2 → pd  –  (Jan 21 2005, 12:58 AM)

And swearing on a Bible is not?

4 → pd  –  (Jan 21 2005,  1:10 AM)

> don’t you think that’s a really big assumption?

Possibly, but I am absolutely certain it’s much, much less of one than the current setup.  Ask the Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Taoists and the millions of other Americans who practice any of the world’s many other religions what they think it means to them personally to swear by the Christian Bible.

6 → Kelly Hall  –  (Jan 21 2005,  1:47 AM)

I agree with Phil.  Though it would be impossible to find anything by which every man woman and child would swear, I think you’d come much closer with the flag than with the Bible.  Though I often disagree with the way it is used and displayed and degraded, I feel an emotional tie of some kind to the flag.  I have no such connection to the Bible.  Of course that may be a unique opinion - but I doubt it.

8 → Thomas Jefferson  –  (Jan 21 2005,  2:06 AM)

A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
“SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

“SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

“SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

10 → Stephen  –  (Jan 22 2005,  7:28 PM)

“I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.  And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No.” Matthew 5:34-37
I have to wonder why Christians would make such a big deal about doing something that Jesus himself told us shouldn’t be done…we can certainly be a pretty thick breed…

12 → pd  –  (Jan 22 2005,  9:30 PM)

I want it to be clear that I raised this issue not because oaths are so often taken on the Christian Bible.  If they were taken on the Torah or the Tao Te Ching my point would remain the same.

My point is that there is absolutely no meaning in a non-Christian swearing upon the book of Christian values.  There is no meaning in a non-Jew swearing upon the Torah.  There is no meaning in a non-Taoist swearing upon the Tao Te Ching.

There is much meaning in the typical American swearing upon an American flag.

It’s not that the oaths are by this religion or that, and indeed, it’s not that they’re by any religion at all.  It’s that by always using a particular denominational symbol for oaths, the meaning of the oath is lost for the many people who place no meaning in that particular symbol.

When a Christian swears that he will uphold the word of the Constitution upon a Bible then a meaningful event has taken place.  One would believe that he takes his faith seriously and thus one would believe his oath has much meaning.  When a non-Christian swears on a Bible in a courthouse what meaning is there?  If he does not have faith in that book, what does the event of him swearing upon the written words of that faith mean?

My answer is that it means nothing.  And this is why I sought for a much more common denominator for the average America.  If you can think of something that is both more common and more meaningful than the American flag, please, by all means, lay it on us.

14 → Evan  –  (Jan 27 2005,  6:22 PM)

“There is no meaning in a non-Jew swearing upon the Koran.”

Hate to be a stickler Phil, but I believe that the religious sect you were looking for was Islam, not Judaim, where we read out of the Torah (the 5 books of Moses) or the Tanach (which includes the Torah and also books of prophets, etc.) :P

Anyways, I agree with you that swearing on a bible is not practical; i also agree with Debashis that it is merely a hold-over from a Christian government.
I’m just not sure that anything needs to be sworn on at all. Isn’t swearing on something just as good as making a promise? If the one being sworn was the kind of person that would go against his word anyways, why would swearing on any particular thing make a difference?