Straight Dope Message Board

[chunda21]

Query - OK, atheists are allowed to make an affirmation under penalty of perjury, but what about devout Christians who actually READ the Bible? Hypocritical, ain't it, to take an oath on a document that explicitly forbids the practice of taking oaths in any way, shape or form. Don't take my word for it - read Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 34-37. D'Oh!

[betenoir]

Why don't most Christains follow that part of the Bible?

It's because Matt. 5:34-37 is actually part of the old dispensation which was abolished by Jesus when he...no, wait, it isn't...

It's because it's a legal and not a moral commandment...although legal is kind of the point in this case...ummm....

It's because it's a parable. That's it. It's a parable.


I imagine Christians who actually know how to read will just take the affirmation (which seems in keeping with Matt. 5:37) and have to put up with being considered a goddless heathen by their more ingnorant breatheren.


(Tangentially, I would like to see the option given of swearing on ones genitals like the ancient Romans did. Even athiests could take that seriously.)

[PeterR]

Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, Amish, and, I'm sure, many other groups refuse to swear to God. Quakers consider it blasphemous, taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Even Quakers who don't consider themselves Christians generally won't swear. They believe we should respect a person's word, that a man's word is the highest thing he has to offer. Forcing a person to swear to the truth demeans their humanity.

BTW - did Richard Nixon, raised Quaker, affirm his oath of office?

-Pete

[SCSimmons]

Funny, ain't it? Many years ago, as a fine upstanding Christian in the Church of the Brethren, I would have refused to swear on the Bible. Today, as an atheist, I probably wouldn't mention it. I'll swear on a Bible, the Koran, a copy of the Necronomicon, whatever they want. Other people's fantasies don't really concern me ...

Oh! Sorry-I thought this was the GD forum!

[phlebert]

I think it is kind of funny, you know? Think about it. Atheists, agnostics, pantheists, theosophists, pagans and martians (I fall in there somewhere) shouldn't really give a burning bush what book they are swearing on... whether it is the bible, the qu'ran, the torah or The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (my personal pick). Think of it this way, it puts the zealots (read: opposite of godless heathens) at ease, thinking we might be inclined to tell the truth. After all, if we don't they get to be all spiritually superior and comfy thinking we will burn in hell (not to mention languishing in prison) which, I am told, is a sufficiently nasty place to keep them in line (hell, that is).

Not too surprising a practice since our country started printing "in god we trust" on all its cash around 1935, only later to make it a "national motto". Luckily "god" is left up to our own interpretation. Just like the bible. Hey, I know... we should swear on a big pile of cash. After all, it talks about god too and everyone takes it seriously.

By the way, I feel the religious angle is separate from the virtue of telling the truth, which the major religions of the world have much to learn about.

from O Brother, Where Art Thou
Tommy Johnson: I had to be up at that there crossroads last midnight, to sell my soul to the devil.
Ulysses Everett McGill: Well, ain't it a small world, spiritually speaking. Pete and Delmar just been baptized and saved. I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated.

[PeterR]

I think that many states, until last century, would not let atheists testify under oath for the reasons you gave. Because they had no expectation of divine retribution, they could lie with impunity.

AFAIK, the "affimation" variant was originally put in for religious groups that won't swear, not for athiests, although I expect a little research might be needed to verify this.

[Davebear]

Wow! What an incredible display of christian snobbery, on Cecil's part. So many presumptions of superiority and expressions of contemptuous patronization in such a short article it's almost mind boggling.

"godless heathens"? I believe most heathens have gods. They just aren't YOUR gods.

"the funny oath you're about to hear"? Actually, it's a much better oath than the overtly christian one normally used, since most people taking the oath don't believe in the god it refers to, any more than they believe in the Santa Claus.

"should be considered legally valid"? Of course, it should. Because it is. Save the condescending attitude for something that deserves it.

"After the witness replies, 'You got it, Jack'". Sure. Because godless heathens are, by definition, wiseasses who are incapable of dealing seriously with serious issues.

"everyone sits back and pretends that ..." Pretends? Are you sure they're pretending? It couldn't be that no one takes that "wrath of a vengeful Almighty" crap seriously, any more. Could it? On the other hand, most people are pretty convinced that prison is real.

If I wanted smug, smirking, self-satisfied, self-righteous, my-god-is-bigger-better-faster-than-your-god bullsh*t attitude, I'd go to church. I expect better from Cecil.

[hajario]

Originally posted by betenoir
Tangentially, I would like to see the option given of swearing on ones genitals like the ancient Romans did.

I was told by a High School teacher that that's where the word "testimony" derives.

