rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/26/85)
Affirmation, Swearing, and the Separation of Church and State
I notice that in TV court scenes (shaky evidence) and in the
court system of Georgia a witness is required to raise his
right hand and repeat (approximately):
"I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God."
Doesn't the swearing, the invocation of God's name (or a god's
name if you prefer), and (on TV anyway) the laying of the left
hand on the Christian Bible constitute some kind of mingling
of Church and State that the ACLU types get so exercised
about ??
Here it is right in the heart of our judicial system.
I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system
from which ours basically sprang. I understand that the
affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of
early America who would not "swear". I'm not familiar enough
with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-))
However, if they base their position on the Scripture where both
Jesus in one of the Gospels and the epistle of
James 5:12 tell us clearly NOT to swear oaths when we make a
promise, but to let our yes mean yes and no mean no, then I
understand.
I will not swear an oath in any court room that I will tell
the truth.
But that is a side issue,....why has this thing of oaths and
Bible and swearing persisted apparently without comment
from our founding fathers (and mothers.) ??
Why haven't the anti-religion groups pressed harder or
been more successful in this area ?
If anybody trots out that Jeffersonian "wall of separation
between Church and State" quote, I challenge you to put
that line in context of the letter it was lifted from.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (09/26/85)
> Affirmation, Swearing, and the Separation of Church and State > (paraphrase: Mr. Brown is surprised that forcing people to swear "So help me God" is legal.) > I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system > from which ours basically sprang. I understand that the > affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of > early America who would not "swear". I'm not familiar enough > with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-)) > > However, if they base their position on the Scripture where both > Jesus in one of the Gospels and the epistle of > James 5:12 tell us clearly NOT to swear oaths when we make a > promise, but to let our yes mean yes and no mean no, then I > understand. > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} The verse you mention is indeed Friends' rationale for "affirming" rather than "swearing oaths". It took me quite awhile to convince the Town Clerk in Hanover, N.H. that it was legal for me to "affirm" that I wasn't registered to vote elsewhere. I think, though my memory may be incorrect, that the "affirming" loophole is also intended for use by non-believers. Many Federal oaths now run "Do you solemnly swear or affirm....", and end with "knowing that you will be subject to the penalties for perjury", thus avoiding the issue entirely. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/27/85)
> "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole > truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." The "So help me God" can be omitted along with the substituion of "affirm" for "swear" in Federal matters. -Ron
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/27/85)
> I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system > from which ours basically sprang. I understand that the > affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of > early America who would not "swear". I'm not familiar enough > with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-)) > > However, if they base their position on the Scripture where both > Jesus in one of the Gospels and the epistle of > James 5:12 tell us clearly NOT to swear oaths when we make a > promise, but to let our yes mean yes and no mean no, then I > understand. > > I will not swear an oath in any court room that I will tell > the truth. This is essentially the reason why Quakers do not "swear". Their position is that one should always tell the truth, and that there should not be a "double standard" of truth, one for the courtroom and another for daily life. The scriptural reference you mention is often given in support of this stand. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (09/27/85)
> I notice that in TV court scenes (shaky evidence) and in the > court system of Georgia a witness is required to raise his > right hand and repeat (approximately): > > "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole > truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." > > Doesn't the swearing, the invocation of God's name (or a god's > name if you prefer), and (on TV anyway) the laying of the left > hand on the Christian Bible constitute some kind of mingling > of Church and State that the ACLU types get so exercised > about ?? > > Here it is right in the heart of our judicial system. This topic comes up periodically here on the net, and I'd like to take a crack at explaining it. As I understand it, the concept of "Separation of Church and State" (SOCAS) was intended to take care of two possible dangers the founding parents saw: 1) They wanted to avoid having a "state religion", like the Church of England. 2) They didn't want their governmment meddling in their religious affairs. Note that nowhere did they mention separation of "god" and state , but CHURCH and state, two entirely different things. In fact, they took as the motto of the infant nation, "In God We Trust". Our pledge of allegiance includes the line, "...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". Neither of these constitute a danger that there will be a state religion nor that the government will meddle in your freedom to practice Druidism or any other religion. (BTW, can anyone explain to me the meaning of the pyramid and eye on the Great Seal of the United States?) The mention of god in matters of state is nowhere excluded, and really why should it be? Simply saying that we trust in god has nothing to do with religion. I myself am not religious, but happen to believe in a power greater than myself. It is convenient to refer to this concept as "god" because it has a universal connotation among those who have a belief in it, and yet doesn't address the side-issue of any person's affiliation, rituals, belief structure, and all the other accoutrements of organized religion. If the majority of the Nation decided that we should be godless, then we would probably vote in represntatives who held similar beliefs, and legislate a separtion of god and state as well. Since the majority do not feel that, there is no such separation. > I will not swear an oath in any court room that I will tell > the truth. Why not? If you don't believe in god, what difference can it make? In that case, it certainly would not be a moral issue, so why hassle it? If you do believe in god, then it seems like a terrific forum for affirming that belief. If it is because fuzzy thinking results in the equation god = church then maybe you ought to look up some definitions in your Funk & Wagnall's. If it is because you have no intention of telling the truth, then that is a whole nother matter. *** THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE *** -- Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 MS/232-E = = {allegra} {uw-beaver} !fluke!inc = = (206)356-5367 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (09/27/85)
> Affirmation, Swearing, and the Separation of Church and State > > I notice that in TV court scenes (shaky evidence) and in the > court system of Georgia a witness is required to raise his > right hand and repeat (approximately): > > "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole > truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." > > Doesn't the swearing, the invocation of God's name (or a god's > name if you prefer), and (on TV anyway) the laying of the left > hand on the Christian Bible constitute some kind of mingling > of Church and State that the ACLU types get so exercised > about ?? > > Here it is right in the heart of our judicial system. > ... > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} Well, Bob, you're right about one thing: what you see on TV is pretty shaky evidence. In the two years I've been out of law school I have yet to see a bible used in court. What usually happens when a witness is "sworn in" is that the bailiff asks them to raise their right hand and asks them: "Do you solemly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth?" or "Do you promise to tell the truth?" It's all very informal; I suppose someday we'll reach the point where they just ask: "You aren't gonna lie, are you?" The point of all this is, of course, that you don't want to run screaming to your congressman about these abuses of separation of church and state, on the strength of what you see in old Perry Mason reruns. I wouldn't want to, anyway. (;-) Joel Gilman
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (09/28/85)
> Affirmation, Swearing, and the Separation of Church and State > > I notice that in TV court scenes (shaky evidence) and in the > court system of Georgia a witness is required to raise his > right hand and repeat (approximately): > > "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole > truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." ... > Why haven't the anti-religion groups pressed harder or > been more successful in this area ? > > If anybody trots out that Jeffersonian "wall of separation > between Church and State" quote, I challenge you to put > that line in context of the letter it was lifted from. > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} I have never appeared in court, but I did go through a U.S. immigration interview that has much the same status. As an atheist, I would not take any oath that refered to "God". This was no problem - the formula for making affirmation has absolutely no religious references. In both Britain and the U.S. the choice between a taking religious oath and and making affirmation in legal is always left to the discretion of the only person who is likely to care, so I don't see it as a big issue. -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (09/30/85)
In article <1695@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: >"I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole >truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." > >I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system >from which ours basically sprang. I understand that the >affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of >early America who would not "swear". I'm not familiar enough >with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-)) I don't know about "so help me God." But "In God We Trust" was added to our coinage during the McCarthy era, as was the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is true in the case of "so help me God." Note that some courts are portrayed as using Christian Bibles for witness swearing. >But that is a side issue,....why has this thing of oaths and >Bible and swearing persisted apparently without comment >from our founding fathers (and mothers.) ?? If I'm right, there's only a 35-year persistence. >Why haven't the anti-religion groups pressed harder or >been more successful in this area ? In two words, Falwell's ilk. -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/02/85)
Gilman,
You are a horse's petoot !
I stated very clearly that I had experience in my
home state's court system (Georgia) and I wasn't
just basing it on the TV (you dufus!).
Swearing, BTW, was all that I saw...nobody affirmed.
If I keep on typing, I might end up swearing myself
(grumble, grumble) :-)
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (10/02/85)
[] > If it is because fuzzy thinking results in the equation > > god = church > > then maybe you ought to look up some definitions in your Funk & Wagnall's. well actually "in god" implies a monotheistic view of reality, and those of us who either are atheistic, or pantheistic, feel that the institutionalisation of a monotheistic (and actually it is a specifically christian) viewpoint by the state violates the intention of the first amendment. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith) (10/10/85)
In article <707@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) writes: >> >> Here it is right in the heart of our judicial system. > > Note that nowhere did they mention separation of "god" and state , but > CHURCH and state, two entirely different things. In fact, they took as the > motto of the infant nation, "In God We Trust". Our pledge of allegiance > includes the line, "...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and > justice for all". Neither of these constitute a danger that there will be a > state religion nor that the government will meddle in your freedom to > practice Druidism or any other religion. > > The mention of god in matters of state is nowhere excluded, and really why > should it be? Simply saying that we trust in god has nothing to do with > religion. Trust in god is a religious creed. Perhaps not of any specific organized religion.... but a religious creed nonetheless. And if god has nothing to do with religion, WHY SHOULD GOD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT? > If it is because fuzzy thinking results in the equation > > god = church You bring up a good point... but I think it is a product of somewhat fuzzy ideas that aren't really quite applicative. -- seismo!trwrdc!root - Lord Frith "And I want you" "And I want you" "And I want you so" "It's an obsession"
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (10/12/85)
> In article <1695@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: >> "I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole >> truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God." >> >> I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system >> from which ours basically sprang. I understand that the >> affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of >> early America who would not "swear". I'm not familiar enough >> with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-)) : I don't know the reason why affirmation is used, but the U. S. Constitution specifically contains "affirm" as an alternative to "swear" in the oath that the president takes. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask