"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:

How about someone who believes they have a religious obligation
to refuse to swear a religious oath, but a mental moral obligation to
tell the truth?


You forgot to ask if that person had his fingers crossed at the time of the
oath.
Are you really at a loss for answers? Do you really need me to be your
guide. Are you trying to paint some kind of picture here?


Answering your question, the above statement describes a contradicting
situation. I would say that that person is having trouble in his faith. Do
you know a person like this?

"Tanus" wrote in message ...
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

Well, this thread's Subject line has been pretty well hashed out and left
behind. I'm always amazed at how far a thread can go from its original
subject line.

Just as a reminder, I'd like to point out that "Leon's Racism" hasn't been
proven - at least not to me, and I suspect not to very many other than the
person who changed the original subject line. But it persists.

Naw, I'm not gonna get into this either. I'm havin too much fun reading
it.

LOL.. The darn hook just wont come out. But FIY I am not a racist. ;~) I
simply believe that every one should have to stand in the same line, so to
speak. If a person does not like being treated differently he should not
bring attention to himself by acting or dressing differently.

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...


Hi Leon,

But what happened to the concern for the rights of the
minority?

There are many people in the United States who feel that
they have been harmed profoundly by that notion of "the
whole."

And visa versa. That is a moot point.


As before, I thank you for your response,

Your are welcome, however I feel that either you agree with my
comments or you are troubled with your own thoughts on the matter.

My family has gone to sleep and I am clicking away here
quietly, but I laughed out loud when I read your last
comment above.

People that laugh inappropriately tend to be uneasy with themselves. Good
luck with that.




.."

On Feb 23, 3:12 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...

On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:

How about someone who believes they have a religious obligation
to refuse to swear a religious oath, but a mental moral obligation to
tell the truth?

You forgot to ask if that person had his
fingers crossed at the time of the oath.
Are you really at a loss for answers?
Do you really need me to be your
guide.

Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
deal with an honest person who refuses to take
a religious oath before giving his testimony.

Please tell us.

Are you trying to paint some kind of picture here?

Answering your question, the above statement describes a contradicting
situation. I would say that that person is having trouble in his faith. Do
you know a person like this?

I'm firm in my belief that my religion is
none of the state's goddamn business
and will not take a religious oath at the
behest of the state.

Nor would I give false testimony.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
deal with an honest person who refuses to take
a religious oath before giving his testimony.

Please tell us.

Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.
I mentioned this in another post, EVERYONE stands in the same line, read
that as no one gets special treatment.
If you feel that you are being picked on because you are different, quit
being different. You have that choice.


Are you trying to paint some kind of picture here?

Answering your question, the above statement describes a contradicting
situation. I would say that that person is having trouble in his faith.
Do
you know a person like this?




I'm firm in my belief that my religion is
none of the state's goddamn business
and will not take a religious oath at the
behest of the state.

That is good to know.

Better not get caught in court in Texas.

On Feb 23, 2:35 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...



On Feb 22, 6:43 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" wrote:

...

Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in
court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
be required to do the same when we testify in court?

No, he did not say that, You just said that. Reread the sentence he typed
and leave out YOUR "in other words", interpretation.

The only reason a President takes his oath of office with his hand
on a bible is because he choses to do so. Some have chosen
not to.

--

FF

On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, "Swingman" wrote:

Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?

OK.... I'm going to get some popcorn now. This could get good.

Robert

n Feb 22, 8:31 am, "Leon" wrote:

Actually God HAS been removed from public schools, perhaps not the ones that
you are familiar with but the big cities are witnessing this.

There are some strange and disturbing happenings in Houston, that's
for sure. My niece goes to HSPVA, and it is like the 60s all over
again. She is almost feeling guilty about being anglo, not just
seeing herself as another in the teeming pond of humanity.

She is being taught somewhere (NOT at home) the Christians and
Christianity are wrong. She is glad to tell me that she can't stand
Christians. Her reasoning? "Because they want to take over
everything".

Hmm.... inquiring minds, you know....

OK, have they made some bold business moves to take over oil, auto,
steel, electronics, banking or the internet?

Well no, she said, none come to mind.

So, any hard core members of Christian orthodoxy (you know, the kind
that put murderers, thieves and adulterer to death) take over a state
government? Any multinational, multicultural armies formed by the
Christians to threaten, terrorize or murder in ANY country, state, or
individual that doesn't believe in Jesus? (I am thinking of The
Crusades in my mind.)

