vicarz | (no subject)

So I have this routine I do with court reporters, where I ask if they can please use an oath to which the person responding can just say "yes" without identifying themselves as picking one or the other. I did this on this past deposition.
Why?
Some religions, and some sects of xtianity, don't swear. The concept is they a) don't lie as a part of their required practice, so to swear is an implicit statement that at other times they lie, b) don't swear because it's an insult to pull god into it, or c) I dunno, religion is weird.
Affirm: Many oath givers ask people if they prefer to affirm - making them "out themselves" as some sort of not-swearing freak. Many don't want to identify themselves as using an "affirm," because this sets them apart as someone not of the mainstream religion or sect of the mainstream religion, or as someone who wants to commit to tell the truth but doesn't believe in god - making them honest, but "swear to god" or "on the bible" as moot. Problem there is people don't trust people with no religion at all, distrust people of other religions, and often misinterpret the hyper-technical affirm as dishonest and discount anything they say.

In real court, it sucks to be in the moral predicament. People want their testimony to count, so many "swear" who normally wouldn't swear just to avoid the jury rejecting their truthful testimony.
SO I tell all my court reporters to please do any oath, but in such a way that the response doesn't point out if the person swears or affirms.

My reporter agreed, as they all do, and recited the following:
"Do you swear or affirm, that the testimony you are about to give, is the whole and complete truth, under of penalty of perjury, so help you god?"

Janna got a kid robot plushie donut, and it just so happened it fits perfectly over the speedometer!