I just watched a segment of Scarborough Country on MSNBC where Joe was discussing faith. Joe was his usual sanctimonious self, a trait I find so nauseating I rarely am able to stomach watching him for long. However tonight he was discussing one of my most favorite topics, religion and I steeled myself to watch taking some solace in the arguments of the secular guests he had on in opposition to the wingnuts.
The thing I most wanted to comment on here was the fact that the wingnuts think secularists basically have no business being offended by the ten commandments being displayed in a court. Their reasoning went something like ... we should just ignore it. They seemed to feel that we are offended by it. Well we are, but it goes much much deeper then that and while I suspect they know it, they will no doubt continue to ignore it.
I am not as offended by the dispays as I am THREATENED by them. Any atheist would tell you the same thing.
A few years ago I was in a car accident where a woman ran a red light and hit us broadside resulting in a rather serious injury to me as a passenger in the car that was hit. I was advised to seek the aid of a lawyer as I was suffering chronic pain and there were also the possibility of long term complications from my injury. Long and short of it was that I ended up suing the woman.
When I was deposed during discovery, which is where you are asked questions by the opposing council under oath prior to trial, I was asked to swear on the bible. I had previously discussed this with my husband and had decided that I would not hide my lack of faith as a matter of principle. I asked instead to affirm, which they quickly and graciously allowed me to do but even so, I squirmed internally while doing it. I kept wondering if, by affirming, I had somehow hurt my case. My lawyer assured me that it was fine.
One year later and the trial date approached. Once again the the swear or affirm conflict reared it's ugly head. It was to be a trial by jury and whatever I decided to do would be done in sight of those 6 jurors, whose own religious opinions/prejudices would remain private. I again discussed the issue with my lawyer and my husband and while I was told it "shouldn't" make any difference I could see that my lawyer was doing a little internal squirming of his own. He was aware of my very strong atheism and tried reassuring me that it was perfectly ok to affirm. No one would hold it against me, the jury would understand ... yada yada yada ... but I could sense an uneasiness in him now that it had come to trial. An uneasiness he never voiced to me except perhaps in his body language. I am certain to this day that he was never really sure what I was going to do on the stand until I finally did it and I can still see the look of relief on his face as I sold out.
I had invested a significant amount of money to proceed with the case and risked losing my house if I were not to prevail, so after much soul searching, I decided to take the path of least resistance. It wasn't worth risking the case over. Something I am sure the wingnuts on Scarborough would have applauded. But to me I felt dirty. I felt like I lied, even tho while swearing on the bible I was privately affirming to myself to tell the truth.
Fact is when you post things like the ten commandments in a court of law a place where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state it can be VERY intimidating to someone who is atheistic. The uncertainty as to whether they would be given a fair hearing irregardless of their disbelief is too strong. The prejudice against those with no faith is a constant undercurrent in today's society and it is amplified in a court of law. Even producing the bible and asking someone to basically declare their faith while under oath is in itself a terrible invasion of privacy. My faith or lack of it was in no way relevant to my case and yet it became a HUGE issue for me. It shouldn't have been that way.
To swear or affirm should never been an issue. The only logical choice would be for all parties to be treated equally and fairly with respect for all beliefs. The only option that should be allowed in a court of law should be to affirm to tell the truth. No book required.
The religious would probable claim that I was somehow threatening their right to practice their religion by having such a policy but I just don't buy it. Swearing on a bible is not practicing their religion. It is making a declaration to tell the truth with the book as a symbol to enforce their truth telling. If they are true believers no book should be required.
IA
PS: In case you are wondering, I won the case in true hollywood fashion with a surprise last minute witness coming forth after the trial had started. It was very dramatic and totally hollywood. I would never have believed it if it hadn't happened to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment