Religion and References to God in Our Nation's Courthouses
It is my opinion that United States court officials should not make any reference to religion and/or God as part of swearing-in procedures for jurors and for individuals who testify in a case. Based on my personal experiences as well as what I have read, the “default” procedure in America's courthouses is for a clerk (of unknown religious affiliation) to instruct individuals to place their hand on the Judeo-Christian bible, and repeat back phrase by phrase an oath to God (generically) in which they swear to tell the truth (and in the case of jurors, to uphold the Constitution as well). A secular affirmation is available upon request. It is my opinion that all jurors and all those who testify in a court case should be administered the secular affirmation by default. Readers who are concerned and/or angry with this suggestion should read the next paragraph.
It is also my opinion that since American citizens have the right to freedom of religion, religious jurors as well as religious individuals who testify in a case should be free to express their religious beliefs as they see fit, and without fear of persecution. For example, a juror or an individual about to testify should be free to place his/her hand on any holy book that s/he brings to court. S/he should be free to supplement any oath or affirmation administered by invoking the name of the Higher Power(s) associated with his/her religion. S/he should also be free to express him/herself in any other way that is meaningful and/or sacred to him/her. S/he should also be free to incorporate a brief prayer from his/her religion if desired, and/or to perform some associated physical gesture or procedure, obviously being considerate of courtroom time.
I would like to share my experience related to this topic based on my recent jury duty service in Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina. It is safe to say that the county is predominantly Christian, but far from overwhelmingly so. I will begin by noting that the jury assembly room had copies of the Judeo-Christian bible (King James version) everywhere the eye could see. There was at least one bible for every five possible occupants of the room, with the idea being that people could share a bible during the swearing-in procedure if juror turnout was unusually high on a given day. The words “The Judicial System” were imprinted on the cover of each bible. Significantly, there was not one single copy of the juror handbook anywhere in sight.
Thirty minutes after we were told to arrive, we were shown a juror orientation video. It began with a montage of court-related images, and the very first image was a closeup shot of a hand on a bible. At the end of the video, the court clerk entered the jury waiting room and said, “You will now be sworn in as jurors. You will need to find a bible, and place your hand upon it. You may share a bible if necessary. You will repeat the oath after me. Anyone who does not wish to take the oath, please come up and stand beside me, and I will administer an affirmation to you after administering the oath.” This quote is not verbatim, but is very close. I should note that the clerk was simply reading from a script. I briefly considered “going along with the crowd,” but as a non-religious person, I of course knew that I would be lying “right out of the gate” in a manner of speaking if I did so. I was on the far side of the large room, so I had to walk up to the clerk through the crowd, some of whom stared at me as I did so. Three other jurors followed me to the clerk's podium. One lady amongst the jurors taking the oath stared at me with what was unmistakably contempt and pity, but admittedly I would not have known this if I wasn't making it a point to look out into the roomful of jurors as they took the oath. As an aside, we later merged with a group of jurors who were summoned for the afternoon, and in that group, no one took the secular affirmation when offered the chance to do so.
After administering the oath, the clerk turned to the four of us taking the affirmation, and began to read it to us. We repeated it back phrase by phrase just as the oath-takers did, and we walked back to our seats. The affirmation was effectively the same thing as the oath, but with the words “so help me God” omitted, and no reference to “swearing.” I would like to state that although other people might have felt differently about what transpired, my personal interpretation was that the four of us who opted to take the secular affirmation were essentially made a “spectacle” of by being called up to the front of the room to stand beside the clerk. It of course would have been much worse if only one single individual opted for the affirmation, and was left standing there by him/herself. As an aside, I later overheard a woman in the jury waiting room saying to another juror, “If a person can't swear on the Holy Bible, they should just be dismissed.”
If nothing else, I should point out that both the oath and the affirmation include some archaic language and awkward sentence structure. Considering that we are in the year 2015, and that America's education system is essentially completely defunct, I don't understand why courts don't use extremely simplified versions of the oath and affirmation. I don't see what is wrong with the oath being, “Do you swear in the name of God that you will tell the truth, and do you understand that if you do not, you may be charged with perjury?” I don't see what is wrong with the affirmation being, “Do you agree to tell the truth, and do you understand that if you do not, you may be charged with perjury?” Most importantly, I don't see why my proposed affirmation cannot be used for everyone, with everyone being free to bring the holy book of their choice (if any) to the courthouse, and free to supplement the affirmation in any way they see fit. It is interesting that jurors are not required to sign a document (ideally in front of the clerk) in which they acknowledge that they have taken the oath/affirmation, and agree to abide by it. A juror could easily have been daydreaming or in the bathroom during the swearing-in procedure, and no one would have known it.
