Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site celerity.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!celerity!ps
From: ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion
Subject: Re: Swearing in Court - Separation of Church/State
Message-ID: <354@celerity.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 17:51:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: celerity.354
Posted: Fri Sep 27 17:51:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:27:55 EDT
References: <1695@akgua.UUCP>
Organization: Celerity Computing, San Diego, Ca.
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.legal:2411 net.religion:7851

> Affirmation, Swearing, and the Separation of Church and State
> 
> I notice that in TV court scenes (shaky evidence) and in the
> court system of Georgia a witness is required to raise his
> right hand and repeat (approximately):
> 
> "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole
> truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God."

...

> Why haven't the anti-religion groups pressed harder or
> been more successful in this area ?
> 
> If anybody trots out that Jeffersonian "wall of separation
> between Church and State" quote, I challenge you to put
> that line in context of the letter it was lifted from.
> 
> 
> Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

I have never appeared in court, but I did go through a U.S. immigration
interview that has much the same status. As an atheist, I would not take any
oath that refered to "God". This was no problem - the formula for making
affirmation has absolutely no religious references.

In both Britain and the U.S. the choice between a taking religious oath and
and making affirmation in legal is always left to the discretion of the only
person who is likely to care, so I don't see it as a big issue.
-- 
	ps
	(Pat Shanahan)
	uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps
	arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com