation but it's not wrong to take the oath just because you
wouldn't read the book they put under your hand.
John Whitworth
"Desk Rabbit" <m...@example.com> wrote in message
news:hihv4a$24l$1...@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
Brilliant!! :-)
Ian Jackson
smr <stevi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>If your religious beliefs were such that you couldn't tell the truth
>then you would be unable to take the oath or any other form of
>affirmation but it's not wrong to take the oath just because you
>wouldn't read the book they put under your hand.
When I was a witness I took the view that utmost honesty was required,
and according to my conscience that included not professing (or
appearing to profess) a religion I didn't hold, for example by
swearing by its god or on its book.
So I affirmed, even though I'm aware of research which suggests that
juries and perhaps magistrates are more likely to credit the evidence
of those who swear than those who affirm. To swear would have been
dishonest, for me at least.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Sla#s
I had to do this in court recently and when they handed me the bible and the
card with the statement on it. I said I was an atheist. The court official
just took back the bible, turned over the card and where there was a
non-religious version of the statement printed.
So just say you are not a Christian.
Slatts
robert
Very useful links - when I asked to affirm in 1971 , I was interrogated
by the magistrate about my religious beliefs and why I didnt want to
swear an oath. I was left in no doubt that he didnt approve of my request.
The situation now appears very different and sensible!
smr
wrote:
> In article <1ca41f7f-70f6-49e7-94ad-ef468fde0...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> smr <stevie.r...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >If your religious beliefs were such that you couldn't tell the truth
> >then you would be unable to take the oath or any other form of
> >affirmation but it's not wrong to take the oath just because you
> >wouldn't read the book they put under your hand.
>
> When I was a witness I took the view that utmost honesty was required,
> and according to my conscience that included not professing (or
> appearing to profess) a religion I didn't hold, for example by
> swearing by its god or on its book.
>
> So I affirmed, even though I'm aware of research which suggests that
> juries and perhaps magistrates are more likely to credit the evidence
> of those who swear than those who affirm. To swear would have been
> dishonest, for me at least.
It's a good point that lying's a poor way to start to your testimony
but I think it's questionable if you actually are professing any
religious affiliation just by reading "‘I swear by Almighty God that
the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth". To me that's all about intention to tell the
truth. You can swear by anything you like without making a statement
of worship to it, God's used as a traditional figure of absolute
morality and a "big deal" (the biggest deal of all to believers) so he
gets in the standard oath. "Your mother's grave" is a common example
of swearing by something that's a big deal (but that you'd never
worship). If the oath was "I swear on my mother's grave that the
evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth" you'd not be affirming that your mother is dead, you'd
be publicly demonstrating your sincere intent to carry out the vow.
It's the public declaration of your intention to give honest evidence
that the oath is there for rather than a subtle way to work out who
believes what.
Morally there's nothing wrong with making a promise that you then keep
- you swear to tell the truth and if you do that you've kept your
promise. If the oath said straight out "As a Catholic of good standing
I will be honest in my testimony" or similar then you'd be totally be
in the wrong to swear it even if you were just a CoE member or of poor
standing - you would be lying - but if it's a vow of honesty then what
it obliges on the swearer is the honesty.
Jonathan Bryce
In the Employment Tribunal they have a selection of different holy books and
different coloured cards. Possibly one of them is for Buddhists as it is a
fairly common religion.
Ian Jackson
smr <stevi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>It's a good point that lying's a poor way to start to your testimony
>but I think it's questionable if you actually are professing any
For me I felt it crossed the line, by quite a way; it seemed quite
dishonest to me, for me. But I don't have any criticism of other
nonbelievers who have a different view and choose to swear.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> It's a good point that lying's a poor way to start to your testimony
> but I think it's questionable if you actually are professing any
> religious affiliation just by reading "‘I swear by Almighty God that
> the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and
> nothing but the truth".
On the contrary - one would also be affirming that one is neither a
Quaker (or one of several other Christian sects who refuse to take
oaths) or a Satanist or any other form of godless heathen.
Would there be any penalty if one did not meekly read the words on the
card, substituting "The Great Architect of the Universe" or "The
Supreme and Ever-Watching Celestial Turnip and all Her Fairies" for
"Almighty God"? (The former has significance whereas the latter is
deliberately silly.)