I didn't get to see anyone testify in a case because I was dismissed during pre-trial juror questioning (anyone surprised?!), but when I served on grand jury duty in Queens, NY, I got to see countless individuals being sworn in by the foreperson before giving testimony. As with my recent experience, the oath that references God and involves the Judeo-Christian bible was used by default. Anyone who wished to take the secular affirmation was permitted to do so upon request. However, there is concern that a person who testifies after opting for the affirmation may be looked upon negatively by jurors who are religious. In particular, the individual may be less believable to such jurors. I have read anecdotes from non-Judeo-Christian expert witnesses who constantly face the dilemma of whether they should conceal their non-Judeo-Christian religious beliefs (or complete lack of religious beliefs) by taking a religious oath which is of no significance to them, or whether to admit such by way of requesting the affirmation, and risk being less believable to those concerned.
I ask the reader to consider the following question: What exactly are we doing here? Are we hoping that a murderer or rapist will hear a reference to God (made by a government clerk of unknown religious affiliation no less), and will somehow be scared into confessing his crime? Are we hoping that he will fall to his knees and cry out, “God, I have sinned! I confess to my crime! I ask that The People do with me as they will, for my days on this Earthly plane are numbered, and surely an eternity in Hell awaits me.” Really? If only it were that simple. I don't believe that our prisons are filled with inmates who are anticipating spending an eternity in Hell.
Jurors who want to be dismissed from service will fib during pre-trial questioning regardless of any oath and/or any reference to God that is rattled off by a court clerk. They will simply rationalize the matter to themselves as needed. Witnesses (expert or otherwise) and crime victims who are going to tell the truth will do so regardless of any oath and/or any reference to God. The murderers and rapists who testify in their defense will continue to murder and rape if set free to do so regardless of any reference to God. It is reasonable to assume that some of them either believe themselves to be God, or believe that they are carrying out the will of God, or do not believe in God at all. A likely scenario is that they feel they can do anything they want, and will still be “saved” provided they ask for forgiveness from their God in accordance with the procedures of their religion (or the religion they “found” while in prison).
It is time for America to completely separate church and state in every manner of speaking. There is no need for the US Government to impose or endorse a particular religion (even indirectly) in our nation's courthouses or in any other government context. This is not an attack on anyone's religion. As an aside, if someone hands me a form of American currency, I take it even though it includes the phrase "In God We Trust." If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. It doesn't change my opinion, though, that the phrase is no longer needed, assuming it was ever truly necessary in the first place. If we are going to include any slogan at all on our currency it should be, "Life, Liberty, Joy," or something similar, and everyone can decide for themselves in whom or in what they should trust.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
It is also my opinion that since American citizens have the right to freedom of religion, religious jurors as well as religious individuals who testify in a case should be free to express their religious beliefs as they see fit, and without fear of persecution. For example, a juror or an individual about to testify should be free to place his/her hand on any holy book that s/he brings to court. S/he should be free to supplement any oath or affirmation administered by invoking the name of the Higher Power(s) associated with his/her religion. S/he should also be free to express him/herself in any other way that is meaningful and/or sacred to him/her. S/he should also be free to incorporate a brief prayer from his/her religion if desired, and/or to perform some associated physical gesture or procedure, obviously being considerate of courtroom time.
I would like to share my experience related to this topic based on my recent jury duty service in Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina. It is safe to say that the county is predominantly Christian, but far from overwhelmingly so. I will begin by noting that the jury assembly room had copies of the Judeo-Christian bible (King James version) everywhere the eye could see. There was at least one bible for every five possible occupants of the room, with the idea being that people could share a bible during the swearing-in procedure if juror turnout was unusually high on a given day. The words “The Judicial System” were imprinted on the cover of each bible. Significantly, there was not one single copy of the juror handbook anywhere in sight.
Thirty minutes after we were told to arrive, we were shown a juror orientation video. It began with a montage of court-related images, and the very first image was a closeup shot of a hand on a bible. At the end of the video, the court clerk entered the jury waiting room and said, “You will now be sworn in as jurors. You will need to find a bible, and place your hand upon it. You may share a bible if necessary. You will repeat the oath after me. Anyone who does not wish to take the oath, please come up and stand beside me, and I will administer an affirmation to you after administering the oath.” This quote is not verbatim, but is very close. I should note that the clerk was simply reading from a script. I briefly considered “going along with the crowd,” but as a non-religious person, I of course knew that I would be lying “right out of the gate” in a manner of speaking if I did so. I was on the far side of the large room, so I had to walk up to the clerk through the crowd, some of whom stared at me as I did so. Three other jurors followed me to the clerk's podium. One lady amongst the jurors taking the oath stared at me with what was unmistakably contempt and pity, but admittedly I would not have known this if I wasn't making it a point to look out into the roomful of jurors as they took the oath. As an aside, we later merged with a group of jurors who were summoned for the afternoon, and in that group, no one took the secular affirmation when offered the chance to do so.
