Can an atheist who is a witness refuse to take an oath to tell the truth in a court?
917068
No you cannot refuse.  But you are not asked to swear on a Bible.  You are asked if you solemnly avow that you will tell the truth and are expected to do so or face possible charges of perjury.
47837
I think I'd give him/her more credit.  By refusing, they held strong to their beliefs, something I see as a sign of good character (even if those beliefs do not match up to my own).  Either way, as a juror, I'd try to be as objective as possible.
884691
If the person is a Muslim, would you want them to swear on the bible? A holy book that they didn't believe in? How valid would that promise be?\n\nYours is a rather silly question in the first place. One of the guarantees we have is freedom of religion. You would violate this person's constitutional rights?
697287
They would not swear on a bible they would swear a solemn oath.  If they were to swear on a bible their testimony could be disregarded!
391256
"I will respect the right of any individual to chose not to believe in any form of divinity, without calling that person immoral, idiotic, illogical, or threaten them with any kind of eternal punishment."\n\n"I will respect the right of any individual to believe in any kind of divinity or deity they so wish, whether or not I doubt any such divinity or deity exists, and I will do so without calling that person illogical, idiotic or blind."\n\n"Furthermore, while I will stand up for my own right to believe or not believe in anything I so choose, I will not interfere with another's right to believe or not believe in anything they so choose, as along as they are not harming me or interfering with my rights." \n\n\n\nthe power of cut and paste i love it
185427
I believe all four are the same people, an education is brain surgery or rocket science is not required to come to this conclusion. (Speaking to him "them" ) Your denials do not impress and have carried little weight.  Do you "swear" you're not the same people?\n\nIf you really desire to discuss our beliefs vs your non-beliefs, why don't you do so with intelligent, lucid questions of substance. Not rude and misguided statements about having sexual relations with the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, or anyone else for that matter (bliblical figures or not). Or talk of having "Bob" in your freezer?\n\nYes, some speech and some other forms of expression are protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution. let's make it clear, you are not protected - the speech or form of expression is.\n\nNot only is promoting violence and making threatening statements in violations of the Terms and Conditions we all agree to before using this site, it is also against the law. \n\nJust as it is not legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, there are also very clear laws prohibiting the use of violent and threatening language against another, or using obscene language in a public forum (lewd and lascivious behavior?).\n\nI could care less if you disagree with me, and I would not seek to stifle your rights, except when you act contrary to law. And I'm not even speaking of the law prescribed by God. \n\nHow do you expect anyone to respect you as an "atheist" when you act as you do?
885476
The bible is only symbolic. You can swear an oath on anything, the point is not what you are swearing ON but rather WHAT you are swearing. You could swear and oath on Winnie the Pooh and if you lied on the stand it would still be perjury.
106889
For the record:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIt is easy for me to relate this to standing up for things I don't agree with, because that free press prints things every day that I do not agree with, but I would defend with my life their right to say it.  That's not just rhetoric:  I am perfectly serious.\n\nFreedom of speech, and of religion, are never more important than when we disagree.  I strongly take exception to people telling each other they should kill the infidel, especially since they would label me one.  But they have the right under both the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression to shout it to the heavans.  They do not, however, have the right to kill just because they have the right to speak about killing.\n\nIn fact, all of these rights are somewhat abridged, in order to afford others their rights.  For example, freedom of religion does not, with some rare and mostly harmless exceptions, permit one to do something (such as ritual sacrifice) that would be illegal if it was not done in the name of religion.  So a Muslim can talk about killing the infidel, but that does not confer a right to do it.\n\nSimilarly, there are practical limits on freedom of the press, or of speech more generally.  One classic example is enciting to riot.  If a speaker shouts for a crime to be commited and that crime is commited, the speaker is as guilty as the person whose hands were actually involved.  So be careful about standing before a crowd of rowdies and shouting for rape, loot pillage and burning.!
729420
Not believing in God is not a crime unless you are born to a certain religious belief.\n\nIts a matter of choice.  Just try to understand the consequence of the absence of faith.
277346
Anyone can sue, the question should be can the person be held for saying/writting it.  If it's true then you can't be for the simple reason it has to be false.  This is one of the reasons it's hard to sue since the person must show the statement is false, while the person defending only must show some reason that they believe it to be true.