Well no, she didn't mean that.

Have you or your friends been arrested or disciplined in any way for
speaking out against the Christians? Have any Christians, even a
militant sect carried out any type of activities that harmed you or
your friends in any way?

(anyone with teenagers in their life picture the eye rolling of a
teenage girl here) NOOO.... they haven't done anything to me or my
friends and they aren't trying to take over the world.

Well, you know that begged the question to be asked. "So why do you
hate them so much?"

Answer: Their attitude. (This was never clearly defined, but in her
mind it was a real thing). And the fact that the literati of the
school informed them that the use of God in the Pledge of Allegiance
could be unconstitutional. And, she argued, it was shameful that as
American we are so uneducated, unaware of other cultures and so
arrogant that we believe that a nation could be formed under God.
What if there is no God? What if there is Buddha (or any other
entity) and no God?

She says "under God" but only under protest. She is too mindful of
the rights and feelings of others and waaay too intellectually aware
to fall into the trap of that simple statement.

But she gushes on and on about many other religions, other
philosphies, and is in wonder and awe at their rites, customs and
tenets. She is proud to tell me that should all embrace other
religions and be tolerant of what our uneducated minds see and
idiosyncrasies. She is very proud of her religious awareness, and her
tolerance of religions.

So I asked her why she didn't feel that way about the Christians.
Well, no real answer except to tell me "it's different". I asked her
if that with her tremendous tolerance of other religions and their
rites and customs if she couldn't cut the Christians a break on The
Pledge. Nope, she said. Hmmm.... so much for religious tolerance.

She doesn't quite have angst about being anglo, but she kind of wishes
she wasn't. She loves the Asian culture and religions, same with the
Indian culture and religion, and there is another that she is
currently infatuated with as well.
She feel like their culture is special, and just being a plain old
anglo Christian is bad. Someway, we were left behind.


least in my little conservative town in Oregon, may wear symbols of
their religious beliefs; two which come to mind immediately are gold
crosses and Jewish headscarves. The Jehovah's Witness children are
engaged in alternate activities during certain celebrations such as a
birthday party in the classroom or holiday activities. Frequently
children speak of God in their essays.

I wish that were true in Houston.

I know that to be true. Religious symbols are not tolerated. In
fact, they just recently went to uniforms at HSPVA so they can kind of
have that socialistic feel that there aren't even any class
differences.


It is no longer acceptable for judges to
have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms

You know, that bugs the crap out of me. Society is about learning
from each other, and tolerance of one another. Even if you don't
believe in God, those are some pretty damn good rules to live by and
great instruction on how to conduct one's self.

If Anthony Robbins had written them, they would be everywhere like
"Chicken Soup For the Soul".

There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
hours

You know, Texas is supposed to be so backwards, old fashioned, and
right wing. I would propose that we could do any state full of
lefties proud with out progressive legislation.

In the holiest of shrines in Texas, also known as The High School
Football Stadium, students, teachers, players, coaches, fans... NO ONE
can say the Lord's prayer unless to themselves. We have been praying
those boys don't get hurt on the field ever since I can remember, but
no more in San Antonio. I believe that this is the law in Texas now,
although it is enforced much less in the smaller towns.

But when a group of students in San Antonio decided to exercise their
religious freedom (about 1,000) of them at a football game and say the
Lords' Prayer out loud before the game, they were made to stop by
ushers and security. The ones that didn't stop were ushered out.

So much for religious tolerance, or even tolerance of others, eh? How
hard would it have been for others to stand quietly for a minute and
let the folks pray for the safety of their kids to a Christian God? I
mean really, Christianity is still the predominate/preferred religion
of most of the US, so trying to hide it, ban it, or silence it seems
to be a wrong against the will of at least some of the people.

How hard would it be for my niece to skip that one sentence in The
Pledge and allow those that believe in God to say so?

I would at least think that these grand intellectual minds that debate
the validity and place of Christianity in today's world would try to
teach some tolerance for one another. I'm not holding my breath,
though. Christianity seems to be quite at odds with the intellectual
crowd at this time. I have even heard it debated on NPR as to whether
it is actually a religion or maybe a cult.

Sigh.

Robert

On Feb 22, 7:06 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message

On Feb 22, 5:54 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Kenneth" wrote

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?

I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo Christian" to
be offensive, regarding it as yet another attempt by Christians
to blame Judaism for their own shortcomings.

I'm quite aware of those who oppose the term because they feel it was
conceived to celebrate commonality instead of differences ... but there's
never been any shortage of jackasses more than willing to slobber in the
public trough.

Society of victims. I just read a headline where a local columnist
thinks the "victims" of the mortgage problems, i.e., those who took
advantage of the breaks once available when they got a mortgage,
should be helped by the government. The columnist presented it as
support for the "American dream," whatever that is.

And we probably will get that help passed, so once again, the greedy
grabbers win, the tax bill goes up, and we'' hear about tax and spend
Democrats, because that's who is going to be in office when this 'un
gets pushed through (party affiliation is irrelevant, though, as no
politician wants a bloc the size of that made up by homeowners down on
his ass).

One has to wonder why the hell everyone starting out these days seems
to need at least 2,800 SF with 10' ceilings.

On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Kenneth wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:37:03 GMT, "Leon"



wrote:

"Kenneth" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Hi Leon,

Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.

In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:

It is no longer acceptable for judges to
have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
displayed in from of the court house.

but at another point you wrote:

I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

I "am not" of the opinion that the 10 commandments must be displayed in the
courts. I do however believe that the judge, government official or not,
should be allowed to conduct his court room and have in his court room what
he chooses to have. Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.

Hi again,

Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response
to me question, but it does raise another:

How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a
witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the
sake of my example g) and on entering the courtroom behind
the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral
principles completely different from those with which you
grew up?

Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?


One major problem: the 10 Commandments are the basis for western
society today. You're in a world of trouble if you go into a courtroom
and find something different from the moral and legal and ethical code
you grew up with. That code involves the 10 Commandments, whether you
are Christian or not. Think about the courts we know of that do not
subscribe to the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical codes and the laws
that have come about because of them. Do you relaly think you'll get a
better deal in a Muslim court with some words of Mohammed on the wall--
or not on the wall, but reverberating through the heads of the other
participants? Would you care to be tried in China where there is no
code of any kind except what the current leaders say?

I am the last person to want to force Christianity or Judaism down
anyone's throat, but the solid fact is those two religions form the
basis for much of what we call society today. The 10 Commandants might
be an indication of the fairness of attitude you can expect in that
particular courtroom. Or it may just be a decoration.

wrote in message
...
Snip of a very common happening these days.


I would at least think that these grand intellectual minds that debate
the validity and place of Christianity in today's world would try to
teach some tolerance for one another. I'm not holding my breath,
though. Christianity seems to be quite at odds with the intellectual
crowd at this time. I have even heard it debated on NPR as to whether
it is actually a religion or maybe a cult.

Sigh.

Robert

This is a consequence of a youth that has had a lot handed over on a silver
platter and gets immediate gratification.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Society of victims. I just read a headline where a local columnist
thinks the "victims" of the mortgage problems, i.e., those who took
advantage of the breaks once available when they got a mortgage,
should be helped by the government. The columnist presented it as
support for the "American dream," whatever that is.

Like CitiBank and Merrill Lynch? I'm waiting for someone to hide 20
or 30 billion in the "economic stimulus" package to bail out these two
greed-mongers.
But that's just the cynic in me.
-
Dave in Houston

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon"

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to and
actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the bible,
laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime, putting your
hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make you be honest.
The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote \

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

IIRC, that is indeed why the word "affirmation" was added to the phrase
"oath or affirmation", to insure the secular nature of the process.

.... but then it's been a long time since my college days.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that
back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in
those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see,
God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the
oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth
under questioning?


No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on
tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any
Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with
the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally
retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves.
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.

As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
the later (if I was aware of their deception).

By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
under penalty of perjury?"
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon"

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front
of every one that he will tell the truth.
It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.
I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win.
Not totally unlike giving some one your word.
It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:

The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
on others.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:29:54 +0000, Leon wrote:

Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were
trolling :-).

Well not really. ;~)

Then you have my sympathy :-).

On Feb 23, 8:19 am, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

Christianity seems to be quite at odds with the intellectual
crowd at this time. I have even heard it debated on NPR as to whether
it is actually a religion or maybe a cult.

Sigh.


This is a consequence of a youth that has had a lot handed over on a silver
platter and gets immediate gratification.

The kiddos are being taught that claptrap by their teachers and
professors that are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Certainly the
chatterboxes debating Christianity's actual definition were in their
50s and 60s.

Wait... we could be about the same folks. Same crap, different day
kinda thing.

Robert
Robert

On Feb 23, 1:49 am, "
wrote:

...

So I asked her why she didn't feel that way about the Christians.
Well, no real answer except to tell me "it's different". I asked her
if that with her tremendous tolerance of other religions and their
rites and customs if she couldn't cut the Christians a break on The
Pledge. Nope, she said. Hmmm.... so much for religious tolerance.

She doesn't quite have angst about being anglo, but she kind of wishes
she wasn't. She loves the Asian culture and religions, same with the
Indian culture and religion, and there is another that she is
currently infatuated with as well.
She feel like their culture is special, and just being a plain old
anglo Christian is bad. ...

For your next talk you may want to address the concept of
"ethnic self-loathing". My observation is that it can be
pretty much independent of ethnicity.

--

FF

On Feb 23, 11:47 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

...

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front
of every one that he will tell the truth.
It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.
I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win.
Not totally unlike giving some one your word.
It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.

How does a Bible represent a higher standard of morals, and higher
than what?

People who draw moral guidance from the Bible do so by careful
selection. The fact that so many people do, skipping over the
genocide and so forth is quite encouraging. It shows that most
people are fundamentally good by nature.

--

FF

On Feb 23, 11:55 am, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
on others.

For a jury of peers you need to be tried in England. On this side of
the
pond there is no dichotomy between lords and commoners.

--

FF

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.


That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.





As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
the later (if I was aware of their deception).

By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
under penalty of perjury?"

That is just sad.


--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:

The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes
his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in
God.

I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
on others.


So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that cannot
decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I guess it you
murdered some one they may find that it is OK.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:29:54 +0000, Leon wrote:

Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were
trolling :-).

Well not really. ;~)

Then you have my sympathy :-).


I doing fine, thanks.

On Feb 22, 11:34 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...



Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
deal with an honest person who refuses to take
a religious oath before giving his testimony.

Please tell us.

Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.

Good trolling.

I went to the trouble of finding a person who sat on a jury in
Texas who took a secular juror's oath, and said a secular
oath was also permitted for witnesses, though they are
assumed to no object to the religious one unless they speak
up.

...

I'm firm in my belief that my religion is
none of the state's goddamn business
and will not take a religious oath at the
behest of the state.

That is good to know.

Better not get caught in court in Texas.

Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
in the first place.

--

FF

Leon wrote:


By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
under penalty of perjury?"


The oath was similar when I had to give a deposition a few years ago in
New York state.


That is just sad.


The use of a bible or an oath to God is not mandatory in any U.S. court,
including the swearing in of the President. If it were the ACLU would
have a field day.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
in the first place.

Au contraire ... it was the other way around. Not too worry, though ..
you're going to have to take it back from Mexico real soon now.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

So you wish a religious litmus test for justice? That is pretty sad.




Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral
code on others.

Your right discouraging murder, rape and robbery is a grave burden for
society to be inflicted with by a few crazed zealots.....Realistically it is
the left that wishes true control , be it mandatory seat belt use, the right
to smoke, what you eat and how much, your home, where and what you can
build, buy or sell or even the trees in your yard. Then the thought police
and the word nazi's, as well as no dissent being allowed (as a politician or
on a college campus just try and doubt global warming).

Incidentally whom are these "too many" anyway and what control have they
inflicted on whom? Rod

Leon wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that
cannot decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I
guess it you murdered some one they may find that it is OK.


I hadn't thought of that......It would indeed increase of the odds of a hung
jury by selecting jurists not committed enough to make decisions. One might
as well anticipate an easier go among those whom moral compass is based upon
"it depends" instead of a right or wrong, of which I'd suspect are often one
and same. Rod

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.


That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.

Of course it makes him of better character. The person who publicly
refuses on grounds of their personal beliefs is much more aligned with
truth than the one who elects to deceive jurors into thinking he holds
similar faith to them.

Sounds to me like you would support a defendant or witness donning a
yarmulke once they learn a majority of the jurors are Jewish. Wearing
religious symbols or professing faith have zero bearing on the moral
compass of the person - just remember the Catholic priest abuses.

A juror who is unable to delineate testimony depending on whether a
witness is of similar faith to himself should not be sitting in the box.
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Ah, but that is where they are further using our society against us. Try
refuting what they say if you are on a college campus where they have been
allowed to make their statements. You, like Leon, will be accused of
bigotry, racism, and hate speech. If you are a student, you will be
invited to a re-education camp (oops, I mean sensitivity training); if you
refuse, you will be expelled for creating an atmosphere of hate.
Unfortunately, these groups choose the forums in which they express their
hatred publicly, then use the rules of that forum to suppress any backlash
or refuting commentary.


