Posted on 06/30/2004 9:23:19 AM PDT by NYer
POSTED: 5:45 PM EDT June 29, 2004
In an order signed by Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., the court sided with officials from Davidson and Iredell counties, who complained that Judge James M. Honeycutt had taken it upon himself to change courtroom procedures set down in state law.
The court ordered Honeycutt to stop using an oath he had revised himself to remove the phrase "so help you God," and administer the oath that is spelled out in state law. Honeycutt also had stopped asking that the oath be sworn on a Bible.
Though the standard oath in court includes references to God, state law also allows that "when a person to be sworn shall have conscientious scruples against taking an oath" he may instead "affirm" that he is telling the truth.
The Supreme Court also ordered the judge to allow bailiffs to open court with a proclamation that includes the customary phrase, "God save the state and this honorable court." Honeycutt had threatened to hold Iredell County bailiffs in contempt of court if they have continued to use the phrase, according to a complaint by Brian Shipwash, the Davidson County clerk of court; Rena Turner, the Iredell County clerk of court; and Phillip Redmond, the Iredell County sheriff.
In March, Honeycutt told court officials that he planned to begin using a neutral oath in his courtrooms the following month because of the increasing number of non-Christians served by the court system.
In May, Lake called Honeycutt's decision to act on his own "deplorable," but said he lacked the authority to reverse Honeycutt's orders unless someone filed a complaint.
Honeycutt did not immediately return a message seeking comment. A court clerk said he was hearing cases Tuesday afternoon.
District courts hear traffic and misdemeanor cases, civil cases like divorce, custody and child support and lawsuits involving less than $10,000.
Honeycutt was elected in 1990; he is one of nine judges who preside over District Court in Alexander, Davidson, Davie and Iredell counties -- an area south of Winston-Salem. His term expires in 2006.
Shipwash said court clerks in Davidson and Iredell counties and bailiffs employed by Redmond's department have all refused to abide by Honeycutt's order.
"Basically the judge swore in his own witnesses," Shipwash said. "I think this decision returns this court to the people instead of like a dictatorship of one judge."
It is amazing how many traditions our Founding Fathers outlawed by writing the First Amendment and yet they were completely unaware that they outlawed them. If the Founding Fathers intended such an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment, why did they adopt so many 'unConstitutional' practices? I guess the real genuis of our Founding Fathers is that they had no idea what they meant when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
Why is he still on the bench after breaking the law?
Judge Roy Moore was removed!
Yeah, it's kind of sad. I'd like to see a religion-neutral courtroom, that's not the place for religion, but I'd also like to smack down activist judges who seem to like to take things into their own hands. If change comes, it comes from the legislative branch.
He's still on the bench because he backed down when the state SC overruled him. He's an atheist who just tried to impose his religion on the state legislature and on those in his court.
For sure - I guess it's only punishable for opening the door to God, closing the door on Him is OK...
Memo to Bush: Potential SCOTUS nominee.
"Your Honor, I can't hear you, could you please turn the pump off!!"
There are plenty of atheists who attend churches only for social or political reasons. Look at Bill Clinton. Any judge who is so hostile to God that he is willing to defy the law to banish Him from the court, is no believer.
The majority of this country is Christian.
MAJORITY RULES!!
And the "PINO" Priests in name only, who molested young boys were involved in the Catholic church, so your point is?
My point is that too many morons are quick to shout "ATHEIST!" when someone dares to object to government-mandated religious mantras, not for a moment taking the time to realise that there are religious people who believe that certain sacred rituals, such as prayer, are trivialized when they're turned into government functions or that there are those who honestly believe that it is blasphemous to swear "so help me God" (for reasons, such as, Matthew 5:33-37).
More comments here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162645/posts
From the posted article --
In fact, he went even further than this --
It has long been standard procedure in courtrooms to allow affirmation instead of an oath. Anybody with objections to swearing the usual oath has always been free to tell the judge, at which point that witness is permitted to simply affirm. Honeycutt went way beyond his authority and, according to his stated rationale, it was not to accomodate Christians but to cater to non-believers.
Second: The Matthew passage you've quoted does not forbid the taking of judicial oaths to God. Anyone who has seriously studied this subject knows this. Non-believers forever make the mistake of pulling an isolated passage out of the New Testament to "prove" Jesus taught something that He didn't.
Here is a reasonably clear and brief explanation of the meaning of Matthew 5:33-37 for you:
An oath is not intrinsically evil. Jehovah bound himself under an oath to Abraham when he promised to bless the patriarch (cf. Heb. 6:13-14). With reference to the priesthood of Christ, God "hath sworn, . . . 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'" (Psa. 110:4).
Since the Lord is perfect, one must conclude that an oath per se is not sinful.
What, then, is the meaning of James' prohibition?
Since it is apparent that a respectful, sincere, legal oath is not condemned in the Scriptures, the prohibition of James 5:12 (cf. also Mt. 5:33-37) must pertain to something else. A different kind of swearing must be in view in these passages. What is it? Let me introduce the testimony of several respected scholars.
J.T. Mueller, a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, describes sinful swearing as that which is "false, blasphemous and frivolous" as well as the assumption of oaths regarding "uncertain things" (Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, 382).
Professor D. Edmond Hiebert says that the New Testament condemns the "indiscriminate, light, or evasive use of oaths" (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, 1219).
Guy N. Woods noted that oaths that are condemned involve the "flippant, frivolous and profane" use of God's name. Woods pointed out that the prohibitions of Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 have no reference to sincere judicial oaths. His discussion of these matters is very thorough (Commentary on James, 288-294).
That all oaths of every kind were not forbidden is evident within the context of Jesus' discussion of this theme in the sermon on the mount. In the context of condemning certain oaths, the Lord said, "but you shall perform unto the Lord your oaths" (Mt. 5:33).
Finally, as to the Pledge of Allegiance, there is nothing in this historic pledge that is at variance with the principles of Christianity. It is simply an affirmation of devotion to the laws of the government under which we live. This is entirely consistent with the instruction of Romans 13:1ff (cf. 1 Pet. 2:13), which enjoins obedience and respect for the "powers that be."
Of course one's allegiance to his nation is always subservient to his loyalty to God, and whenever the two come into conflict, obedience to the Lord takes precedence (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).
"so help me God" is to remind the witness/suspect/etc that they are swearing to tell God the truth, and that God knows all and sees all and therefore you may not lie to God. That was the intent of the oath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.