No Religious Oath--No Jury Service

[cosmik debris]

Once again I have been removed from the Jury Pool because I refused to take a religious oath.

Ain't it great to live in a country with "Liberty and Justice For All"?

[ZombieHorde]

1. That is fucked up.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. MAJOR league fucked up.

and probably unconstitutional.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Oh, you're from TEXAS.......

Now I get it.

In every state I know, you can affirm, and not have to swear any religious oath. No Bible. Just an affirmation.

Texas.

Figures.

So, you've lost out on - what? - ten bucks a day?

[Parche]

3. Explain??

:shrug:

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

7. I told the Judge that I would not take a religious oath

I was promptly removed from the jury pool.

Yes, I know that it is illegal.

Would you like to contribute $100,000 to fight it in court?

[Parche]

15. What religious oath?

I know I will never put my left hand onthe bible and swear in

I will just raise my right hand....

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

16. I don't recall the exact wording

But the oath ended with "so help you god"

That's all it took for me to refuse the oath.

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. There must be lots of organizations who'd be willing to take on the case pro bono.

Just make sure the court action isn't presided over by the same judge who dismissed you from jury duty. If he's that unfamiliar with the law, it's possible he wouldn't recuse himself either.

[cosmik debris]

20. Sorry to disappoint you

But there are a lot of real issues out there that have a lot higher priority than juror oaths.

The ACLU wouldn't waste a minute of their time on something so inconsequential.

[Book Lover]

21. And you know this because you have already asked them? (nm)

[cosmik debris]

23. The ACLU wouldn't help me when I was forced to pray

By my employer, the US Government DoD, on government property, on the clock.

If compulsory prayer is not enough to get ACLU help, I doubt that juror oaths will get much attention.

[IntravenousDemilo]

34. The difference here is that you were prohibited from performing a state function that is

a requirement of every citizen where able. The court deprived the United States of America of your judgement for reasons not germane to the case at hand.

[cosmik debris]

35. You obviously overlooked a salient point

When the US government requires it's employees to pray xtian prayers on government property, on the clock, That is a much more egregious violation of rights than the issue of juror oaths.

The ACLU declined my repeated pleas for help in that case. It is absurd to think that they would take up such a trivial case as this.

And apparently you are not too familiar with the ACLU.

[IntravenousDemilo]

40. Then you might want to find a good up-and-coming constitutional lawyer

who wants to make a name for himself on a nice juicy case like this. Perhaps the ACLU can recommend one outside their organization.

[Book Lover]

59. Sadly, I have to agree (nm)

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. Their pockets are pretty deep. They might surprise you. It doesn't hurt to let them know. n/m

[struggle4progress]

43. The courts probably recognize no "right to serve on a jury"

[havocmom]

54. But... if an atheist is a defendent, rules regarding oaths with 'so help me god' rule out peers

And I do believe we have a right to a jury of our peers. If the court eliminates those who refuse religious oaths, they are subjecting defendants to a jury of people who WILL swear a religious. I can think of lots of instances where such a defendant would be facing a jury NOT of peers, but of people who may be hostile right off the bat because of latent religious bigotry among the pool of 'acceptable' jurors.

[struggle4progress]

60. 1. I was responding primarily to the long string of posts above, all claiming

that the poster had an actionable case. In fact, my guess is that such a case would be thrown out:

939 F.2d 1207

60 USLW 2170

SOCIETY OF SEPARATIONISTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,


v.


Guy HERMAN, Judge of the Travis County Court at Law, et al.,


Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-8660.

United States Court of Appeals,


Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 28, 1991

... On December 15, 1987, Robin Murray-O'Hair, an American Atheist, ... at the Travis County Courthouse ... refused to take the oath required of venire members before voir dire questioning, stating that she was an atheist and could not take an oath which included a reference to God. The presiding judge, Guy Herman, offered to allow Murray-O'Hair to affirm, but the affirmation still included a reference to God, and Murray-O'Hair refused. Murray-O'Hair was told to be seated and the other jurors were sworn in.

Murray-O'Hair was told to proceed to Herman's regular courtroom, where the judge ... offered to allow her to raise her hand and make an affirmation without any reference to "God or anything of that nature." Murray-O'Hair declined, stating that she could not affirm because an affirmation "is just as religious as an oath" .... Herman and Murray-O'Hair then debated the nature of affirmations. Herman had done some legal research, based in part on cases that Murray-O'Hair had submitted to him, and he concluded that "affirmances are for atheists and other folks that do not wish to take oaths." In his view, an affirmation was not a "religious statement"; it was merely a pledge that one would give true answers to the voir dire questions and met the qualifications for jury service. Murray-O'Hair had a different view: "An affirmation, my understanding, is a religious statement" ....

Murray-O'Hair continued to refuse and, ending the heretofore patient discussion, Herman ordered her jailed ... "... until you purge yourself of the contempt by taking the affirmation" She ... released on bond approximately six hours later ....

Murray-O'Hair subsequently filed three separate law suits ... First, Murray-O'Hair petitioned ... for a writ of habeas corpus. The court denied relief, but Judge Herman subsequently commuted the contempt sentence to the six hours served. Murray-O'Hair appealed the denial of relief, but the state court of appeals dismissed ...

Second ... Murray-O'Hair ... brought suit in federal district court ... alleging a continuing pattern "whereby they (1) respond as requested for jury service in the Travis County District Court, (2) refuse to take a 'God' oath, and (3) are excluded by the presiding Judge from jury service." The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. We affirmed, holding that there is no constitutionally protected right to serve on a jury and adding that "oreover, ... jurors are not required to swear an oath to a deity ... an affirmation the same as an oath to a deity" ....8

Third ... Murray-O'Hair and the Society of Separationists filed this ... action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief against Herman, Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire, Travis County, the "Travis County court system," and the clerk, sheriff and court bailiffs of Travis County. The suit, predicated on the particular exchange between Herman and Murray-O'Hair, was styled as a class action on behalf of all individuals whose religious convictions precluded them from taking the juror oath ...

The district court decided the case on cross motions for summary judgment ... The court: dismissed the Society as a plaintiff and denied class certification; found that all defendants were either immune, were nonexistent entities, or were otherwise improperly named; held that the earlier Murray decision was res judicata; dismissed plaintiffs' pendant state claims without prejudice; and imposed Rule 11 sanctions. The court later struck the award of sanctions when the defendants failed to timely submit their request for attorney's fee. The plaintiffs appealed the remaining portions of the court's order.

We hold that the previous suit does not bar this action; reinstate the Society as a plaintiff; affirm the dismissal of the defendants other than Herman; hold that Herman did violate Murray-O'Hair's Free Exercise rights; find Herman absolutely or qualifiedly immune from suit for damages; grant declaratory relief; and decline to grant an injunction ...

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

[struggle4progress]

61. 2. Here is the juror's oath required by statute:

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 35. FORMATION OF THE JURY

Art. 35.02. SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. To those present the court shall cause to be administered this oath: "You, and each of you, solemnly swear that you will make true answers to such questions as may be propounded to you by the court, or under its directions, touching your service and qualifications as a juror, so help you God."

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

But IIRC there is some case law in Texas courts along the following lines: the "Bill of Rights" in the Texas constitution (Article I) requires "all oaths or affirmations .. be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and .. taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury" and it is beyond the power of the legislature to change this, since "everything in this 'Bill of Rights' is excepted out of the general powers of government ... and all laws contrary thereto .. shall be void." See Article I, Sections 5 and 29 at the following link: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/toc.html

IIRC, Texas elects its judges, and they would frequently be excellent company for any group of drunk baboons you could assemble. The situation will, of course, be worse in eddying hindwaters like Wacko than in the bigger cities

