Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (73449)	8/27/2003 3:35:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for posting that. As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia still excluded testimony of those who didn't believe in God. I'm sure there are lots of people would wouldn't accept the testimony of witnesses who declined to swear on a Bible. Maybe even the majority in Alabama. I don't know the history on when and why and how courts did away with it but there really isn't any alternative that I can see. You can't very well go to swear in a witness and have a big debate about placing hand on book right there in front of the jury. Neither does it make sense for the court to query each potential witness before hand about his religious affiliation so as to have the right ritual available. It's intrusive and, besides, the jurors will see which ritual is being used unless we put various books or nothing at all in a black box upon which the witness places his hand. It's not fair to defendants to have jurors sorting witness out that way. Just not workable. As for the underlying purpose, well, Chris says everyone lies on the stand anyway. So just have people solemnly promise to tell the truth and be done with it.