579301
Hi- I am actually agnostic but I belong to the American Humanist Association and participate in a local humanist group in my area and many of the members are atheists. The American Humanist Association, Secular Humanists, and the Freedom from Religion foundation are all groups that I am aware of that are active in standing up for the rights of the nonreligious. They work to maintain the separation of church and state, a principle the country was founded on and that has helped people of different beliefs to peacefully coexist. If you are interested you might check out the American Humanist website and consider joining, they are a national organization but they list local groups where you could meet other like minded people on their site as well. The Secular Coalition is a similar organization but I think they are just a national organization at the moment. The Freedom from Religion foundation accepts donations that they use to help people who have been discriminated against due to not being religious file lawsuits. For example, recently they helped a family whose son was beaten up and refused admittance to the boy scouts after he declined to take a religious oath. \nThere are several online sites that I check with sometimes, I think Internet Infidels provides great information. Hope this is helpful!
296383
The answer is NO. But, you can't be forced to testify against your spouse.\n\nThe general rule is "The spousal privilege, also known as the marital communication privilege or marital privilege, is a form of privileged communication protecting the contents of communications between husband and wife. When applied, a court may not force one spouse to testify against the other.\n\nThe privilege is usually restricted to communications made during marriage and does not include communications made after divorce. In addition, courts usually do not permit an adverse spouse to invoke the privilege during a trial initiated by the other spouse or in the case of domestic abuse. Finally, courts may require that the communication relate specifically to communications about the marriage.\n\nSome courts distinguish between spousal privilege and marital communication. The distinction usually means that spousal privilege prevents one spouse from calling the other to testify to the detriment of the marital unit--this may occur in divorce proceedings or child custody disputes. Marital communication refers to the more general privilege.\n\nMarital privilege is based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony."\n\nWhat isn't mentioned is that the spouse being asked to testify is the one that holds the privilege and the spouse being testified against can't stop the testimony by invoking the privilege.
454373
No, he is not allowed there...\n\nMaybe he can go to Anti-Hell... But not hell...\n\nIn similar terms, maybe he can go to Anti-heaven... But not heaven...
496025
It depends on the judge/justice of the peace/magistrate.  Legally, you are entitled to insist that you have a right to confront all witnesses against you and since the only witness who has any firsthand knowledge of what you allegedly did is not available, the case cannot proceed and must be dismissed.  But it is entirely possible that the judge/JOTP/magistrate either (1) doesn't care or (2) doesn't know what that means, and will let the hearing proceed as the judge, prosecutor, chief witness, and fact finder...to which you can object to, and his only response will be argue it on appeal.
84066
you can not fully be a believer in anything without asking questions.  if you are blindly calling yourself a member of a religion without asking questions, you are not a real believer.  if you are not willing to ask questions then your faith is not strong.  only real belief is strong enough to withstand questioning.  so if someone does not or will not question then they cannot say they truly believe.  even religious teaching tells you to find the truth and gain knowledge.  the only way to do that is to question what you believe.  the apostles questioned their faith and they walked and talked with jesus.  st. augustine, st. thomas of aquinas, john the baptist, martin luther, and others all questioned their faith.  so do it and see where you really stand.  anyone who doesn’t is an idiot without the capability of thought or understanding who blindly follows anything.
637883
God doesn't hold the patent to those i'm afraid.\n\nMany atheists are moral & ethical people, so get off cloud 9.\n\nI can do whatever I want, but you know what, I choose not to.  Not out of fear, or god's retribution, but because I don't want to do harmful things.  Isn't that better, I'm not doing it for some distant reward, but simply because I want to.
502430
No, you are not being compelled by the court to go...I think the prosecutor screwed up, or defense counsel, by not issuing a subpoena. (I don't know which side needs your testimony) Normally, when you are called as a witness, the attorney (either for the defendant or the state) will contact you and go over what you will be testifying to. If you don't go, they may have another continuence granted and subpoena you then. I would contact the prosecutor's office and ask about your attendance. Most of the time the prosecutor and defense counsel reach a plea agreement before the trial and you won't testify anyway.