Does anyone in this forum really believe that oaths must be

[MineralMan]

made using some scripture and mentioning a deity? Really? That has not been the case for many decades, and is a matter of many legal decisions. In any court of law or in any official oath, you may simply affirm the oath. Even the President is offered that option in the constitution, where the oath is spelled out word for word. "swear or affirm" is right there in the Constitution, and no mention of "so help me God" is present at all.

Further, the Constitution also contains the words "no religious test" when referring to qualification for any office in the government.

Sometimes it's amazing that some people continue to hold the belief that one must put their hand on a Bible and say "so help me God" for oaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If that were true, Muslims could not do anything under oath, nor Buddhists, and especially not atheists. What could cause this ignorance of a very basic fact of American Law?

Please, folks...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Let me put it this way - I don't know why this is even ALLOWED!

This country has a separation of church and state and no state religion, why are people swearing by God?

[MineralMan]

2. I do not know. Perhaps because there is a dominant religion,

people don't mind it. I don't know, though. It has never once in my life presented a problem, and I've been around since 1945, and have affirmed more oaths than I can remember. Never once has anyone questioned that. In court, if presented with a Bible, I simply say, "I will affirm my oath." It is that simple, and I've never been questioned about it.

Personally, I don't care if someone swears on a Bible and says "so help me God." That's no assurance that they will tell the truth. Many lies are told under oaths like that. I use my best judgment when someone testifies, not some meaningless oath.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. But religion needs to be kept out of it. Even currency has mentions of God. It's all

insane.

[MineralMan]

4. I can't argue the other side of that, because I agree.

Oaths are worthless. People lie all the time in the name of some deity. Some people make a living doing that. I just dismiss it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Thanks for the tip. If I'm ever called to take an oath, I will never swear on God.

It's ridiculous.

[Thats my opinion]

5. My mother, who was a devout Christian, would not take an oath on the Bible and would always say,

"I affirm."

[ZombieHorde]

23. Why do you think she chose to say, "I affirm"? nt

[izquierdista]

7. I believe.....

in primitive voodoo mojo schtick:

[WingDinger]

8. Dumbass oaths, are believed to be talismans, that will MAKE God perform.

Just like the Jews trotted out the Ark of the Covenant, after their prophets told of losing the war. They lost the ark, were defeated. Oh, the ark was hitched up to an ass, and slapped. It returned the ark, as it was causing boils and such.

Most backsliden christians lap up this fake pageantry and assume that God will again make USA GODS country.


Oh, many christians are just as against false religion as we are.

[saras]

9. I don't know. If I swear on the Principia Discordia that I won't lie, I won't lie.

When they ask if I'll tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", I'll tell the truth.

"Of course not. I don't know the whole truth. Either God does, or no one does. And I can't tell you nothing but the truth, because I'm too biased. I don't even REMEMBER nothing but the truth any more, I made up a whole story to make sense of my fragmented observations."

[freshwest]

10. It's done out of ritual, the fear factor and employing colorful expressions.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus forbade swearing.

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

That's from the King James Authorized Version, this is another reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:35

Some people feel more justified if they can tack on scriptural reference to daily matters. Religion, like a sports team uniform, gives many people a feeling of belonging and provides a secondary language of emotional communication.

It also gives them a sense of meaning and place to put things they find inexplicable. And there is a lot of stuff that is puzzling. We haven't got all the answers yet, we just might when we die, but maybe not.

I thump the heads of people who claim superiority over others through religion. Hey, no one's perfect. I remember almost every scripture I ever read, as I was into that for many years and it did see me through some terrible times, when I was looking for answers.

And back to the original question, which I may have strayed from: It only means something to the person who says it, and sometimes not even then. As I quoted Jesus there, it's not Biblical. We have a lot of stuff that has been added to our culture for political reasons.

[TheMadMonk]

11. The problem is not WHAT an individual swears an oath on.

The problem is that outside perjury committed in a court of law, there is no great penalty for oathbreaking.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

12. The only oath that counts is one taken over your and the other "parties'" crossed swords

It helps to invoke Tyr's name as he is in charge of justice and the law.








(I hope people take this in the humorous tone it was meant to be, although I have in fact taken oaths over my blade, and will do everything in my power to fulfill those oaths. Luckily I haven't had to take one in a judicial setting. I seriously doubt the court's security officers would let me bring my sword with me into the actual court room, much less the court house. )

[MineralMan]

13. I like to swear by my beard,

as Shakespeare wrote and as the Greeks sometimes swore.

Of course, the origins of the word "testify" are interesting, as well. Once upon a time, Roman men swore with their right hand on their genital area, swearing by their testicles. 'Tis true.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

16. That's just another reason to have a sword there

If somebody lies after swearing their oath, then you use the sword to harvest their dingle-berries.

[MineralMan]

18. Nej! Nej!

Uff da!

[LeftishBrit]

14. As I said on another thread, the Bible itself forbids the swearing of oaths (Matthew 5)

It's been possible to 'affirm' for a very long time in the UK. The atheist MP Charles Bradlaugh set a precedent for refusing to take a religious oath when beginning political office; this was in 1880 in the days of Good Queen Victoria!

More generally, I tend to think that if someone is prepared to lie in court or to betray a trust, they will also be prepared to break an oath, so the oath does not really make them more trustworthy.

[Thats my opinion]

15. A side question.

You and others keep referring to this as a forum, when the official designation is a group. Please somebody give us a functional definitio9n of each and how they differ. My guess is that this is officially a group that acts like a forum.

[MineralMan]

17. Forum or Group. It doesn't really matter in any

genuine sense. It's technically a group, but all smaller forums on DU3 are groups. It is not one of the "safe haven" groups, though. It is a forum for discussions involving religion. I don't think what we call it matters at all. Usually, I try to make the distinction in posts. Sometimes, I forget.

[Thats my opinion]

19. If it doesn't make any difference--

and I think there might be some to temper out of bounds attacks--on both sides-- Then what is the meaning of any distinction?

[MineralMan]

20. I believe that the intention of the admins is that

the forums are run by the admins, while the groups have more control by the hosts of those groups. The admins used to spend a lot of time dealing with issues within groups. In DU3, those issues are mainly the responsibility of the group's hosts, freeing up the admins for other tasks.

That is the distinction between the two, I believe. Some groups are also designated as "safe havens," but those are not many. Most groups are simply a separate area for specific subject matter, and are designed to free the main forums from being filled with discussions that have nothing to do with the primary focus of DU, which is politics. Each group's hosts set the parameters for that group's range of discussions, and can bar any DUer from participating in discussions. In the forums, the admins set the parameters. That's really the difference.

The Religion Group is one of those groups that often has lively discussions, full of widely-divergent opinions. So it was on DU2 and so it is here. It's not a "safe haven" group, but is a general group for the discussion of religion. That discussion may be joined by any DUer, whether that DUer professes a religion or not. So, anyone wishing to discuss religion in any way can participate here. DU also has some safe-haven groups for specific religious groups, and those places are off-limits to skepticism or discussion by people who don't share the specific religion of the group.

Sometimes, people mistake the Religion Group for one of those safe-haven groups. It is not that, and has never been that.

[Thats my opinion]

21. Thanks for the clarification nt

[rug]

22. "An old theory has it that Romans placed their right hands on their testicles and swore by them."

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722111105AAu5uth