Stephen Maturin

You're right on target as always, Abe! The case is <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=488" target="_blank">Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).</a> From the opinion:

hezekiah jones

Hugo Black's opinion contains the notorious Footnote 11, which has provided grist for the mill for many creationists and other mischievous gadflies:

[Emphasis added]

Seth K

Can't let this go without at least putting out the other side...

There have been many appelate court cases where a party tries to argue that Secular Humanism is a religion, via Torcaso. All such arguments have been rejected by the courts.

There are several points to note with this. The first is that this statement isn't an actual ruling by the Supremes. Whether Secular Humanism is a religion was not an issue in this case, and no evidence for or against it being a religion was brought before the court. Thus the court could not possibly rule on the matter. It is just explanitory material, called dicta in the legal vernacular, not case law. It is mostly Justice Black's personal opinion.

Black, however, does site case law in the footnote, including Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673. In this case a particular humanist group organized as a "church" for tax purposes. However, just because a particular humanist group may call itself a church doesn't mean that Secular Humanism itself is a religion.

Seeker630

I was a police officer for 30 years in the Detroit area. And in Michigan you can "affirm" without the whole God/Bible routine. It's been that way for some time. Yes as you can see from material provided by others in this thread that there is still some shit on the books here and there that needs cleaning up.

But lets look at this from a historical and legal standpoint for a second. I sure don't condone it, but remember that when most, if not all of those state laws and constitutions were written, government was still mostly an all white mens's club and a pretty exclusive one at that. They were almost exclusively Christian, and so it doesn't surprise me that they wrote what they did.

It is the exact same mentality that caused discrimination and hate activity against Jews, blacks, gays and just about anyone else you can think of other than whites. One need only look to how the Native Americans in this country were treated to see that much.

Now from the legal and practical stand point, anyone espousing actually using such a clause to keep an atheist from testifying are shooting themselves in the foot. What the brain scientists who passed such measures never contemplated was that one of their own ilk might some day wind up in the dock, with an atheist or agnostic the only witness who can clear them of a crime.

I wouldn't want to be the attorney or prosecutor asking a judge to enforce such a thing in any courtroom. I suspect that even if anyone tried to do so it would get shot down pretty quick. In addition, is seems to me that any non-believer who agreed to take an oath invoking "God", could arguably be accused of comitting perjury.

Another scenario that occured to me is this:

Suppose an atheist or agnostic just takes the oath with God in it and goes ahead and testifies either for or against a plaintiff/defendant. Later it becomes known to the presecutor or defense attorney that the witness in fact took the oath not believing in God. Would this then be legal grounds for an attempt to go for a re-trial or overturn a verdict?

Interesting stuff huh?

The Lone Ranger

On a related note, several states still have anti-blasphemy laws. James Randi has responded with a <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1995/0026.html" target="_blank">challenge</a> to these laws.

--Michael

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

Oresta

Having served on three juries in one of Michigan's county circuit courts, I can "affirm" that this is correct.

Edited to add: But it is news to me that Michigan still has a blasphemy law on the books.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

{fix tag}

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Buffman

Seeker630

A very insightful post.

I, also, have served on several juries, but in the State of Florida. One was a major, mass murder, case. Out of the large jury pool called in, I was the only one to refuse the "so help me God" oath in favor of the "I affirm." I sincerely suspect that sealed my fate as I was selected to serve on the jury and immediately sequestered for nearly two weeks...at rather low state wages. When I finally got home, I had to restock all the spoiled foods, thus incurring an additional hidden personal expenpense. However, it was a meaningless sacrifice compared to the ultimate sacrifice paid by those who unknowingly crossed the path of this convicted butcher/savage/piece of inhuman garbage. We convicted him of four deaths in Florida and afterward discovered that he had been accused of nine others in adjacent states.