A minor moral dilemma.

[cosmik debris]

I have been called for jury duty on Monday.

It is quite likely that I will be asked to swear an oath on some ancient book or some mythical deity.

Last time I was called for jury duty, I refused to take a religious oath and I was removed from the jury pool. (Yes, I know that is illegal, but I was not willing to fight that battle.)

So, should I take a meaningless oath on some myth or should I stand up for my rights and get kicked out of the jury pool?

I've been thinking it over and I really don't care if they ask me to swear on someone else's deity. I'm reminded of a British expression "by Jove" which is an oath to the Greco-Roman god Jove/ Jupiter. It is an oath taken casually and has no serious meaning just as "so help me god" has no meaning to me.

So when they ask me "Do you solemnly swear......so help you god.?" what is wrong with saying "Sure, why not?." What difference does it make if I take an oath to some meaningless mythology?

What would you do if you were required to swear an oath to some deity that you believed didn't exist?

[marylanddem]

1. If you want to be on a jury, go ahead and take the oath

With your perspective, you would probably make a fair juror.

[Speck Tater]

17. If I were asked to swear such an oath,

I would have no trouble doing so, knowing that I am honoring the spirit of the oath. There doesn't seem to be any point in making an issue of it except as an act of sanctimonious posturing for no other reason than stirring up trouble, or openly expressing an imagined sense of superiority over "those foolish believers."

Unless you really want to invest a lot of ego points in a game of "un-holier than thou", leave it be and take the oath.

[Deep13]

60. Maybe he just doesn't want to be a liar.

How can you suppose it to be a non-issue when he's swearing to tell the truth by pretending to believe in something he knows doesn't exist?

[cosmik debris]

61. Sorta makes an oxymoron

to swear by god to tell the truth when I don't believe that god exists.

I have, in effect, made myself a liar by swearing not to lie.

It is a no-win situation so I chose to preserve my personal integrity.

[rock]

2. I would ask for a civil oath

I am an atheist.

[cosmik debris]

3. I tried that last time

I got kicked off of the jury pool.

[rock]

12. Well it is the honest thing to do

Sorry they didn't want you.

[cosmik debris]

13. What is more honest about it?

Is it dishonest to say "by Jove!"

I can't see any major moral dilemma in taking their silly oath. And if that defeats their desire to keep atheists off juries, I win! We frequently do things that appear dishonest in order to achieve a higher goal. Doesn't this qualify?

[rock]

32. I believe it's the law

You're not supposed to swear on the bible unless you are sincere. I believe that's the basic requirement.

[cosmik debris]

34. I believe you will have trouble finding that in any law book.

but good luck if you decide to search.

[rock]

37. No thanks

I'm not married to it (and certainly am not a lawyer). Of course the answer to you're original question is it's really your choice. I wasn't trying to influence you just give you some commiseration.

[cosmik debris]

40. Well, thanks for your commiseration

Check back tomorrow evening and I will let you all know how it turned out.

[rock]

42. Okie dokie

thanks for the chat

[Dorian Gray]

51. Sounds like you really want to be on the jury!

Heck, last time I was at jury duty, I was praying (not literally!) the whole time I wouldn't be called onto a case! And when I was dismissed at 3 pm, never to go back, I was thrilled!

[msongs]

4. you have a right to refuse. exercise it. what happens after is not your responsibility nt

[cosmik debris]

8. Why?

I have nothing to gain by refusing the oath. Exercising my rights will not get me into the jury pool.

On the other hand, ignoring the oath may lead to an interesting experience. I have ignored worse insults from theocrats.

From my personal perspective, I would like to have the opportunity to sit on a jury and I am tired of being excluded because I exercise my rights.

[mike_c]

5. don't enable the religiously delusional....

You don't do them any favors by enabling their delusions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. If I felt really strongly about it

I would say I will not swear. I would offer an alternative, though--perhaps the same oath atheists swear to when they are witnesses in court. That way you are still showing your willingness to be on jury duty.

[NanceGreggs]

7. I am really surprised to hear this!

I'm a court reporter here in Canada. Witnesses and jurors are always given the option of being sworn on the Bible, or being "affirmed". An affirmation does not include any reference to God, but is a legally-binding oath.

I have always assumed that this practice was also adopted in US courts - I'm kind of shocked at the 'backwardness' of not having done so.

