Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously

Guest

Religious oath could be scraped amid concerns it is not taken seriously
Witnesses and defendants would take new oath without mentioning God
Is claimed oath would be fairer for everyone and be easier to understand

By NICK CONSTABLE and MARTIN BECKFORD
PUBLISHED: 19:19 EST, 5 October 2013 | UPDATED: 19:54 EST, 5 October 2013

Defendants and witnesses in British courts will no longer swear on the Bible to tell the truth under controversial plans being considered by a powerful body of judges.

The traditional religious oath could be scrapped amid concerns that many giving evidence in criminal cases no longer take it seriously.

Instead, all witnesses and defendants would promise to tell the truth without mentioning God, and would acknowledge they could be jailed if they are caught lying.

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Article-2446250-0D94D16F00000578-495_634x424

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Article-2446250-0D94D16F00000578-495_634x424

Judges are considering plans which would mean defendants and witnesses would no longer swear on the Bible to tell the truth in court

It is claimed the new oath would be fairer for everyone and make it easier to understand the importance of what they are saying.

But critics point out non-believers already have the option of promising to tell the truth without any reference to a sacred text, and that the change would further erode Britain’s Christian heritage.

The historic change will be debated this month by the Magistrates’ Association, and if it is voted through the organisation’s influential policy committee will draw up plans to be sent to the Ministry of Justice.

More...

The pupils who are so badly taught they don't even know who Jesus was

Ian Abrahams, a Bristol magistrate, has proposed ending centuries of tradition by axeing the religious oath. He told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘More and more I see people shrug their shoulders or say “whatever” when asked to take it.

‘Other witnesses think it’s wrong to swear on a holy book, and make an affirmation instead.

‘I’m suggesting we take holy books out of the process. Instead, people will have to show they understand they could be sent to prison if they don’t tell the truth.’

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Article-2446250-0354DB83000005DC-998_634x422

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Article-2446250-0354DB83000005DC-998_634x422

Critics point out non-believers already have the option of promising to tell the truth without any reference to a sacred text and that the change would further erode Britain's Christian heritage

The married 62-year-old was raised in the Jewish faith but now calls himself an atheist. ‘I don’t intend my motion to make any comment on religion,’ he said. ‘It is certainly not anti-religious.’

But it has been seen by senior figures in the Church of England as another attempt to chip away at the country’s Christian foundations.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, said: ‘This could be the slippery slope towards the increasing secularisation of society. Where will it end – with the Coronation Oath? The Bible is bound up with the constitution, institutions and history of this country. It is right for people to have a choice of oath, a religious or non-religious one. But we are being urged, in the name of tolerance and secularisation, to restrict that choice.’

‘I’m suggesting we take holy books out of the process. Instead, people will have to show they understand they could be sent to prison if they don’t tell the truth'

- Ian Abrahams, a Bristol magistrate

The Rev Arun Arora, director of communications for the Church of England, added: ‘Given that the last census showed almost 60 per cent of respondents self-identified as Christians and two thirds as people of faith, this proposal seems to ignore the statistical reality that we remain a faithful nation. This kind of proposal seems driven more by blinkered campaigning agendas than abiding interests in justice and truth.’

John Glen, Tory MP for Salisbury and a magistrate until last year, said: ‘This smacks of political correctness gone mad.’

Legal expert Lord Carlile QC said: ‘It would be unacceptable for the choice to take a religious oath to be removed.’

Existing religious oaths have, for hundreds of years, required Christian witnesses to hold the Bible and state: ‘I swear by almighty God that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’

Followers of other faiths are given copies of their sacred texts with Muslims swearing on the Koran and Jews on the Old Testament, for instance. Those who choose instead to make an affirmation are required to ‘solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm’ the truth of their evidence.

Under Mr Abrahams’ proposal, the holy books would be removed and the oath would read: ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’

The plan will be debated at the agm of the Magistrates’ Association, representing 23,000 lay judges, in Cardiff on October 19.

