Hi, I spent the morning in Court on Jury Service, very boring. Anyway... while there they advised us we would get the option to either swear an oath on the bible or say an affirmation. Yada, yada... Just wondering why they don't make everyone say the affirmation? Why is our Court system exempt from separation of church and state? Giving us the option to choose the affirmation seems like a false compromise to me. Any thoughts?

http://www.legislatio...

"Members of the jury: Do each of you swear by Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?"

To me the only problem here is the assumption that swearing to an Almighty God is equivalent to solemnly, sincerely, and truly declaring and affirming. However is it unreasonable to assume that? If you believe specifically in an "Almighty" capital "G" god, surely you take vows to him seriously.

Otherwise, it could be seen as an unnecessary, outdated complication to the process. In that case it's one amongst many and one of the more benign ones IMO.

Regardless of the semantics, I would be surprised if your choice of vow affected your legal obligations.

Really it just doesn't bother me.

P.S ENJOI UR BORING JURY DUTY

I think one reason is that in NZ there is no 'separation of church and state.' Indeed, our head of state (the Queen) is also head of the Church of England, and is officially crowned monarch in a church ceremony. I can't remember her official style, but I think it still includes the phrase 'by the grace of god.'

In the US, separation of church and state in enshrined in the constitution (the establishment clause). Here with no written constitution, and a constitutional monarchy that interweaves religion into our government, we are stuck with some degree of religious intrusion into the affairs of state. Perhaps another good argument for becoming a republic with a written constitution?

Looked it up - The Queen's official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" (Royal Titles Act 1974) so the Imaginary One is integrated into our government at the highest level!!

It's a hangover from the days when people used to think that their 'imaginary friend of choice' was watching everything they did, and thereby felt compelled to tell the full truth having sworn on a copy of their 'fairy tale of choice'. You can swear on any 'holy' document that you like, apparently our Muslim friends are particularly susceptible to this.
I actually feel happier that religious nutters are asked to swear on their holy books, because if they just took an affirmation, then they may feel that they actually have a 'free pass' to deceive.

John