If you lived in the State of Arkansas you wouldn’t have to worry… they wouldn’t let you testify at all.
“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.”
-Article 19, Section 1
Or have they finally ruled it unconstitutional yet?
The ‘affirm’ is not just for godless heathens either - as is mentioned in Cecil’s article, there are various christian sects that consider swearing as taking the lord’s name in vain (or some other sort of sin) and so will affirm but won’t swear. I wonder how widely some of the alternative oaths are actually used. It seems to me that most courts would rather have someone do a basic affirmation instead of messing around with breaking a teacup and the other complicated stuff, both because it draws attention to the witness’s religious difference and because it would be easy to get a step wrong (which possibly means something).
Note that this goes back to the Constitution.
Article II, Section 1
As a slight diversion, in addition to the Commandmant against taking the Lord’s name in vain, the religious types who don’t like to take oaths are relying in part on Matt. 5:33-37 (NASB):
33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’
34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is (48) the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.
pravnik - I did get a good laugh out of your post. If ever I’m in court, I might try the hissing and backing away approach, or wait until they lay my hand on the Bible and then scream “It burns! It burns!”
Telemark - nothing embarasses me more at the SDMB than when someone tells me “Your question was answered by Cecil Adams.” I’m supposed to know that! Now I’m in for another trip to the SD woodshed.
Gotta keep those moderators in line. They’s been gittin’ upity lately.
hey arnold it dont bother me none
I was reading Cecil’s comments on the topic, and the last line struck me:
I was surprised to see Cecil voice the opinion that the promise to tell the truth by a non-god-fearing person is somehow less valid, for not being motivated by the fear of fire and brimstone. I realize Cecil’s comments are always written at least in part with entertainment value in mind, but this sentiment seems almost out of place when compared to Cecil’s generally open-minded attitudes.
Mister Damage - Cecil was joking (as he is wont to do), but looking at it objectively, what might a Christian fear from perjury? At worst, an eternity in hell. What would an atheist fear? At most a fine and perhaps a prison sentence (I’m not up on the penalties for perjury). The two are hardly equivalent.