[cosmik debris]

10. Perhaps you did not read my profile

I live in Waco, Texas. It is not known as a bastion of liberal ideas. In fact, I live 17 miles from Bush's home in Crawford.

Please understand that the law requires equality, but reality is not always that way. The cost of enforcing the law is outrageous. The best I could hope for is a Pyrrhic victory.

[NanceGreggs]

14. No, I didn't read your profile ...

But it wouldn't have mattered, because I have always assumed this would by now be the practice nation-wide.

I've been reporting for 23 years, and the "oath or affirmation" choice was in place long before I got into the biz. Again, I am truly shocked that this option isn't available throughout the US.

And BTW, I can certainly understand your moral dilemma on this one.

[Silent3]

9. Out of curiosity, what state are you in?

I'd refuse to take the oath myself if I weren't offered the option of a non-religious oath.

[cosmik debris]

11. Been there done that.

Got kicked out of the jury pool. That outcome is certain.

I live in Waco, Texas. I think our State Constitution requires a belief in a deity to serve on a jury.

[Jim__]

16. The Texas Constitution does not directly require belief in a diety to serve on a jury.

At least according to this ("http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000500-001400.html") online version:

(a) The legislature shall prescribe by law the qualifications of grand jurors and petit jurors.
(b) The legislature shall enact laws to exclude from serving on juries persons who have been convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes. (Added Nov. 6, 2001.)

The legislature may have enacted such a law, but, if it did, I'm sure the alw is unconstitutional.

[cosmik debris]

18. I was confused

I was thinking of this statement from the Constitution:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html

Is being on a jury a public trust? It is a moot point because the de facto law says that you have to go along to get along.

[Speck Tater]

15. Hmmm. I've been on a jury 3 times and never been asked to swear any oath. NT

[cosmik debris]

19. In Texas it is like an oath of office

You must swear to perform your duties with integrity etc.

[Speck Tater]

22. In the Oregon county where I served,

we simply signed a piece of paper "under penalty of perjury", stating that we agree to the conditions and requirements.

[ZombieHorde]

20. The oath looks like it has two parts.

The first part is your word to tell the truth.

The second part is superstition.

If you can ignore the superstition, then the oath can still be valid. If the superstition is just too vexing, and you just don't have the energy or time to fight it, then you may be kicked off of another jury. Unless of course they are looking for godless heathens.

[moggie]

21. When I did jury service, I affirmed

i.e. took a non-religious oath. But this was in a saner part of the world, where being godless isn't assumed to imply immorality. In your position, I'd take the oath. A couple of things to consider:

Firstly, jury service isn't for your benefit: it's a civic duty, and sometimes a highly unpleasant one. You can afford some minor ethical discomfort for the sake of giving those involved in the case the benefit of your attention. Think of it in golden rule terms: if you're ever a defendant (it can happen to any of us), you'll hope that the jury is made up of people who don't believe things for which there's insufficient evidence. Sound familiar?

Secondly, the purpose of the oath is to impress on you the importance of discharging your duties honestly and to the best of your ability, which you probably don't need. The message you send by taking the oath is "you can trust me". If you genuinely intend to do the job properly, and know that refusing the oath is likely to result in your being denied the chance, it's not too dishonest to mention a god you don't believe in. Think of all the nebulous god-concepts R/T theists come up with, or atheists who have been through AA explaining why the "higher power" can mean anything you want it to. It seems those goalposts are in constant motion, so why not allow yourself some of that wiggle room?

[DeSwiss]

23. You asked 3 questions...

1. So when they ask me "Do you solemnly swear......so help you god.?" what is wrong with saying "Sure, why not?."
Because to do so requires one to lie and forsake their own beliefs.

2. What difference does it make if I take an oath to some meaningless mythology?
The oath and its mythology ceases to be meaningless if your failure to acknowledge it results in a curtailment of your rights.

3. What would you do if you were required to swear an oath to some deity that you believed didn't exist?
I wouldn't do it.

[cosmik debris]

25. I always appreciate your succinctness.

You and moggie have stated the case for and against better than any of the other posters.

But I have trouble with the idea that it would be a lie to accept their oath. I don't consider it a lie when I say "god damn it all!" or "heaven help us" I don't see that as an affirmation of the existence of god or heaven. It is merely a figure of speech. Likewise, "so help you god" is just a figure of speech.

You are right about the mythology attaining meaning when it impacts my rights, but why is that right more precious than my obligation to serve on the jury. I am also giving up my right to sit at home and watch The View or The People's Court. What price is to be placed on my religious freedom when the incursion on that freedom is de minimus?

I suspect that my decision will be a snap decision based on the atmosphere I encounter at the court house, but thanks for your POV.

[DeSwiss]

49. I always appreciate your succinctness...

...thank you {while chuckling}, I think you have the honor of being the first person that has ever said that! So now I'll go ahead and ruin my pristine succinctness rep with my reply. ;)

I think its more that I respond to clarity with as much as I can muster myself. Which is my opinion of your post and query. But I'm also guided by the comments from Mark Twain when he said that: "the difference between the right word and the almost right word, is the same difference between lightning and a lighting bug."

In retrospect, succinctness has its faults too. By "lie" I meant to say that its a means of avoidance. I think we often rationalize our avoidance, thinking that we're doing it for a "greater good." Like with an annoying person who works in an office that everyone wishes "someone" would tell to SFTU! But everyone rationalizes that the subsequent disharmony it could create, would not serve the greater good. So they're tolerated and no one says anything.

Non-believers have for a long time tolerated religionists in the hopes that they would reciprocate the favor. That religionists can believe what they want just so long as they don't affect me, and they stay out of my face. But that plan hasn't worked out too well.

But an epiphany came upon me 4 years ago concerning homosexuality, which has a certain familiar ring to it with respect to this issue. As a het and as a black person, it finally dawned on me -- the similarities in the attempts to make LGBT's "invisible non-persons." The ever-present tyranny of the majority at-work if you will. So I decided one day that as a het and a black person who has taken a few knocks for the team, I have responsibility to speak out and demand the same rights that I have for LGBT's. Because otherwise, although it would be the farthest thing from the truth, effectively I'm little different than the homophobes spouting nonsense. Because I was approving their arguments through acquiescence. {As my tagline will attest}.

I understand now why this was tolerated, and at a visceral level. Growing up the son of a fundamentalist preacher, I was the recipient of the best education in the inequitable nature (and justifications for it) of religion that one can imagine. And as my father once told me after seeing me laughing and joking with some gay friends, "birds of a feather flock together" (coupled with the rolling of the eyes). And I think that's why many people are afraid to address and confront the inequalities that many gay people have to face, for fear of being labeled one. So I just said, go ahead and label me, I don't give a shit anymore. Some things are more important.

And it took me a long time to realize just how right, and how wrong my father was. There's nothing wrong with hanging out with birds you can identify with. But at the same time, I acknowledged that lot of different kinds of birds hang out together in nature. They just do it better than us because they aren't trying to define their nature, just trying live in it and survive until the next day. And rather than peacefully coexist, we humans generally default to the patriarchal-hierarchy paradigm. Where the heights that one reaches depends upon standing on top of others.

So although I've gone pretty far afield here, I do understand your point. However, when one thinks about it, we tell ourselves little lies each day. Otherwise most of us would go insane in this land of moronity, American Idol and Reality Teevee. We seem to keep making the same mistakes over and over. And we even know that we're doing it most of the time. At least some of us. But its the dickens to get people to change.

But when things do change, its usually due to the small things. Like me flaming homophobes, having no vested interest (I'm not in the closet) and no agenda as homophobes are inclined to believe in. And frankly, I find most gay people more tolerable of weirdos like me. And I admit that I relish in swimming against the current when I think its taking me in the wrong direction. So I have a natural inclination toward people who don't judge me. Not at least until they know me. And realized too, that I'd like for them and everyone else to feel the same way. I know, its pie-in-the--sky, but what else am I gonna do but be me?

[TZ]

24. Wow. Texas is a whole nother world isn't it...

It depends on how important you view jury duty...I've never had to do that for jury duty...
BTW, good to hear from you. I was just commenting to lizerdbits that I hadn't seen you around...

[cosmik debris]

28. I just got back from a 7,500 mile Road Trip!

From the Suwannee Springfest in Florida to the Skagit Tulip Festival north of Seattle including the Monterey Bay Aquarium and a drive up Highway 1 and 101 through Big Sur and the Giant Redwoods. Four weeks of the best of America. But I'm glad to be home again.

I missed you folks too!

Edit: I forgot to mention that I also walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. That was a moving experience.

[struggle4progress]

26. Since I share your dislike of such oaths (though with a slightly different motivation)

I will first state how I myself would handle it.

