Judge requests religion-neutral oaths (radicals hitting Carolina where it hurts)

News & Record ^ | 3/12/04

[Libloather]

Judge requests religion-neutral oaths
3-12-04
Posted 8 a.m.

LEXINGTON (AP) — A district court judge has asked local officials to remove religious references, including oaths that end "so help me God" and a traditional blessing for the state and court, in courtrooms when he presides.

Judge James M. Honeycutt said in a letter that the court system is seeing an increasing number of people from other cultures that are not necessarily Christian.

"I believe that the burden should not be on those individuals to speak up and request an oath that does not mention God or use the Christian Bible," Honeycutt wrote.

Honeycutt is one of nine judges who preside over District Court sessions in the 22nd Judicial District, which includes Alexander, Davidson, Davie and Iredell counties. He wrote that his request applies only to his own sessions, not to those presided over by other judges.

Still, the decision rankled some in Davidson County, which is already embroiled in a fight over a sign reading "In God We Trust" on its government building.

"It's totally in opposition to the very basis of our constitution, the very basis for our laws," said Rick Lanier, a former member of the Davidson County Board of Commissioners and a member of a group that paid to install the sign.

"He's a judge. He should be subject to complying with the bylaws that we established and founded for our nation," Lanier said. "Because we are a Christian nation and we've been a Christian nation for 300 years, the thing that bothers me is, are we conforming to a minority?"

The county is fighting a federal lawsuit filed last summer by two Thomasville men who want the sign removed, saying it violates the First Amendment because it endorses a particular religious viewpoint. About 18,000 people signed petitions in support of the sign.

In North Carolina courts, witnesses have the option of reciting an oath that ends, "so help me God" or an affirmation that includes no religious references. Similar options apply to witnesses signing affidavits and defendants waiving their rights to court-appointed attorneys.

Bailiffs open each court session with a declaration that ends: "God save the state and this honorable court."

Honeycutt asked to remove the phrases "so help me God" and "God save the state and this honorable court," effective April 5.

He said his action was intended to "use an oath that does not ask a person to affirm a Christian religious standpoint to be sworn to testify in court." He also said it would help speed the process when many people of diverse beliefs need to be sworn in at the same time.

"It's just much easier," he said Thursday after hearing cases in Statesville. "The way I'm going to have them do it is raise your right hand. If a person lies, no matter what oath they've taken, they've committed perjury."

Oaths for public officials, court witnesses and other public figures are spelled out in state law. Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, said that state officials are reviewing Honeycutt's letters.

So is Brian Shipwash, Davidson County's clerk of court, who opposes the new wording because he believes it violates tradition and detracts from his authority over court clerks.

"We have nine judges in the district, and when one judge goes off on a tangent, you could have nine different rules in nine different courts," Shipwash said.

Seth H. Jaffe, the managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, the oaths are constitutional as long as witnesses and defendants have a choice, though Honeycutt's letters weren't clear about whether they would still have one under his request.

"If someone has a choice one way or the other, then changing the default really doesn't change the choice," Jaffe said.

[billbears]

No he's up for election in 2006.

[Rebellans]

"...If a person lies, no matter what oath they've taken, they've committed perjury."

Unless, of course, it's "just about sex."

[schmelvin]

Wait a minute. Isn't an oath considered a sacred vow, and if you don't swear to God, then your words are not really an oath at all?

[Libloather]

...then your words are not really an oath at all?

Sounds like a certain judge needs to be neutered...

[little jeremiah]

Plus, the whole argument that "not everyone is a Christian" is just camoflage. Secularists just plain hate God, whichever style of house He is worshipped in, name He is called, day of the week is special to His worshippers, and so on. God is the English word for the Supreme Author of all people including atheists.

They are pretending it's a sectarian thing when it's just hatred and rebellion against God.

If someone is truly non-sectarian yet respects other peoples' religions, they take no offense at other peoples' expressions of religion. People like this idiot are the exact opposite.

So the two percent (or whatever it is) atheists and secularists get to offend everyone else? Atheism trumps religious believers? That's constitutional?

My ***.

[philetus]

perfect

[azhenfud]

If a man swears by nothing greater than himself, what of significance has he sworn by?

[goldstategop]

Yep... Absolute Secularism is the Official State Religion.

[reg45]

I kind of like "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Bill Clinton"

You can't say that, the 'RATS think Bill Clinton is God!

[mykdsmom]

NC Ping!!!

[mykdsmom]

I just finished reading Persecution by David Limbaugh. I highly recommend it.

MKM

[Gritty]

Judge James M. Honeycutt said in a letter that the court system is seeing an increasing number of people from other cultures that are not necessarily Christian.

Uh, OK, Your Honor.

I guess that settles it. People from "other cultures" are moving in - vast numbers of them illegally - so let's change our culture to accomodate them.

This pitiful excuse for a judge needs to be voted out of office and find another line of work where he isn't representing anybody but himself, as he is now!

[aimhigh]

Christians are forbidden from taking oaths by Jesus. Therefore, removing a reference to God from Satan's oath is a good thing.

Jesus said, "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35nor by the earth, .... But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Okay. Just shoot the critter up with sodium pentithaul (I don't know about the spelling-truth serum...duh..) and ask if they plan to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[gcruse]

Whatever happened to, "I swear or otherwise affirm under penalty of perjury..."?

[gcruse]

The "separation of church and state" stuff is getting old.

Hear, hear.  People who want to worship in church should go there.
People who have to deal with the state should not have to deal with someone else's religion at the same time.

[Trillian]

"I swear to tell the truth, so help me box of cherrios."
Hahaha this just cracked me up so hard!

[little jeremiah]

Straw man. In this country the majority of people - including the founders - were Christians, so the Bible has always been the scripture of choice. If I moved to Pakistan, your question would make sense.

Personally, I have a couple of copies of the Koran and used to read it on the odd occasion. But not since 9-11, I just don't feel like it somehow.