Haj

[Corrvin]

"After the witness replies, 'You got it, Jack'". Sure. Because godless heathens are, by definition, wiseasses who are incapable of dealing seriously with serious issues.

And of course Christians would never crack a joke about serious issues, which is why we have a total lack of jokes about matters pertaining to the Christian faith.

I'm assuming "godless heathens" is used as the usual partly-accurate counterpart to "goddessless Christians." But the proper answer to what a godless heathen says in response to the affirmation quoted is "I so affirm."

When I got my (uncontested) divorce, in a small Oklahoma town before a judge, both I and my husband were informed briefly that we were in a court and that lying in a court is perjury which can carry legal repercussions; at which point we were asked to raise our right hands (no Bibles were present, we didn't have to do anything with our left hands) and answer the question "Do you agree to tell the truth?" One of us answered "yes" and the other one said "I do agree." Both answers were accepted and after some further discussion of the paperwork we left the room as single people. From all the pagans I've talked to about the oath, it seems that "so help me God" may be TV-ese only-- none of us have actually been in a courtroom where such an oath was taken. I eagerly await any counterexamples of course.

Corr

[PeterR]

Ah - but what did raising your hand signify? I think it was to imply that you were making an oath. I don't think a good Quaker would go for the arm raising part.

[Loopus]

Originally posted by hajario
I was told by a High School teacher that that's where the word "testimony" derives.

Heh... That's pretty amusing. Unfortunately, according to Webster it has a more mundane origin:

Main Entry: tes·ti·mo·ny
<...>
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin testimonium Decalogue, from Latin, evidence, witness, from testis witness

[PeterR]

Now check out the origin of testes. The online Merriam-Webster ,http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary, says that "testes" is derived from Latin, to witness ( testis)

[PeterR]

Now check out the origin of testis, as in male reproductive organs. The online Merriam-Webster ,http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary, says that "testes" is also derived from Latin, to witness ( testis)

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Davebear
Because godless heathens are, by definition, wiseasses who are incapable of dealing seriously with serious issues.

No, because Cecil Adams is, by definition, a wiseass*.

Honestly, Dave, read some more of his columns. He always sound like that. (It's called humor.)


*a term I intend as a compliment, of course.

[betenoir]

Well neither of Peter's links worked for me, but, yeah, my dictionary says testimony and testicles both come from the same word.

Although it seems like the word "testicle" comes from their association with testifying rather than the other way round. Webster's New World Dictionary says testify (may) mean something like "third person standing" as in the third party who stands up to give testamony.


*sigh* Does this mean I can't swear on my genitals after all? Because I'm not sure about god, but I know I don't have testicles.




And, good question. What does raising your hand actual signify? Because it's the other hand you put on the bible if you're swearing on it. I don't think raisng you hand is necessarily part of swearing an oath. But I'm not sure.

[Tal]

Book of James says "do not swear, not by heaven or by earth or by anything in it" that's why i've alwyas wondered how the "swear on the bible' thing came about

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally posted by PeterR
BTW - did Richard Nixon, raised Quaker, affirm his oath of office?

No. Our two Quaker presidents, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon, both chose to "swear". The only president ever to "affirm" was Franklin Pierce, an Episcopalian. I don't believe that Episcopalians in general refuse oaths, so Pierce must have done so for personal reasons. I'm not aware that he left behind any explanation of his choice (not that any is necessary). I'm also not certain whether Pierce omitted the words "so help me God"--I don't think that he did, but I can't prove it.

PeterR is absolutely correct--the "affirm" option was designed for Christians who adhere to a literal reading of the Gospel of St. Matthew, not atheists. I don't know why "swear vs. affirm" would make any difference to an atheist. The alternate form of the oath quoted by Cecil, which omits "so help me God", does also substitute "affirm" for "swear", but this seems to be a matter of euphony rather than conscientious objection.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Neither Pierce nor any other president ever uttered the words "so help me god" in the process of taking office.

Here is the appropriate quote from the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, clause 8):

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

God does not enter into it.

[blowero]

Does anyone honestly believe that "swearing in" is anything other than an empty, meaningless ritual? Would a person who is contemplating perjury hesitate for a moment to swear before God? As if God is sitting up there thinking, "Hey, I don't mind if you tell lies, but if you mention MY name, the deal's off." And speaking as an atheist, why would I care if I swear to God or not? It certainly can't hurt me.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase
Neither Pierce nor any other president ever uttered the words "so help me god" in the process of taking office.

So, therefore, just because the words aren't constitutionally required, we should ignore the fact that 43 out of 43 presidents have added them--while conducting a discussion of "swear vs. affirm" and the influence of religion upon the form of an oath?