The intended outcome is that I stand, hand raised, no hand on Bible, listen to the oath, and reply "I so affirm." It's a near-certainty nobody will complain that I merely raise my right hand, doing nothing with my left (as I managed never to notice the offered Bible), and assert my affirmation. But if the clerk insists I place my hand on some book, I would shake my head ever so slightly and say "I shall affirm rather than swear" (keeping my right hand raised the entire time). And if there is any insistence that I swear or use words such as So help me &c, I should simply state that "Conscience precludes my use of such requested language, but I am certainly willing to affirm my duties as a juror" (again keeping my right hand raised the entire time). If such demands were repeated, I should simply revert to "I am willing affirm" (still keeping my right hand raised the entire time). If any explanation of my conscience were requested, I should merely explain "I cannot engage in such religious displays" (with my right hand still raised, of course). Whatever happened, I should make an enormous effort not to waste everybody's time by sidetracking the court.

Now, should you find this approach unacceptable and decide instead that this must somehow devolve into a heroic church-state separation fight, I think you are on your own in poorly charted waters. Here is a sample ruling in which I think almost everybody gets it wrong:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/939/939.F2d.1207.90-8660.html

<edit: clean up loose text>

[cosmik debris]

29. The oath is taken en masse

You (the entire jury pool)are instructed to stand and raise your right hands.

The oath is read to you. "Do you solemnly swear...so help you god?"

You are expected to respond "I do" after the reading.

Any deviation from that process is likely to result in removal from the jury pool.

I understand that the law is on my side. But that is small consolation when history is against me.

[heidler1]

35. You might look at it from this standpoint: The defendant deserves your input to the selected jury.

Broaden the view of the group, you are good at it.

[cosmik debris]

38. That approaches vanity

and I'm good at that too.

But the bottom line is that justice may be achieved without me.

The question seems to be boiling down to "How can I best serve my community?" By standing up against religious discrimination? Or by giving in on my petty little issues so that I might provide a service to the judicial system?

I'll let you know my decision tomorrow.

[moggie]

44. It's not an either-or thing

Yes, this is discrimination, and should be opposed, but there are other ways to do that. You could swallow this bit of injustice in order to do your part for delivering justice for those involved in the trial, and then start lobbying to get the rules changed, or make a donation to ACLU or AU.

I doubt whether one minor personal protest against the oath will change the system. It's possible that a letter-writing campaign would be more effective.

[cosmik debris]

45. two correct points

1. it is a matter of strategy.

2. the injustice I endure by having to swallow my contempt for religion is minor compared to the injustice for which I may be a juror.

But I am not vain enough to believe that I will be the best qualified juror, or that my presence is essential to justice in that trial. Other jurors may achieve that goal.

And you seem to be mistaken about one point. This is not a rule. The rules clearly state that such mischief as eliminating atheists from the jury pool is NOT allowed. What we experience is a practice condoned by 99% of the population. It is "the way it has always been done" and it will not change until there is a court order to change it. That would require a civil lawsuit against the court clerk. That's not a very good way to win friends and influence people.

[Evoman]

53. If 99 percent of those other jurors are the kinds of christians who practice discrimination against

atheists, then you probably would be the best qualified juror, and you might just be essential for justice (especially if the criminal is of another religion or atheist).

[struggle4progress]

39. Dollars to donuts, nobody catches flak just for saying "I so affirm" rather than "I do"

[cosmik debris]

41. That doesn't take the "so help me god" out of it. n/t

[struggle4progress]

46. Then read the link I already provided and make your peace with your own conscience as you see fit

[beam me up scottie]

27. Eight years ago I would have gone along to get along.

Now?

No fucking way in hell am I going to pretend I bow to any deity.

I lost a good job and several *friends* because I came out as an atheist, and I may eventually lose my boyfriend.

But I still don't regret doing it.

Be true to yourself.

[cosmik debris]

30. I tried that last time.

It was not nearly as rewarding as I had expected.

I have this almost malicious urge to "pass" as a Christian just so I can get on the jury. I'd like to pull one over on these assholes just to say I broke your "good old boy" network.

I still haven't decided whether that is worth it though.

[beam me up scottie]

31. I hear ya.

Is there any way to find out if a jury decision can be overturned because an atheist swore an oath on a deity he didn't believe in?

I'm thinking that if you say you were temporarily converted they couldn't use it in an appeal, but would you be willing to lie about your lack of belief if it came down to that?