[struggle4progress]

62. 3. To what extent the oath actually prevents people from serving on juries

is unclear to me. I am certainly open to evidence that it does have a substantial effect

On the other hand, I suspect that many people who dislike the language, either from religious conviction or lack of such conviction, react as I do in such circumstances: I regard it somewhat as I regard US coinage bearing religious language and somewhat as I would regard a dispute about whether a certain injury resulted from "negligence" or "an act of God." Nobody interprets my handling of US coinage as a religious declaration, and though I find the religious sloganeering on the coinage offensive, I find many other issues significantly more important, hence by a kind of moral triage the coinage issue drops from my field of view. Similarly, if I sued or were sued and the defence involved the claim that injury resulted from "an act of God," nobody in the courtroom would interpret this as a religious dispute but everyone would recognize that a legal term of art was employed to refer to an unforeseeable natural event. So if asked to swear an oath using such language, I would simply say "I so affirm" and assume that I had expressed adequate reservation regarding the language, which almost nobody in court is actually noticing and which might simply represent (to the court officers who hear it uttered day after day after day) a term of art. AS boring and pedestrian a view as that is, I'd bet that is the dominant attitude taken by people who have little use for the oath

[struggle4progress]

63. 4. If you know of a number of cases, in which the religious faith or lack of faith of the juror

might be expected to have some effect on the outcome, I'd certainly welcome links

[niyad]

4. where do you live? even in this reddest of counties, I know atheists who have served on

juries.

is this something you are willing to make a case over? how about contacting Americans United for Separation of Church and State? ACLU?

on the other hand, hell of a way to get out of jury duty!! just refuse to swear a religious oath.

[CBGLuthier]

6. I was able to affirm in Oklahoma

Nice to know somewhere is even more backwards and repressed than us.

[Warpy]

8. You might put in a formal complaint with the Texas AG

because this might be policy set by a corrupt religious judge.

Then again, I haven't read the Texas constitution. I don't know if the state requires a religious test for jury duty.

It's worth a try.

On edit: it's quite possible you've created a lot of newly minted atheists of convenience in Texas by posting this in GD instead of A&A. Lots of people are looking for ways to duck jury duty when they're still working and very busy.

[cosmik debris]

10. Our constitution requires belief in a supreme being

in order to serve in any "public trust"

But the real issue is that the Christians run this town and you have to go along to get along.

Oh well.

[TomInTib]

9. Hey, whatever it takes.

I would lie to my own Mother to get out of jury duty.

[cosmik debris]

11. I prefer to do my civic duty

But that's just me.

[TomInTib]

12. I don't see it as "duty".

I pick up litter, though.

Every day.

But I don't see sitting in some courtroom, listening to endless droning and making decisions about someone else as a "duty".

Picking up litter in my beautiful little town, however....

[cosmik debris]

14. You can't have jury trials without jurors.

Service to the judicial system is as much a duty as any other service to our country.

[PassingFair]

66. I'm with you, Cosmik....

if I was being railroaded for something,
I'd want a jury who were PAYING ATTENTION
and honest.

Wouldn't everyone?

[niyad]

19. I am always reminded of a line from "night court" about jury duty.

dan fielding, the lecherous assistant DA, is about to go to trial. his comment, "a jury of my PEERS???? 12 people who weren't bright enough to get OFF jury duty?"

[rock]

13. Yeah, ain't it great

Sorry, I know you wanted to serve.

[DeSwiss]

18. Well, I'm sorry to hear this...

...because I knew you were interested in serving. This is so wrong.

- Tell me, is the ACLU allowed to practice law in Texas??? Wouldn't hurt to ask...

[beam me up scottie]

26. Now THERE is a good idea. Send out the bat signal!

Call out the ACLU!

SWARM! SWARM! SWARM!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. They have their own lawyers that represent clients. Like Randall Kallinen.

[beam me up scottie]

22. I'm proud of you.

For whatever that's worth. :D

What happened to the mennonite?

[cosmik debris]

25. The Mennonite was booted too.

It is ironic that we have that in common.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Well that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, those goddamn mennonites, they're as corrupt as you can get...

Can't trust any of them. Not like all of those sainted christians in good ole Texas! (I'd insert a picture of * here, but I'm feeling a bit queasy as it is)

This just fucking sucks. :mad:

[cosmik debris]

28. It's not the worst thing to happen to me, I'll get over it.

But it is sad that there are so many assholes in this world.

[beam me up scottie]

29. We'll add it to the current list of non-existent examples of discrimination against atheists.

I just love those threads, don't you? :eyes:

[cosmik debris]

30. This time I didn't say anything about being an atheist

I just said that I refuse to take a religious oath. I think they may have suspected that I was a religious extremist rather than a non-religious extremist.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Other than mennonites and atheists, any idea what other groups would have reason to refuse?

I'd like to think this had been successfully challenged before.

[cosmik debris]

32. The Great Zebedo knows all, tells all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=169571&mesg_id=169668

It is not really important that it has been challenged. Racism was challenged, but school desegregation did not happen after Brown v. Board of Education. It happened after troops marched into Little Rock. I don't think we are ready for troops yet, and with the feds track record in Waco, I doubt that it would be a good idea.

[beam me up scottie]

36. I think it must have been challenged otherwise the other bible belt states would require it.

You learn to pick your battles when you live down here, don't you?

[cosmik debris]

39. This is not a requirement in the normal sense.

The second judge admitted that a secular oath was available.

But just like racism, a wink and a nod are all that is required.

I suspect that it is like that in many other places, it just that no one complains.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Bingo.

And even here on a so-called liberal board we get the old "so what? what's the big deal? stop complaining and just fake it" canard.

If it's wrong to force other minorities to misrepresent themselves, why is it okay to tell atheists to do so?

[Zebedeo]

37. Can you please give details?

Did you say "I refuse to take a religious oath," and then the judge said "In that case, you are excused from jury service," or what? Were you on a panel, but one of the lawyers exercised a peremptory challenge?

How exactly did it go?

Were these proceedings transcribed by a court reporter? Who was the judge?

I do not agree with your atheistic world-view, but I am angry that you were denied your right to serve on a jury, and the litigants were denied the right to a fair trial, because the jurors were essentially pre-screened to ensure that they all either (1) have a particular religious belief that permits the taking of an oath; or (2) are willing to take a false oath.

I congratulate you on not taking a false oath. Standing up for your principles was the right thing to do. Even if you do nothing further about the matter, you can rest assured that you comported yourself honorably.

[cosmik debris]

38. I reported to the first court room

and informed the judge that I would not take a religious oath.

The clerk selected a jury pool for that court and it did not include me.

The remainder if the potential jurors were sent to another court room.

Again I informed the judge that I would not take a religious oath.

After the jury pool for that court was selected, the remainder of the potential jurors were told to report to a different court room--except for the mennonite woman and me. We were told that our services were no longer required.

The judge politely thanked us for our service.

End of story.

[Zebedeo]

42. That's disgraceful

The court system should allow those who object to taking a religious oath to simply state that they will tell the truth or fullfil their duties under the law or uphold the Constitutiion - or whatever it is that they are being asked to affirm by the oath.

You, sir, have been wronged. I wonder how many thousands of other potential jurors have been denied their right to serve on a jury for this reason.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. Friends (aka Quakers) would have refused to swear

One of their basic views is a refusal to swear an oath. They see this as both a violation of the commandment not to take God's name in vain, and as a personal insult that the word of a Christian is insufficient. That is why many oaths say, "I swear (or affirm)," which allows the person taking the oath to use either form. By the same token, most Friends would refuse to say "So help me God."

And yes, this is the illegal establishment of religion, pure and simple.

