There are 4 messages totalling 105 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Episode Discussion: False Witness (3) 2. Scheduling Episode Discussion: Cherry Blossom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:25:12 +0200 From: P J <blue_twingo772@y.......> Subject: Re: Episode Discussion: False Witness From: gwatson2: > It's one thing to give a quick, easy lie; and then to repeat it simply because it's the answer that everyone wants from him. But, in the courtroom, after taking that oath, he's lying before his God. < That's a good point. I hadn't taken that factor into consideration. On another note, I find it amazing how easy he slips into the lie. It shows that it has become second nature to him to lie to mortals in order to hide what he is. I wonder if he actually is aware of that. Petra. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:03:48 -0400 From: gwatson2 <gwatson2@r.......> Subject: Re: Episode Discussion: False Witness McLisa wrote: > I don't know what Canadian practice is as to oaths for witnesses, but I > just finished > my fourth stint as a jury member. This was in two different states, one of > them the > very Bible-Belt South Carolina. Nobody swore on a Bible. In both states > the oath > included "swear or affirm" and ended "so help you God." I've only been sworn in once, and that was here in Toronto. The clerk certainly had a Bible, though I can't recall offhand whether the other people actually put their hands on it when they took the oath. Before each person started the process, the clerk asked them whether they wished to swear or affirm; and what her words were after that depended on your answer. I affirmed; and (obviously) there was no Bible. But there was also no reference to any deity. It went, as I recall, something like "Do you affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." How can they put in "so help you God" if someone is affirming? I *could* not, in good conscience, take such an oath. If they said, "Do you...etc. etc." and finished "so help you God", I guess I'd have to answer "No". Which I don't imagine they'd like (and I *hate* causing fuss like that). But it wouldn't be contempt of court, though I suppose they'd probably like to call it that. It would be a great respect for the court, except for not being able in good conscience to agree to having a god (any god) put in the swearing. I know that the U.S. has a Bill of Rights; but I don't know its details. Doesn't it guarantee freedom of conscience? I thought Americans had more or less the same rights we do in Canada. Greer gwatson2@r....... http://ca.geocities.com/gwatson2@rogers.com/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:05:32 -0400 From: "Phillips, Tim" <Tim.Phillips@s.......> Subject: Scheduling Episode Discussion: Cherry Blossom Hello, Cherry Blossom is next. May 22nd is the day. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:01:24 -0600 From: Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......> Subject: Re: Episode Discussion: False Witness As a Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) in the most recent federal election, I was equipped to swear electors, or to let them solemnly affirm an affirmation. The few that needed to do anything in that line chose to affirm. (I did have my Bible, in case any chose to swear; it also served the purpose of covering the top of the ballot box, so that the elector didn't put in their own ballot before I'd removed the first counterfoil.) I assume that the oath in the episode was for dramatic purposes; perhaps Nick feared (falsely today, but 60 years ago, correctly) that his testimony would not be taken seriously if he chose to affirm. Your humble & obedient servant, Angela Gottfred ------------------------------ End of FORKNI-L Digest - 14 May 2007 to 15 May 2007 (#2007-49) **************************************************************
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |