In January of 2007 the Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit should be allowed to go forward.
The bill has not yet been passed but if it continues to go forward then witnesses taking an oath would not be required to take the oath using a Bible.
The new bill would allow the person taking the oath to place a hand "upon the Bible or any text sacred to the party's religious faith." However, the court would not be required to provide such texts, but it could accept donations. The bill goes on to say that if it is not appropriate to the person's faith then the person taking the oath is not required to say "so help me God."
2007-03-19 13:10:51 · 3 answers · asked by Faerie loue 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That would appear to indicate that the particular area where that bill is under consideration still uses the Bible. Based on the information in your question, it could apply to a single small town. Without some details, your question has no useful meaning.
2007-03-19 13:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the bible is agood thing but peopele still lie under oath its the point of knowing are they telling the truth by getting more facts
on the case.
2007-03-19 20:17:36 · answer #2 · answered by luvchocolatethang 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gee... That makes sense.
One could already affirm, but you can't swear on any texts other then the bible. Stupid.
though swearing on a book that explicitly commands one never to swear on anything but to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay seems rather stupid too...
2007-03-19 20:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