A MoJ spokesman said: ‘We have no plans to change the arrangements for swearing an oath or making an affirmation in court, which have worked well for many years and still do.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446250/Judges-bid-banish-Bible-court-fears-witnesses-defendants-longer-oath-seriously.html#ixzz2gwWxn9Ja

Guest

Ohio school forced to remove Jesus portrait

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously _h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously _h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse

AP Photo: WBNS-10 TV
A portrait of Jesus hangs in the hallway at Jackson Middle School in Jackson, Ohio.
Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously _h17_w0_m6_otrue_lfalse

12 hr ago By Associated Press

A middle school will permanently remove its portrait of Jesus from school grounds and pay nearly $100,000 after reaching a settlement with the ACLU of Ohio.

— A middle school in Ohio will be forced to permanently remove a portrait of Jesus from its school grounds and pay nearly $100,000 after reaching a settlement with two groups, including the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The settlement requires the Jackson City School District in southern Ohio to pay the ACLU and Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation damages and legal fees totaling $95,000.

The two sides had a tentative agreement months ago that bogged down in more legal filings after the two groups said the school district continued to keep the Jesus portrait and displayed it on the school lawn during a prayer meeting. Court filings show the portrait was also visible to those entering an art-storage area.

"All of this was unnecessary," said James Hardiman, legal director for ACLU of Ohio. "The law is pretty clear ... the display of this particular kind of religious artifact (in a public school) is unconstitutional."

He said U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley in Columbus accepted the settlement Friday.

Superintendent Phil Howard said in a statement that the district's attorneys believed settling was the "best case scenario" at this point because legal fees were "mounting by the day."

He said the district's insurance will pay the nearly $95,000 and taxpayers will not be liable for the damages and legal fees.

Guest

The attacks continue.......Jesus your under attack....Heaven help us....Jesus it's soon time to return.....

Town Finds 'God Bless America' Signs in Violation, Threatens Fines

By AOL Real Estate Editors | Posted Oct 4th 2013 3:30PM

Updated Oct 4th 2013 5:38PM

How far is too far when it comes to patriotic displays? Residents of a central Florida town who have posted "God Bless America" signs on their front lawns for months are now facing fines if they don't remove them. The temporary lawn signs that were distributed by a local church around the Fourth of July have been determined by City of Bartow Code Enforcement to be in violation of a local ordinance. If not removed soon, the city warns, those displaying them could be fined $25 per day.

As described in the above video, some residents are baffled by the rule and are resisting. But the city says that the ordinance is not aimed at any particular sentiment, and allows for exceptions.

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Bartow%20god%20bless%20america%20sign%20ban

Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously Bartow%20god%20bless%20america%20sign%20ban

Morning Rush

"They can have those signs out on holidays that are relevant," Bartow Code Enforcement Director Gregg Lamb told Tampa Bay's WTVT this week. You can have a temporary sign around Christmas if it's related to Christmas. Or the Fourth of July. The sign ordinance has exceptions for that."

Some Bartow residents don't see patriotism -- or lawn signs that celebrate it -- as seasonal, though. And the TV station reports that a group of them will seek a waiver from the ordinance at the next Bartow City Commission meeting.

And while AOL Real Estate has carried several stories of similar conflicts, those have usually involved homeowner or condo associations, not cities -- such as the case of [url=http://army staff sgt. brandon weir/]Army Sgt. Brandon Weir[/url], who ran into trouble at his Huntsville, Ala., condominium complex earlier this year because he flew the U.S. flag in front of his home there. And in a similar case, Meagan Schmidt of Katy, Texas, battled her HOA over a sign in her yard that advertised her church, which the association saw as violating a rule against commercial signage.

Why would a city want to ban all lawn signs to begin with, and challenge free expression on private property? Might there be a clue in some of the yard signs and other displays in the slideshow below?