Posted: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:00 am
December 30, 2006
Honorable David E. Connell
Benton County Circuit Court
P.O. Box 1870
Corvallis, OR 97339-1870
Dear Judge Connell:
SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS OATHS
My name is Timothy Leslie. I am a longtime Corvallis resident, and I am currently serving a two-month term as a juror for Benton County Circuit Court.
On Dec. 19, 2006, I was called to serve in your courtroom for a one-day trial (TM0520709, State v John D. Smartt). Although I forfeited a day's pay to serve on this jury, I was happy to fulfill my obligation as a citizen of Benton County. I was not happy, however, to find myself swearing an oath that appears to violate the Oregon Constitution's provisions separating government and religion.
On two separate occasions in your courtroom - once during voir dire and again while being impaneled - I was placed in a group situation that required me to raise my right hand and swear an oath that concluded with the words "so help me God." I found the reference to God in this oath to be both offensive and presumptuous. I was not given any prior notice that these oaths would include a religious vow, nor was I given the opportunity to abstain or to affirm a secular alternative. Because I am not a religious person, I was surprised and disturbed by this lack of respect for my beliefs.
Although I was too embarrassed to render an objection during the swearing-in procedures, I am writing now to communicate my displeasure with the oath. For me, swearing the oath felt like a coerced confession of faith to someone else's God. While I can assume that you would have permitted me to affirm a secular oath had I chosen to disrupt the proceedings, I am disappointed that the court automatically presumed my belief in a deity and placed upon me the burden to object.
Before this experience, I had naively assumed that affirmations of one's religious faith had been banished long ago from Oregon's courtrooms. It appears that this is exactly what the framers of Oregon's Constitution had intended. Article I, Sect. 6 of the Oregon Bill of Rights states: "No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, or juror in consequence of his opinions on matters of religeon (sic); nor be questioned in any Court of Justice touching his religeous (sic) belief to affect the weight of his testimony." Article I, Sect. 7 states: "The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such an oath or affirmation may be administered."
It is my belief that the oath administered to jurors and witnesses in your courtroom violates the intent, if not the letter, of the law because it does not treat all citizens equally with regard to religious or philosophical convictions. A founding principle of our nation is the separation of government and religion, not the "accommodation" of religion by government. The only way for government to accomplish this is by maintaining neutrality on matters of religious belief.
Some will argue that references to God in courtroom oaths are merely rituals and non-religious, and that such references should continue to be allowed due to long customary usage. The Supreme Court of the United States has used this concept of "ceremonial deism" since 1963 to assess exemptions from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the law. I believe it is disingenuous and serves only to appease a religious majority in this nation. If you believe that most citizens today regard such references to God as merely ritual, I invite you to imagine the public's response if you were to substitute the phrase "ceremonial deity" for the word "God" in your oath.
As you know, the expectation that jurors will swear an oath to God is a remnant of English common law, in which no one but a believer in God could serve on a jury or testify as a witness. Judge Connell, isn't it possible that a defendant who is a non-believer might be justified in fearing your oath amounts to a de facto religious test for jurors and witnesses, as it once did? And isn't it possible that such a defendant might rightly fear discrimination inside your courtroom for failing to profess a similar belief in God?
An oath that contains any hint of a religious test is - by its very nature - exclusionary. Like a Confederate battle flag flying over a statehouse in the South, such an oath is a shameful relic of past wrongs. It does not deserve to be preserved, despite its long customary usage.
A federal appeals court ruled in 1991 that it was unconstitutional for a judge to compel an atheist prospective juror to either swear or affirm, since either form of oath-taking could be seen as religious. Today, most states, including Oregon, do not require any mention of God in their rules of evidence. In fact, Oregon law provides that "the opportunity for jury service shall not be denied or limited on the basis of race, national origin, gender, age, religious belief, income, occupation or any other factor that discriminates against a cognizable group in this state."
In a Nov. 16, 2004, article by the Associated Press, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adam Schwartz was quoted as follows: "If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs." I agree wholeheartedly. I believe it is time for the judges in Benton County Circuit Court - and those in every other court in the State of Oregon - to remove the words "so help me God" from its oaths for jurors and witnesses.
I hope you will take the time to seriously consider my request. I look forward to your response on this matter.
Respectfully yours,
Timothy C. Leslie