[5LeavesLeft]

33. I just finished jury duty

here in the Georgia and we didn't swear on the Bible, like most of the witnesses did. Anyway, I think making sure justice is served is more important than any theological concerns. Wouldn't you want someone like you on your jury?

[cosmik debris]

36. But there is an injustice put upon me

If I am required to fake it just to serve a higher justice.

If I resist the injustice of religious discrimination, the defendant or litigant may still receive justice without my help.

If I were on trial I certainly wouldn't want ANY Christians on my jury. I prefer the fact based trials to the faith based trials.

[5LeavesLeft]

43. On the jury I served on

there were people of all stripes, including Christian, and it just never came up. We were deciding if this 19 yo kid committed felony murder, and all of us were focused on "Let's get this right". The defendant's religion, and the jury members' religions, if any, was never part of the deliberations.

[pokerfan]

47. The irony

is that would trust an atheist making a mere affirmation before I would trust a fundamentalist Christian swearing on a stack of bibles.

http://aredant.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheists-guide-to-jury-duty.html">An Atheists Guide to Jury Duty

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. Now WAIT a second. (Not religion related)

At the end of the story of the trial in your link, I read this:

"After over two weeks of jury selection and testimony, the Ramsey County court found Tyvarus Lindsey, 25, guilty of two counts of second degree murder in the 2005 killing of Leon Brooks in Saint Paul."

How is it possible to be convicted of TWO murders of ONE person?

[Evoman]

48. Meh...I don't consider it a moral dilemma.

It might be but I would lie without even thinking twice about it. Fuck their backwards laws. It's time for justice, Cosmik style.

Not that I would ever be let on a jury anyways...as soon as they learn your a geneticist, either the prosecution or the defense boots you.

[Dorian Gray]

50. They don't have a non-religious oath

that one can take? I really thought that there was one these days.

I'd stand up for what I believe in. (Plus, it'll probably get you out sooner!)

[Evoman]

52. Some people WANT to do their civic duty, though.

I would never try to get out of jury duty. It is my responsability as a citizen.

[Dorian Gray]

55. I never try to get out of it...

I just hope like hell, while there, they don't put me on a case. Which is pretty much what has happened the only two times I've ever been called to Jury Duty.

[beam me up scottie]

58. A lot of us can't really afford it.

I've only worked for one company that paid the difference between an employee's salary and the compensation they received for jury duty.

[Zebedeo]

54. I would refuse to swear an oath.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matthew 5:33-37

This is the word of the Lord.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. Since it's impossible for an atheist to be an American patriot, I can't believe you want to serve.

:sarcasm:

This is a tough dilemma, indeed - part of me thinks silence is never a good response, and so I think you should go ahead and let them know that you won't swear to any deity; the more that bigoted Christians hear that, the more their minds might be eventually swayed.

On the other hand, you have a good mind for such things, and I think you'd be a wonderful juror, and so part of me thinks "Eh, what's one little white lie to do, maybe, a much greater good".

But on the other other hand, I also believe that swearing an oath to God in such a manner is heretical, perhaps even blasphemous, and I would refuse on that grounds - I want my fellow Christians also to know that not every Christian is so willing to break the first commandment for nonsensical crap (that is, that believing that someone who says an oath to God will behave any differently, or more moral, than they would any other time). Similar to reason that I will not say the Pledge of Allegiance - one cannot split one's allegiance. You're not a Christian, or religious at all, so this last argument doesn't apply to you, but I thought you might to hear from a Christian who is equally appalled at the requirement of a religious oath to do a secular, governmental civil act. Especially one that is so important as jury duty. Especially in a state that has the death penalty. That just kills me, no pun intended.

As someone else said above, I'd take one of you over a roomfull of Texas-style "Christians" any day.

[katherine20]

57. Jury Duty

How odd. I've been on jury duty many times. I'm certain there was no Bible and don't recall the mention of God.

I was about to suggest simply repeating the oath without the ending words. Just say "I do solemnly swear..."

But to make it even simpler, the ending words could be understood as a request of the person asking for you to take the oath, not a statement by you (you did say it was "so help YOU God". Not "so help ME God.") If another person asked for God's help in your performance of your duties, its no skin off your nose. I don't think an issue of conscience is there.

[PassingFair]

62. What if they asked you to swear an oath to Krishna? Or Satan?

Would THAT be an issue for you?

"If another person asked for God's help in your performance of your duties, its no skin off your nose. I don't think an issue of conscience is there."