My question is, why would he have to affirm? Are the words “I affirm” somehow more secular or less religious than “I swear”?
(I’m aware, that in Hollywood at least, the words “So help you God” are somtimes added to an “I swear” oath, and the words are spoken with one’s hand on a Bible. For the sake of argument, let’s assume these trappings are absent, as they have been when I took oaths during depositions.)
IANAL, so I can’t say if this is universal, but in courts I have been in recently, the choice is made to affirm (not on any book) or swear (not on any bible). I haven’t seen an actual bible used in local courts for years.
I myself have replied after being asked “Do you solemnly swear…?”: “No, but I affirm it.”
Just because people normally swear on the bible, that doesn’t preclude, say, swearing on a copy of the OED (which has a certain appeal in itself, I have to say!).
Exactly. Affirming is meant for people who don’t want to offend god, not for those who don’t believe in him. Why would an atheist have a problem with swearing? What would he care?
To swear, per se, means to aver that you will, in fact, do what you are swearing to do. (In the current context, “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as a witness in court – but it could be to rescue the captive princess, or to abstain from meat and strong beverage for 40 days, or some other oath.) The general concept of swearing an oath does not necessarily invoke God or any god whatsoever, though many oaths are in fact sworn “before God”, calling Him to witness, and in the pre-Christian Germanic peoples, to your tutelary deity: Thor/Donarr, Tyr/Tiu, Woden/Oden, etc. And of course the normal courtroom formulary invokes God.
Religious people with scruple against oaths (as noted by Schnitte) and non-religious people not wishing to “taint” their solemn word with a reference to a God they don’t believe in, prefer to use an affirmation.
And, of course, we had the case last year of the Congressman from Minnesota who, as a sincere Muslim, swore on the Qu’ran.
Technically, Mr Ellison took his oath of office without any book, just like all the other congresspeople. He posed for a photo op with his hand on a Qur’an.
The last time I was in court I was asked if I do so swear OR afirm. I did, no bible was offered, I just raised my hand.
FWIW, The president does not have to swear in on a bible either. I would like it if they starting using the constitution.
But that’s what they all do. They have the official swearing in and then they have the unofficial photo ops with their hands on Bibles (or Qu’rans). That’s part of the reason it was such a tempest in a teapot. Dennis Prager actually claimed that Ellison “should not be allowed to do it.” Allowed by who, he didn’t say.
English courts work very hard to provide whatever symbol the witness wants to swear on - the idea is that anything is valid as long as the person taking the oath considers themselves conscience bound. Hat on, shoes off, ritual washing, whatever is important to you!
The so help me God part is left off. That’s only for movies these days. One hopes.
The words “I swear” have a history as old as the country as a reference to swearing on the Christian Bible. (IIRC, it was carried over from the British Common Law.) I affirm was put into the Constitution as an alternative for people who either have a religious objection to swearing or who do not believe in the Christian Bible or who do not believe at all.
Atheists normally have a problem swearing oaths precisely because the religious connotation is deeply embedded in our history. Atheists often care just as deeply to not use Christian symbolism. They do care about the use of I swear, and so they use I affirm.
Generally, one swears on or by something that’s important to them, with the implication being that the oath they’re taking is as important to them as the thing being sworn on/by. So, God and/or the Bible is a popular choice, but oaths are often taken on a great deal of other things: your honor, your mother’s grave, the Constitution, your boots, whatever. But there’s no absolute requirment for belief in a higher power before one swears an oath.
I was in court this morning for my divorce and they said “Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
It could be the same concept in which you don’t use God’s name in vain, you’re ordering a much more powerful being than yourself to be accountable for, and witness to your actions. If you swear upon heaven as your witness, then the kingdom of heaven is tainted if you break your oath, same with God. It’s like saying “God damn you” you’re ordering the All Powerful Creator of the Universe™ to resolve your petty conflict by putting a pox on the enemy.
That’s just a logical reasoning thing though, there’s probably an incoherent nonsensicle rule written by Pope Urban II or something out there somewhere that explains the reasoning.
I’m sitting as a juror on a case in LA Superior Court. Each witness has been asked to face the court assistant and raise their right hand. (no book of any kind in sight) She asks “Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
So at least around here it seems the ‘so help you God’ bit is standard.