|
In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:23:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we might simply say to a witness, your testimony is subject to the laws of perjury, and you're legally required to tell the truth whether you swear an oath or not. Bobby, the problem is that by simply warning a declarant that they can be
punished for LYING, we may not have done all the we can to position the
declarant to TELL THE TRUTH. That difference is, I think, where the
importance of a religious formulation came into play in the rise of such
oaths. We not only warn to tell the truth but we stir the conscience to be
bound to the truth by the love for the truth that the declarant's own faith
inspires/demands.
Now take the case of a witness who, by religious formation of his
conscience, believes he is not duty bound to tell the truth unless an oath is
administered. In our society, in the main, the oath is offered as so help
me God and taken upon the Bible. But variances are made for those who will
affirm rather than swear, and for those to whom the Bible is meaningless.
Is this because we are a pluralistic society or because we are a tolerant
one. What about the First Amendment's EC is at play here?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