What might happen were one to add "So help me God." to the end, as the
colonials do, perhaps in the hope that such a supplication might
partially absolve one of perjury on the grounds that the requested
help had not been forthcoming?
> Morally there's nothing wrong with making a promise that you then keep
> - you swear to tell the truth and if you do that you've kept your
> promise. If the oath said straight out "As a Catholic of good standing
> I will be honest in my testimony" or similar then you'd be totally be
> in the wrong to swear it even if you were just a CoE member or of poor
> standing - you would be lying - but if it's a vow of honesty then what
> it obliges on the swearer is the honesty.
So, for that matter, would be "Cross my heart..." etc. but I somehow
doubt that would be considered acceptable.
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
Sla#s
That collection could get very large!
I wonder how long before they have the Pastafarian bible :-)
Slatts
Humbug
<Tre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I recently had to give evidence in court where most of the other
witnesses refused to swear on the Quran.
They made "affirmations", and all of them lied.
It was quite bizarre.
No prizes for guessing what the judgment was ...
But, you can't help but admire the integrity of people who take their
religious obligations so seriously.
--
Humbug
peterwn
Ask the court staff, they should be quite used to handling oaths or
affirmations for the main religions. They should have the appropriate
formats on hand and should have on hand some of the more common books,
etc needed.
Now who was the guy in a British comedy film (St Trinians I think) who
when given the Bible, swore a Hollywood style oath with a great
flourish. then was asked to repeat the proper oath read by the court
orderly.
Janitor of Lunacy
Sounds like the George Cole character - Flash Harry.
I remember about 30 years ago in Liverpool Mags Ct. a Muslim witness asking
for the Koran - the usher went to get the one copy the court had. He
returned and took it out of its envelope. The witness protested that he
could not swear on that copy as it had now been touched by "infidel hands".
The court clerk advised the usher to go and get the "other Koran", and on
getting a blank look, explained that it looked *exactly* like the one
currently in court but was in a different envelope. Some minutes later, the
usher returned to court, the witness extracted the book from the envelope,
and happily took the oath upon it.
N.B. for Chinese witnesses a supply of candles or plates may be needed but
live chickens are not compulsory.
Big Les Wade
>I remember about 30 years ago in Liverpool Mags Ct. a Muslim witness asking
>for the Koran - the usher went to get the one copy the court had. He
>returned and took it out of its envelope. The witness protested that he
>could not swear on that copy as it had now been touched by "infidel hands".
>The court clerk advised the usher to go and get the "other Koran", and on
>getting a blank look, explained that it looked *exactly* like the one
>currently in court but was in a different envelope. Some minutes later, the
>usher returned to court, the witness extracted the book from the envelope,
>and happily took the oath upon it.
The whole thing is archaic. I presume the real function of the oath is
to make sure the witness realises that it is an offence to tell lies in
the witness box. If so it should not be difficult to draft a
one-size-fits-all oath that no-one can object to, something like "I
understand that if I give false testimony I shall have committed perjury
and may be prosecuted." No need to drag in God or the Devil.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
smr
> Janitor of Lunacy <z...@zonk.com> posted
>
> >I remember about 30 years ago in Liverpool Mags Ct. a Muslim witness asking
> >for the Koran - the usher went to get the one copy the court had. He
> >returned and took it out of its envelope. The witness protested that he
> >could not swear on that copy as it had now been touched by "infidel hands".
> >The court clerk advised the usher to go and get the "other Koran", and on
> >getting a blank look, explained that it looked *exactly* like the one
> >currently in court but was in a different envelope. Some minutes later, the
> >usher returned to court, the witness extracted the book from the envelope,
> >and happily took the oath upon it.
>
> The whole thing is archaic. I presume the real function of the oath is
> to make sure the witness realises that it is an offence to tell lies in
> the witness box. If so it should not be difficult to draft a
> one-size-fits-all oath that no-one can object to, something like "I
> understand that if I give false testimony I shall have committed perjury
> and may be prosecuted." No need to drag in God or the Devil.
This is my understanding of it. I don't think very many courts ever
cared if the person giving testimony believed in anything as long as
they managed to get a good look at the guy who did it. The reactions
to having to swear it shows the power that religious belief still has
though which, as a believer, is always nice to see.