There are many avenues of rebuttal - even on a college campus. Sure you
may not get equal stage time, but there are newspapers, radio, local
television, and soapboxes. (I recall the stump-speakers at Penn State
railing away at something or other.)
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.

Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
in the first place.

Grow up Fred, no need to get snotty about it. If you are frustrated talk to
your wife.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says
it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.


That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to
say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of
higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.

Of course it makes him of better character. The person who publicly
refuses on grounds of their personal beliefs is much more aligned with
truth than the one who elects to deceive jurors into thinking he holds
similar faith to them.

I hope that attitude continues to work out for you.

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that
cannot decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I
guess it you murdered some one they may find that it is OK.


I hadn't thought of that......It would indeed increase of the odds of a
hung jury by selecting jurists not committed enough to make decisions. One
might as well anticipate an easier go among those whom moral compass is
based upon "it depends" instead of a right or wrong, of which I'd suspect
are often one and same. Rod


But on the flip side of the coin the guy that murdered your child could get
off just as easily if tried by a non committal jury.

"Swingman" wrote:

Au contraire ... it was the other way around. Not too worry, though ..
you're going to have to take it back from Mexico real soon now.

My former barber (30 year Air Force) was fond of saying, "What they lost
with the sword, they are taking back with the pecker."

Of course, that seemed to fit in with Orange County, birthplace of the John
Birch Society.

Lew



Lew

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says
it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.


That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to
say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of
higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.

Of course it makes him of better character. The person who publicly
refuses on grounds of their personal beliefs is much more aligned with
truth than the one who elects to deceive jurors into thinking he holds
similar faith to them.

I hope that attitude continues to work out for you.

Leon, of the two of us, you are much more likely to get suckered in this
business of life by the guy posing as something he's not than I am by
the guy who is forthright about what he believes.

The terrorist who professes his beliefs and in his view labels my son an
infidel is much more predictable than the priest who cites God and
silently molests my son behind the altar.
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
Leon, of the two of us, you are much more likely to get suckered in this
business of life by the guy posing as something he's not than I am by
the guy who is forthright about what he believes.

Hummm Having been in and retired from Upper management, starting as a stock
boy in the automotive business, I have managed and hired hundreds of people
at various times and dealt with thousands of customers. I have seen lots
of scams and tactics to deceive. I easily rubbed elbows with all of my
employees. Perhaps you have delt with more people on a more successful
level.

You have missed what ever point there was to the discussion. Way back in
the beginning of this thread I made a comment and have been relentlessly
questioned about that comment. I answered those questions and for the life
of me I cannot understand what the big deal is. I have my opinion y'all
have yours.

The terrorist who professes his beliefs and in his view labels my son an
infidel is much more predictable than the priest who cites God and
silently molests my son behind the altar.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Just as likely, the terrorist who professes his beliefs and in his view
labels you son an infidel MAY NOT be more predictable than the priest who
cites God and does not molest your son.
You can make any thing up.


There is an evil influence every where and no one or thing is eximpt from
its temptation or deception. Being able to recognize that deception makes
life less dramatic. It helps to be of good moral character and be able to
reference where those morals originated to recognize deception. And no,
your parents or their parents or their parents were not the origin of the
morals thay you may of may exercise.







--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

On Feb 23, 11:40 am, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article ,







"Leon" wrote:
Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that
back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in
those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see,
God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the
oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth
under questioning?

No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on
tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any
Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with
the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally
retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves.
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.

As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
the later (if I was aware of their deception).

By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
under penalty of perjury?"
--

I used to laugh--'60s--at the college loan applications that provided
a list of Communist organizations and then required the signer to
affirm that he/she had never belonged to any of these, nor had any
intent to overthrow the government of the U.S. I guess they rooted out
thousands of spies that way. Sure they did. I tried to explain to one
oath-giver that the undercover "intelligence" types would be the first
to sign without a pause, but she couldn't understand that.

On Feb 23, 11:47 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

t...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon"

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front
of every one that he will tell the truth.
It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.
I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win.
Not totally unlike giving some one your word.
It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.

Some jerk in Georgia won my 270 million last night.