After administering the oath, the clerk turned to the four of us taking the affirmation, and began to read it to us. We repeated it back phrase by phrase just as the oath-takers did, and we walked back to our seats. The affirmation was effectively the same thing as the oath, but with the words “so help me God” omitted, and no reference to “swearing.” I would like to state that although other people might have felt differently about what transpired, my personal interpretation was that the four of us who opted to take the secular affirmation were essentially made a “spectacle” of by being called up to the front of the room to stand beside the clerk. It of course would have been much worse if only one single individual opted for the affirmation, and was left standing there by him/herself. As an aside, I later overheard a woman in the jury waiting room saying to another juror, “If a person can't swear on the Holy Bible, they should just be dismissed.”
If nothing else, I should point out that both the oath and the affirmation include some archaic language and awkward sentence structure. Considering that we are in the year 2015, and that America's education system is essentially completely defunct, I don't understand why courts don't use extremely simplified versions of the oath and affirmation. I don't see what is wrong with the oath being, “Do you swear in the name of God that you will tell the truth, and do you understand that if you do not, you may be charged with perjury?” I don't see what is wrong with the affirmation being, “Do you agree to tell the truth, and do you understand that if you do not, you may be charged with perjury?” Most importantly, I don't see why my proposed affirmation cannot be used for everyone, with everyone being free to bring the holy book of their choice (if any) to the courthouse, and free to supplement the affirmation in any way they see fit. It is interesting that jurors are not required to sign a document (ideally in front of the clerk) in which they acknowledge that they have taken the oath/affirmation, and agree to abide by it. A juror could easily have been daydreaming or in the bathroom during the swearing-in procedure, and no one would have known it.
I didn't get to see anyone testify in a case because I was dismissed during pre-trial juror questioning (anyone surprised?!), but when I served on grand jury duty in Queens, NY, I got to see countless individuals being sworn in by the foreperson before giving testimony. As with my recent experience, the oath that references God and involves the Judeo-Christian bible was used by default. Anyone who wished to take the secular affirmation was permitted to do so upon request. However, there is concern that a person who testifies after opting for the affirmation may be looked upon negatively by jurors who are religious. In particular, the individual may be less believable to such jurors. I have read anecdotes from non-Judeo-Christian expert witnesses who constantly face the dilemma of whether they should conceal their non-Judeo-Christian religious beliefs (or complete lack of religious beliefs) by taking a religious oath which is of no significance to them, or whether to admit such by way of requesting the affirmation, and risk being less believable to those concerned.
I ask the reader to consider the following question: What exactly are we doing here? Are we hoping that a murderer or rapist will hear a reference to God (made by a government clerk of unknown religious affiliation no less), and will somehow be scared into confessing his crime? Are we hoping that he will fall to his knees and cry out, “God, I have sinned! I confess to my crime! I ask that The People do with me as they will, for my days on this Earthly plane are numbered, and surely an eternity in Hell awaits me.” Really? If only it were that simple. I don't believe that our prisons are filled with inmates who are anticipating spending an eternity in Hell.
Jurors who want to be dismissed from service will fib during pre-trial questioning regardless of any oath and/or any reference to God that is rattled off by a court clerk. They will simply rationalize the matter to themselves as needed. Witnesses (expert or otherwise) and crime victims who are going to tell the truth will do so regardless of any oath and/or any reference to God. The murderers and rapists who testify in their defense will continue to murder and rape if set free to do so regardless of any reference to God. It is reasonable to assume that some of them either believe themselves to be God, or believe that they are carrying out the will of God, or do not believe in God at all. A likely scenario is that they feel they can do anything they want, and will still be “saved” provided they ask for forgiveness from their God in accordance with the procedures of their religion (or the religion they “found” while in prison).
It is time for America to completely separate church and state in every manner of speaking. There is no need for the US Government to impose or endorse a particular religion (even indirectly) in our nation's courthouses or in any other government context. This is not an attack on anyone's religion. As an aside, if someone hands me a form of American currency, I take it even though it includes the phrase "In God We Trust." If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. It doesn't change my opinion, though, that the phrase is no longer needed, assuming it was ever truly necessary in the first place. If we are going to include any slogan at all on our currency it should be, "Life, Liberty, Joy," or something similar, and everyone can decide for themselves in whom or in what they should trust.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents