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.:smack: D’Oh!
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.)
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
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! 
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.
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.
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.
I was told by a High School teacher that that’s where the word “testimony” derives.
Haj
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
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.
Heh… That’s pretty amusing. Unfortunately, according to Webster it has a more mundane origin:
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)
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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):
God does not enter into it.
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.
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?