Does an atheist have an advantage in certain legal situations? For instance, when one has to swear on the bible in court to tell the truth (seeing as you don’t believe in God or bible) or those insurance claims not covering 'acts of God’?
In other words, can an atheist use to his/her advantage that he/she does not believe in God? ie does not have to tell truth against the bible in court or can claim toward insurance companies that it wasn’t 'act of God’ seeing as you don’t believe in one.
Posted: September 27th 2008
Dave Hitt www
In US courts atheists are allowed to “affirm”, which is taking a non-religious oath to tell the truth.
However, the odds are good that at least a few jury members equate atheism with evil, so if I’m ever in that situation, I’ll be swearing on The Bible. And I’ll make it a point to be just as truthful and honest and the police and the prosecutor.
I can’t think of a single legal advantage to being an atheist in the US.
Posted: October 18th 2008
brian thomson www
My view of this is that telling the truth in a court of law is mandated by the “social contract” we all observe, as members of a society. Observing the stipulations of a contract is an ethical obligation, and does not need oaths, or religion, to enforce it. Should you choose to break the contract, you are no longer a member of the society. You might escape punishment under law, but you also lose the protection of the law.
I know that there are countries where the government and the people are (or seem to be) at war with each other, or the government exists for its own benefit, not that of the people. I think this calls for a re-examination of what those governments are actually there for. The court of law is a good indicator of the legitimacy of a government: in a just system, only criminals would feel any need to lie, oath or no oath.
Posted: October 4th 2008
Eric_PK
There are a couple of underlying assumptions that I find a bit offensive.
First, that religous people are going to tell the truth because they make a vow related to god.
And second, the atheists are looking for a way out of being truthful.
Beyond that, you do realize that “act of god” is just a phrase, not really an assertion that there is something divine involved.
Posted: October 1st 2008
Reed Braden www
I can think of many disadvantages, but not a single legal or political advantage of being an Atheist—at least, not in the US.
Posted: October 1st 2008
SmartLX www
No, at least not in the situations you mention.
Bible or not, an atheist still swears an oath to tell the truth. Lying under secular oath carries the same earthly penalty as lying under religious oath. It’s still perjury.
An “act of God” in the context of law and insurance has an entirely secular definition: an event entirely outside of human control. Floods and earthquakes are covered under “act of God” policies regardless of anyone’s beliefs.
I submit that it is actually the religious who enjoy legal advantages.
In some places where discrimination against any religion is illegal, it is possible to safely discriminate against atheists because it can be argued (truthfully) in court that atheism is not a religion. There is usually an extension to such laws to include the non-religious, but not always.
On a related topic, religious people and organisations can themselves discriminate against atheists, gays or anyone else and defend their right to do so, not only under free speech laws, but on the grounds that forcing them not to discriminate works against their beliefs and is itself religious discrimination.
Posted: September 28th 2008