[Exapno Mapcase]

You've lost me, jklann. My point was exactly what I said - that the Constitution explicitly gives the wording for the president to say upon taking office. The Constitution is not explicit about all that many things, but in this case it is, and it should be noted.

The wording is in fact quite interesting. Among the things of interest is that it does not require the president to swear by anything. Presumably the founders, who knew their bibles well yet had widely mixed views on religion, did this deliberately. It also places an oath and an affirmation on exactly equal basis. Again, this is presumably done deliberately.

I think this is a wonderful example of how all people of all persuasions are treated equally in the eyes of the Constitution. However, as indicated by the above discussion, most people forget that this clause is even in the Constitution, let alone understand the nuances of it.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil's column if it's on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).

Cecil's column can be found on-line at this link:
How do courts swear in atheists? (12-Jun-1981)

__________________
moderator, «Comments on Cecil's Columns»

[Irishman]

As an atheist, my objection to swearing on the bible or in God's name is thus: god does not exist. The bible is a collection of stories and other untruths. It seems ironic to swear by virtue of a lie to tell the truth. In fact, if I'm swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I cannot in good conscience swear upon a lie to do so. Or have I just invalidated the whole process, and thereby given myself a legal out for lying in court? I didn't think so. (Note: I'm speaking from my perspective.)

blowero said:

Does anyone honestly believe that "swearing in" is anything other than an empty, meaningless ritual?

I wouldn't go that far. While it is ritual, it does serve some meaning, though more attested to in the alternate form. By swearing upon penalty of perjury, you are legally acknowledging that you will be punished for lying. It precludes a later defense to perjury of "I didn't know". Yep, you did know, and we have it in the court records.

But the court has never had the ability to call down the wrath of God. They've always had to rely merely upon the punishments of perjury. Though the psychological element could be useful on some people, I doubt it would work on many people, christian or otherwise. If you've decided to lie in court, what's the difference?

[JRDelirious]

Exapno I think jklann understands that even though the Presidents may have said "So help me God" during the ceremony of inauguration, the instant they say that final "...United States" in the official oath they have taken office and anything after that is a rhetorical flourish. But they still do say it while the CJotUS still has them holding their hand up in the air like fools. Unless your claim is that every other part of the inauguration ceremony but the constitutional oath is irrelevant and immaterial, it's still telling about the cultural attitudes of our society that I'm still waiting for someone to tell the CJ that what he wants for a coda to the oath is "It's Miller Time . . .

[Davebear]

Originally posted by betenoir
No, because Cecil Adams is, by definition, a wiseass*.

Honestly, Dave, read some more of his columns. He always sound like that. (It's called humor.)

Thanks. I've read quite a few. And, I'm aware that Cecil is a wiseass (I am too, at times), and often attempts to be humorous.

This wasn't funny; it was insulting to a group of people who have different "religious" (for lack of a better word) beliefs . That's a pretty stupid attitude, for someone who bills himself as the World's Smartest Human Being, especially these days.

I wasn't personally insulted, as I'm not an atheist, but I was offended by the smug complacency of the attitude. Such attitudes need to be challenged. Hence, my post. I'm actually surprised no one else found it offensive.

Personally, I figure the atheists will be the only ones left after all the "followers of false prophets" have been whisked away to whatever hell claims them first.

[Freddy the Pig]

I'm an atheist, and I wasn't offended by Cecil's column. I thought it was a hoot. (Well, maybe it was a little condescending . . .)

Exapno, I just think that in your zeal to emphasize that "so help me God" isn't part of the Constitution, you write with too broad a brush. For example, you say "God does not enter into it." And my point was that God does enter into it--indirectly, at least--because even the "Constitutional" part of the oath includes the "swear or affirm" option, which was written to accommodate those Christian denominations that don't like to swear. To emphasize that affirmation wasn't created for atheists, I pointed out that the one president to use it, Franklin Pierce, was a Christian who maintained (I believe) the addendum "So help me God". That was all I meant to say.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Litttle Ed has his off days and that column was one of them.

Trying to stay within some factual bounds and not turning this into a debate --

That a Christian used the affirmation instead of the oath doesn't prove one way or the other whether it was originally written with atheists in mind. It probably wasn't, but the founders were an interesting bunch, theologically, and while few of them were atheists in the sense we now commonly use that term, Tom Paine
might well have been on their minds. More likely, it was a Quaker influence, but I'd have to dig through my books on the background of writing the Constitution for more detail.

My point was that it doesn't matter if all 43 presidents added "so help me god" - though I'd like to know how you know that to be true - even though all of them were Christians, in the way we commonly use that term, Jefferson probably included. It also doesn't matter if the use of the phrase, because of popular usage or custom, has slipped into the court system. Some people may incorrectly think it is required. There are people who think holding up one's hand means something in law, too.

There may be minor and timebound counterexamples but it has in general always been true in law that affirmation should be equal to swearing with no prejudice laden on those who use it.

I was offended by the tone of a few who have posted here and in the other thread concurrently going on that since atheists don't believe in god, they are moralless people who can lie without consequence and will do so because literally nothing is sacred to them. It is this all too common attitude I was reacting against by raising the fact that the equality of the oath and affirmation are enshrined in the Constitution and that god is not.
All of our presidents have been Christians, as far as the popular use of the term would have it, and the majority of citizens have always been Christians, but nevertheless, atheists have not had to swear an oath to god on a Christian bible in court in a good long time. There is a legitimate alternative enshrined in the Constitution and available in lower courts. The majority got it right for a change. That unusual fact should be better known and better appreciated for what it means by all who claim a special place for religion in government.

[Loki4]

> I'm assuming "godless heathens" is used as the usual partly-accurate counterpart to "goddessless Christians."

How about poly heathens, whether deity or amory? ;-) Pan too!


> But the proper answer to what a godless heathen says in response to the affirmation quoted is "I so affirm."

Any judge who poses a religious test as a government agent is a crook, and generally one with a bevy of armed thugs at his disposal. As such, the judge belongs in jail. The proper action is for the court to universally use affirmations that don't include any theology in the guise of legal process.


> single people. From all the pagans I've talked to about the oath, it seems that "so help me God" may be TV-ese only-- none of us have actually been in a courtroom where such an oath was taken. I eagerly await any counterexamples of course.

I've found judges in CT and VA, among other places, who routinely use illegal oaths. If I were to just answer "yes" to the deity pledge, I'd figure that was equivalent to not agreeing to much of anything, though the judge might not comprehend his error or penalize the guilty party (himself or his clerk). Alternately, "So fuck you too" might be suitable, which the judge would likely think profaned his god (himself), though since I believe in neither his external (xtian) nor internal (self) deity, couldn't be profanity from me. AAMOF, none of my gods can be profaned, and so that concept in contract terms or law impresses me as utter BS whoever's trying to pretend it's universal to others needs to grow up and buy a clue about. The FU retort would be a comment on how the judge was in contempt of court and should be locked up without trial.

On the actual witness stand, I have said things more like, "yes, except for that deity reference". The fact that elective judges in rural districts known for being rabid fundies, and non-elective judges in more developed civilization who really ought to be above that crap, are prepared to immediately offer an alternative oath I take to indicate how clearly they KNOW they've violated my rights and everyone else's, merely by creating that situation in the first place.

I wish I had the chance to just say "No" without explanation, but that might take a case where I wanted to be a hostile witness, rather than trying to deal with the corruption of arbitrary judicial discretion less unfavorably.


On the other side of things, were I a juror and a witness declined an illegal oath, I might take that as suggesting the guy took telling the truth more seriously than do most witnesses. MWBAGs (men with badges and guns) I'd find just above mental health delusionals on the scale of witnesses known to lie regularly. A cop cannot do his job and be fully honest, and so it's only a question of how and in what forms he perjures himself, even if some of that problem comes from corrupt politicians and illegal laws, in turn a problem of corrupt voters.

[Freddy the Pig]

On the origin of the affirmation, quoted from the Supreme Court ruling in Beirne v. Flores et al:

For example, Quakers and certain other Protestant sects refused on Biblical grounds to subscribe to oaths or "swear" allegiance to civil authority. Without accommodation, their beliefs would have prevented them from participating in civic activities involving oaths, including testifying in court. Colonial governments created alternatives to the oath requirements for these individuals. In early decisions, for example, the Carolina proprietors applied the religious liberty provision of the Carolina Charter of 1665 to permit Quakers to enter pledges in a book. Similarly, in 1691, New York enacted a law allowing Quakers to testify by affirmation, and in 1734, it permitted Quakers to qualify to vote by affirmation. By 1789, virtually all of the States had enacted oath exemptions. See Adams & Emmerich 62.

See http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen.../a0018061.html for the statement that every president has added "So help me God". Not the most authoritative cite, and one with an obvious religious bias, but it matches what I've read in many other places.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally posted by jklann
On the origin of the affirmation, quoted from the Supreme Court ruling in Beirne v. Flores et al: See http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen.../a0018061.html for the statement that every president has added "So help me God". Not the most authoritative cite, and one with an obvious religious bias, but it matches what I've read in many other places.

Clicking on that link locks up my computer, for some reason. I got the URL by going into quote and I took a look at the page.

Wasn't Washington famed far and wide in his day as someone who could knock the breath out of you by the blueness of his cussing? He may also have decried swearing by his soldiers, but any page that mentions one and not the other loses some credibility with me.

And of course there is not the slightest backup for its assertion about "so help me god," which also somehow manages to ignore Pierce. I think we need to leave the assertion as "unproven" and not give this page any more publicity than it deserves.

[John W. Kennedy]

Wasn't Washington famed far and wide in his day as someone who could knock the breath out of you by the blueness of his cussing?

I don't know about "famed far and wide", precisely; in general, Washington seems to have disapproved of profanity. But they do say that when he caught up with the retreating General Lee at Monmouth, strong men fainted at the sound of Washington's language.

[JRDelirious]

Um... hold it a minute...

The OP is claiming Cecil was being offensive to atheists???

Am I getting whooshed?

I have read it for howevermany years as obviously and clearly Cecil being snide to the religious people who think that way about atheists by showing how stupid their stereotype of atheists sounds.

Of course, those being the prediluvian days before the siley, I guess he could not insert a at the appropriate points...

Geez,really, people...

[lez999]

I think this whole discussion is a waste of time, because atheists don't exist! yes ladies and gentlemen I don't BELIEVE in atheisim and I know that sounds funny. anyway all atheist believe in some superior power which then takes them out of the atheism catagory, and I am willing to challenge anyone to prove my otherwise. Plus another point is that an oath on the Torah for example, THE Bible, is not only permitted but an obligation in legal cases and marital cases.

[friedo]

Uh, what?

[Catamount]

Originally posted by betenoir
Well neither of Peter's links worked for me, but, yeah, my dictionary says testimony and testicles both come from the same word.

Although it seems like the word "testicle" comes from their association with testifying rather than the other way round. Webster's New World Dictionary says testify (may) mean something like "third person standing" as in the third party who stands up to give testamony.

This looks like a case for the Handy Latin-English Dictionary!

testis, -is mf witness || m testicle

testimonium -(i)i n testimony

There you go.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally posted by lez999
I think this whole discussion is a waste of time, because atheists don't exist! yes ladies and gentlemen I don't BELIEVE in atheisim and I know that sounds funny. anyway all atheist believe in some superior power which then takes them out of the atheism catagory, and I am willing to challenge anyone to prove my otherwise.

Isn't this what psychologists call "projection"?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by lez999
all atheist believe in some superior power which then takes them out of the atheism catagory, and I am willing to challenge anyone to prove my otherwise.

My challenge to you - go post this in our Great Debates forum, and then respond to the people who are willing to discuss it with you! (which is where such a post should belong)
If you do, you could include a link to the new thread in this forum, so that interested parties could see how the discussion shapes up.

[Irishman]

What JRDelirious said.

[gnome]

The supposed intimidating effect on Christians seems kind of silly to me anyway. Are we to believe that someone who would be swayed by the fact they were swearing on the Bible, would be the sort of person who felt it was all right to lie in court in the first place, as long as they hadn't said the magic words "I swear"?!

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Davebear
This wasn't funny; it was insulting to a group of people who have different "religious" (for lack of a better word) beliefs.

Cecil's an equal opportunity misanthrope. That's what makes him such a cute widdle gwouchy cowumnist.

[JRDelirious]

And of course my reference to "the OP" should have been to "Davebear"

[Irishman]

How do courts swear atheists?

You f***ing godless heathens! Oh, I thought you asked "How do courts swear at atheists?"

[Catamount]

Originally posted by Irishman
You f***ing godless heathens! Oh, I thought you asked "How do courts swear at atheists?"

And lo, eleven days after the OP someone makes the joke I was waiting for.

[jaehnig]

Originally posted by lez999
I think this whole discussion is a waste of time, because atheists don't exist! yes ladies and gentlemen I don't BELIEVE in atheisim and I know that sounds funny. anyway all atheist believe in some superior power which then takes them out of the atheism catagory, and I am willing to challenge anyone to prove my otherwise. Plus another point is that an oath on the Torah for example, THE Bible, is not only permitted but an obligation in legal cases and marital cases.

Could you explain what you mean?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by lez999
Plus another point is that an oath on the Torah for example, THE Bible, is not only permitted but an obligation in legal cases and marital cases.

It's not required in the US. I don't know if it is or not in Israel.