[beam me up scottie]

51. In a perfect world, one's word would be enough for anybody, not just christians.

In this country, we seem to get farther away from that world every day.

[5LeavesLeft]

24. That's pretty messed up

My jury experience was very different from yours. With us, we just stood up one by one, with the prosecution and defense saying "acceptable" or "not acceptable", without any reason given. We weren't even given sworn in by then, since weren't even seated. Saying you aren't acceptable as a juror just because you refused to swear to God is just plain wrong.

[FirstLight]

41. I have never gotten to be a juror ...

most of the time, the case will settle and the group wil be called off. But one time, I was sent home right away for being a journalist, even though I was a total rookie and didn't really do much more than filing...I guess that I may tell my editor juicy details was their worry...

too bad, I wanted to serve as well. I agree that it is a problem when the thing that makes a fair trial is the actual presence of a jury. AND they should be screened for some bias, but not filtered to predict the verdict that the state wants. It is yet another example of this government's degradation, and that it runs into the smallest of departmental levels. When judges and lawyers are so quick to dismiss a person for duty, or a trial, etc..they are undermining the entire system. And more shades of Guantanomo become ever present....

:scared:

[and-justice-for-all]

44. That is just absurd...

I would also refuse and ask to swear on the Constitution, after all it is the law of the land.

At least you were honest.

[smoogatz]

45. Thanks for the tip.

I'm likely to be called for jury duty this summer, and I'm looking for ways to get out of it. I thought about nail polish and mascara, too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Ah, but your profile says you're in a civilised state

For Wisconsin:

When the appropriate number of
jurors is seated, each juror swears
or affirms that he or she will consider
all of the evidence presented
and render a verdict according to
the law and the evidence presented
in court. At that point, the criminal
or civil trial may begin.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/gw/gw_10.pdf

They've already established in Wisconsin that affirming, rather than swearing, is OK. It's Texas that still inserts compulsory religion in the way it picks a jury.

[smoogatz]

49. Well, crap.

Looks like I may be forced to do my civic duty after all.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. Alas, such a trick would not work in my state

I know, as I have served on a jury before. The oath I took was "Do you promise to ..." with no mention of swearing or God. I have even given sworn testimony in court; state law allows oaths to be made on "scriptures of the oath-taker's chosing" but does not require it. The default is not to use anything; if you want to swear on a Bible (or Koran or Rig Veda or even the US Constitution -- yes, there is precedent) you must proactively make the request.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Yeah, but were you wearing nail polish and lipstick?

:D

[cosmik debris]

53. A good point

You don't have the right until you ask for it.

That means it is not a right , it is a privilege.

But, as I have said before, Oh well.

[trotsky]

55. And of course then it requires you to single yourself out.

But then, lots of Christians prefer it that way, so they can shun you.

[cosmik debris]

56. In the past I have refused to tell what "my religion" was

Because I did not want to endure discrimination. If you don't tell them, they don't know how to insult you.

That's why, in this case, all I said was that I refused to take a religious oath. So they never knew whether I was an atheist, a fundy xtian, or some other unknown beast. I still got the short end, but at least I don't have to worry about my personal safety this time. If they can believe that maybe I am just a xtian extremist, they won't fuck with me. But if they think I am an atheist....watch out!

[rexcat]

57. One would think that it would be unconstitutional...

to exclude someone for their "religious" beliefs or lack there of. To be excluded based on a religious test just does not seem right. What is the ACLU's position on this?

[cosmik debris]

58. There was never any doubt that it is illegal.

But changing it would be time consuming, expensive and only minimally effective. I believe that the ACLU has higher priorities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=169703&mesg_id=169735

[diogenes99]

64. A successful challenge...

The first article here describes a successful challenge last month (April 2008) in TN....

http://ga1.org/secular_humanism/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=8833506

[cosmik debris]

65. Thank you, and welcome to DU

It does make more sense to approach this reasonably than to rush into court with a law suit.