I have a big problem equating "the law and justice" . I'm referring specifically to my society. Here we have an adversarial legal system. IE two opposing sides, one prosecuting, one defending.They each have access to the same evidence,but argue opposite positions.
My perception is that law is about social order and maintaining the status quo,and has little to do with justice. Of course justice often IS done.However,that is by happy accident rather than design.
As is my wont when this issue comes up, I've included a link to a Youtube clip from a US law lecture on the Fifth Amendment," Don't Talk to Cops" (part 1)
I don't know but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the perception that atheists may be one or more of the following:
1. anarchists that are working to undo all inherited social contracts
2. proponents of free-love society and legalization of all recreational drugs
3. people who always blame society for all the bad choices that individuals make
4. post-modernists that have no predictable stance on right and wrong
(did you mean "The Aversion of Certain Courts to Select or Seat Non-Theist Witnesses and/or Jurors" ? I am thinking that "aversion to refrain" is sort of a double negative... I could be wrong)
It would be helpful if you were to expand a bit on your comment/query. Right now, I have no idea what you mean by "certain courts" or how they set about "refrain(ing) from non-theist witnesses and/or jurors.".
It is my understanding that jurors are drawn randomly from lists of registered voters and as such cannot be identified as theist or non-theist. Perhaps an individual could be identified as a non-theist during Voir Dire but I don't think they would stand any greater chance of being rejected than would, say, a college professor or a scientist. In high profile cases, there are jury selection consultants who will, for a fee, prepare a profile of the ideal juror. Often, especially in cases involving technology, an engineer or a scientist would not be an ideal juror.
Witnesses are selected because they have something factual to contribute to the deliberations; to exclude someone from testifying simply because they are a non-theist would be grounds for a mistrial.
So, tell us, where are these conventions being over run?