Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
A good 13 or so years ago, I got called for jury duty. I was never empaneled, but I got a taste for what a Quaker faces when the bailiff swore us in. "Uh-oh." I had to ask the bailiff to make an accommodation for me, since I will not take oaths. Apparently the courts are agreeable about asking jurors to swear OR affirm that they will tell the truth, and the bailiff was happy to make the language adjustment for me.
Not so with a hostile attorney during the voir dire. He grilled me on my membership in this thing called the Religious Society of Friends. What is that? What do you mean, you can't swear!? How can you perform your duties as a juror if you don't swear!!?
Rather intimidating, that kind of grilling. And I was simply a prospective juror. I felt I got a taste for what defendants and witnesses must endure, which I felt improved my empathy for all involved in the court case.
Now I have been called up again. My previous experience will help, but I find myself contemplating another practice for which I have found no Quaker protocol. Perhaps Friends can instruct me:
What is the point of raising our right hand? Is it, too, a symbol of a human double standard regarding telling the truth? Is this contrary to our understanding of what God calls us to?
I don't wish to get bogged down in minutiae--a silly poor gospel--so I am especially eager to hear from our Quaker scholars as to whether this has ever been an issue for Friends. If not, I will go about my business as a jurist with a light heart that I am following God.
In NY they give you the option to affirm. I have only been called for grand jury duty, which is very long and laborious, and fortunately they let me 0ut of that.
Thank you Marianna and Caroline.
I can only say this: "I solemnly attest and affirm to tell the truth." My wife and her eldest sister, as well as the Mennonite parochial school principal, had to appear before the court. It was some theft work at the school, which was locked and broken into. They had to be questioned and "sworn in," but interestingly the judge nor any other active person causing this procedure ever once had them lay a hand on the Bible, raise the hand, or pronounce the oath. Just, "Do you solemnly attest and affirm to tell the truth. . .etc"
When my wife was sent for, I asked if I could be seated in the rear of the building, which thing was granted me. I had to try hard not to laugh in court, because they asked my wife if she spoke English! (That is the only language she knoweth, and I only fragments of German or PA German.)
This was the only time in my life, and at the place in my Journey with God where I would not "Swear at all. . . but let your yea (yes) be yea and your nay (no) nay. For whatsoever is more than this cometh of the evil (or evil one)." I don't have any other happenings than this one.
I can understand what Friend Karen is meaning as well, why soil and pollute God's Gentle People's minds with their notions or on their behalf. . . I can relate, somewhat to thy statements, but cannot provide an answer straightway.
I have had only this one incident as to experience, and that was indirectly through my wife. Hope this is of some usefulness.
Timothy
Karen's pointed queries remind us that we are obligated to love our neighbors as ourselves. We don't get a pass. Being Quakers requires us to remember this commandment.
Judge not. Remember who Jesus hung out with.
Paula: Well put!
I always prefer to remember the one who betrayed Jesus with a kiss. It was his friend as I seem to remember. It still . . . .happens . . . .today.
Dear Friends,
I believe we have gotten far afield from the original discussion about swearing and jury duty. I have felt heavy-hearted about some of the posts here, and as a result I decided it was best to delete comments that were disparaging to specific Friends.
We are here to love one another, and to learn from one another. Sometimes we are faced by unpleasant truths about ourselves, and my experience is that we sometimes have periods of growth in the Spirit as a result. But I feel that we must be mindful about offering ministry out of love, lifting each other up and treating each other with gentleness, even when we feel anything but gentle and loving. Name calling has no place within our Religious Society. Whatever we do to the least among us, we do to God.
Yours in Faith and Love, Paula
"Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways; Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find In deeper rev'rence praise." John Greenleaf Whittier, Quaker Poet: 1807—1892.
"And let the Peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him." (Colossians 3: 15—17)
Peace be to ye all.
Timothy
I just want to respond to Howard's comment about "judging" others. So, judgment has many different meanings, as I am sure you are aware. Judgment can mean: discernment, wisdom, good sense, condemnation, opinion, and more. When a judge, jury, parent or teacher has to judge a defendant, child or student, "judgment" is (or should be) most closely related to discernment. We have these rules or laws that our society or family or classroom has agreed are necessary. Did you break them? How severely? Were there extenuating circumstances? What is the appropriate punishment? Every parent does this and should do this - with love. Every teacher does this and should do this - with compassion. Every judge and jury does this and should do this - with a solemn sense of gravity and with justice tempered by mercy.
This process is worlds away from "judge not, lest ye be judged." That type of "judgment" is condemnation and contempt. It is the judgment that allows us to say, " I am better than you. You are despicable, less than human. You deserve whatever you get, because you are rotten through and through and unworthy of my compassion." That type of judgment is what allows people to snicker at an overdosing drug addict on the train, or walk past an unconscious homeless person on the street.
God does not say that we should not know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice. Of course we should - but we should also show mercy to those whose feet have left the path of righteousness. Having a jury "sitting in judgment" doesn't even enter into it. (And if you're thinking about Jesus and the adulteress, remember that that was a jury the way a KKK lynch mob in 1940 Mississippi was a jury.)
As an aside, the reason you have to affirm and you can never justify not affirming based on religious reasons is that by affirming you acknowledge that you accept the penalty of perjury if you are not telling the truth. The court has to do that separately in order to give you notice of the consequences of lying. It would probably violate due process, a right every person has under the US Constitution, to not force someone to affirm and then toss him in jail for telling falsehoods.
Comment
© 2023 Created by QuakerQuaker. Powered by
You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!
Join QuakerQuaker