News Can We Remove 'So Help Me God' From the Oath?

[Ivan Seeking]

I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Since I haven't spent any time in a court of law, I can only assume that these are the words actually spoken when a person is sworn in and placed under oath. Are these the words still used?

If so, then I see a Constitutional problem. If a person believes in God, the oath has profound meaning. The believer sees eternal implications for their actions. If a person does not believe in God, then the words are "just words" having only legal implications. This suggests that believers are held to a higher standard than non-believers.

So it seems that "so help me God" should be removed from the oath, if it hasn't been already.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

They still swear on the Bible too, don't they?

I think we reformed that in Sweden about 35 years ago (we, too, used to swear under the mercy of God, or somethign similar), now you swear on your honor and conscience.Slightly related question: Are Muslims allowed to swear on the Quran instead of the Bible?

 

[BobG]

If so, then I see a Constitional problem. If a person believes in God, the oath has profound meaning. The believer sees eternal implications for their actions. If a person does not believe in God, then the words are "just words" having only legal implications. This suggests that believers are held to a higher standard than non-believers.

So it seems that "so help me God" should be removed from the oath, if it hasn't been already.

What does the "so help me God" part even mean?

That the person is asking God to give them the strength and courage to tell the truth, even if that truth is painful?

Or that the person is asking God to help them by punishing them if they fail to tell the truth? And if the latter, how severe of punishment are they asking for? Just a whack across the head with a 2x4 or to be struck down by a lightning bolt the next time they play golf?

And couldn't they just ask forgiveness next time they go to confession? Or couldn't you do like Irish women and ask forgiveness ahead of time? (Granted, they're only asking forgiveness for gossipping, which isn't quite in the same league as perjury.)

In fact, considering the Ten Commandments just list lying as an offense and don't specify where or why, is lying in court any worse than lying to your mother about what you've hidden under your mattress?

I guess some believers would understand what they're saying and the oath might have profound meaning for them. I'd only understand that I'm promising to tell the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What does the "so help me God" part even mean?

That the person is asking God to give them the strength and courage to tell the truth, even if that truth is painful?

Or that the person is asking God to help them by punishing them if they fail to tell the truth? And if the latter, how severe of punishment are they asking for? Just a whack across the head with a 2x4 or to be struck down by a lightning bolt the next time they play golf?

I guess some believers would understand what they're saying and the oath might have profound meaning for them. I'd only understand that I'm promising to tell the truth.

When a religious person invokes the name of God in conjuction with an oath, they invoke eternal liability for their actions. It is a sin to invoke the name of God in vain. So while a non-believer only has to worry about a lie if they get caught, a religious person believes they are uniquely liable for that lie, whether they get caught lying, or not. And this operates on two levels. First, a religious person believes they are always eternally liable for a lie, while a non-believer is not. Next, lying under oath after invoking God's name makes the liability far more serious. I'm not sure, but I think that would be considered blasphemy by most churches. So the non-believer might face six months in jail for lying while under oath, while the religious person may believe that lie could mean eternal damnation.

 

[BobG]

They still swear on the Bible too, don't they?

I think we reformed that in Sweden about 35 years ago (we, too, used to swear under the mercy of God, or somethign similar), now you swear on your honor and conscience.


Slightly related question: Are Muslims allowed to swear on the Quran instead of the Bible?

They're allowed to swear on the Quran when taking an oath of office (or any other book for that matter).

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, raised quite a stir when he announced he was taking the oath of office on the Koran instead of the Bible (in fact, he used Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran).

Conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager wrote a poorly researched editorial saying:

America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress...

... This has nothing to do with the Koran. It has to do with the first break of the tradition of having a Bible present at a ceremony of installation of a public official since George Washington inaugurated the tradition

Of course, the problem with Prager's editorial is that John Quincy Adams took his Presidential Oath on a law book, Lyndon Johnson took his oath of office on a Catholic missal, Debbie Wasserman Shultz took her Congressional oath on the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), Linda Lingle took her Governor's oath on a Tanakh, and so it goes. In fact, Congressmen don't actually even take the official oath on any book at all, since they're sworn in en masse. Whatever book they choose is used during a personal re-enactment for photo purposes.

Romans would hold their testicles while swearing to tell the truth or swearing into office. That would be an interesting practice to bring back.

 

[BobG]

When a religious person invokes the name of God in conjuction with an oath, they invoke eternal liability for their actions. It is a sin to invoke the name of God in vain. So while a non-believer only has to worry about a lie if they get caught, a religious person believes they are uniquely liable for that lie, whether they get caught lying, or not. And this operates on two levels. First, a religious person believes they are always eternally liable for a lie, while a non-believer is not. Next, lying under oath after invoking God's name makes the liability far more serious. I'm not sure, but I think that would be considered blasphemy by most churches. So the non-believer might face six months in jail for lying while under oath, while the religious person may believe that lie could mean eternal damnation.

Looking at the history of the phrase, "with God as my witness" is clearer. "So help me God" is a little anachronistic and the meaning isn't clear in today's context. The speaker is invoking God as a co-signor as you will to what he says and implicating God in any lies the speaker may tell.

In fact, that's the reason Quakers and Mennonites refuse to swear oaths like that, since even an honest error in testimony would be implicating God in their error.

 

[Cyrus]

The answer to your question is no, that term is not used when taking an oath in a court room. There was a good video about this by a lawyer, I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[waht]

I had to say this exactly to the letter in high school when we enacted a trial in front of the class.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm pretty sure it was never a legal obligation to take oath to testify in the courts... was it?

Anyways I am also pretty sure that it's not required however you can request to take an oath. And it would be an oath of your personally choosing, in order to 'verify' that you are telling the truth to the best of your knowledge/recollection abilities.

Actually even in some Christian religions taking an oath is strictly forbidden. It is supposed to be assumed that you are telling the truth, as a Christian, ALL the time. And that you don't need to take an oath in order to tell the truth. I'm not sure how that would play out in a testimony if oaths were required, maybe this type of 'not-allowing oaths' is only for 'I SWEAR TO GOD I DIDN'T DO IT!'

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm pretty sure it was never a legal obligation to take oath to testify in the courts... was it?

Anyways I am also pretty sure that it's not required however you can request to take an oath. And it would be an oath of your personally choosing, in order to 'verify' that you are telling the truth to the best of your knowledge/recollection abilities.

But can you perjure (that's a verb?) without being under oath? I mean, my knowledge of American courts mostly comes from boring TV dramas, but they always yell "REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH!" to the witness. That would seem a bit silly if it doesn't have any legal implications.


Also, I'm totally going to become a congressman and then demand to be sworn in on Das Kapital.

 

[zomgwtf]

But can you perjure (that's a verb?) without being under oath? I mean, my knowledge of American courts mostly comes from boring TV dramas, but they always yell "REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH!" to the witness. That would seem a bit silly if it doesn't have any legal implications.


Also, I'm totally going to become a congressman and then demand to be sworn in on Das Kapital.

Yeah, they do something else called an 'affirmation' if you don't take an oath. Basically you are assumed to be telling the truth to the best of your knowledge and if you knowingly lie then it's perjury.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The answer to your question is no, that term is not used when taking an oath in a court room. There was a good video about this by a lawyer, I'll see if I can dig it up.

The double-standard is obvious enough that I thought this may have already been addressed.

Ironically, for Christians generally, I don't think swearing on a Bible actually has any significance. Invoking the name of God is clearly a problem in most religions. But, by definition, there could be no Biblical teachings about swearing on a Bible. Biblical self-references are not possible. Some churches, in particular the Catholics, could have evolved this doctrine over time, but it wouldn't necessarily apply to all Christian religions.

 

[Borek]

In Poland "tak mi dopomóż Bóg" (which is equivalent of "so help me God") is optional. Whenever you have to take an oath you can add it at your own discretion (risk?). I wonder if it is not the case also in US, after all, that's a logical solution when state is separated from the religion, but people can believe whatever they want.

 

[drankin]

The double-standard is obvious enough that I thought this may have already been addressed.

Ironically, for Christians generally, I don't think swearing on a Bible actually has any significance. Invoking the name of God is clearly a problem in most religions. But, by definition, there could be no Biblical teachings about swearing on a Bible. Biblical self-references are not possible. Some churches, in particular the Catholics, could have evolved this doctrine over time, but it wouldn't necessarily apply to all Christian religions.

James 5:12 (New American Standard Bible)

12But above all, (A)my brethren, (B)do not swear, either by heaven or by Earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

This is why many Christians will not swear on the bible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

James 5:12 (New American Standard Bible)

12But above all, (A)my brethren, (B)do not swear, either by heaven or by Earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

This is why many Christians will not swear on the bible.

That has nothing to say about swearing on a Bible. The problem is taking any kind of oath.

 

[zomgwtf]

That has nothing to say about swearing on a Bible. The problem is taking any kind of oath.

Taking an oath IS swearing on the bible. In the bible it specifically talks about if you take a false-oath, that is you take an oath but you lied about it, then God will NOT forgive you EVER. You are going to be eternally damned... no matter what else you do in your life. It SPECIFICALLY talks about this.

Now taking an oath isn't forbidden in the bible, it's recommended against however. For instance, Jesus Christ one time took an oath and the story is in the bible. Now I don't know if it would be against the rules to start referencing all of this but it's in there .

The reason that the bible suggests against taking an oath is that if you never take an oath then you are always free to make a mistake. If you take an oath you are not free to make any mistakes, everything must be truth as far as you know. So it's pretty risky and you're better off not taking the oath to avoid 'upsetting' god. . As well it is assumed that a christian need not take oath in order to be telling the truth, so introducing 'I swear to god' etc. etc. makes it seem like it's ok to lie as long as you don't say that, which isn't true in christianity. They are supposed to always be telling the truth and that is supposed to be something which is just 'accepted' as true by those who are being talked with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Taking an oath IS swearing on the bible.

No it's not. Again, by definition this is not possible as the bible cannot be self-referencing. This is a matter of historical fact. The bible didn't exist when the books in the Bible were written. So the bible cannot make references to swearing on a bible! It is a logical impossibility. Now, swearing on a bible is taking an oath, but my point was that the oath is the problem, not the book used.

I don't want this to be a religious debate. Nor is that allowed. I was just making a minor point about the actual point of objection. What I'm saying is self-evident and irrefutable. What is discussed is taking any oath, swearing, etc. So in the strictest sense, any required oath could violate some people's religious beliefs. That is what matters here. There is no doubt that a spectrum of beliefs exist regarding oaths, or swearing, so that becomes a matter specific to each religion. Some religions do see any Bible as being sacred. So any given religion may consider a "Bible oath" as being sacred. But that would not automatically be true for all Christian religions.

Falsely invoking the name of God is another matter altogether. That is pretty much a universal no-no for any Christian religion, as well as Islam.

 

[lisab]

In the state of Washington, the local court has a page for FAQ about jury duty.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/

Two snips from that link:

• (Juror instructions) You will also take an oath, in which you will promise to answer all questions truthfully.
• (Glossary of terms) oath: Written or oral pledge by a person to keep a promise or speak the truth.

It doesn't mention God, just a promise. Honestly, I'd be quite surprised if they did, but this state has one of the lowest rates of church attendance in the US.Edit: From the New Jersey courts page...

https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web0/juror.htm

"Do you swear or affirm that you will try the matter in dispute and give a true verdict according to the evidence?"
N.J.S.A. 2B:23-6 Oath of Jurors

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As a Catholic kid, one could always catch a Catholic friend in a lie by demanding that they "swear to God". After all, we are talking about eternal damnation! Good thing mom never thought of that one.

 

[BobG]

Taking an oath IS swearing on the bible.

Ivan's right in a general sense, but there's always folks that garble the message.

I still remember the scene in Fried Green Tomatoes where the Reverend is being sworn in and turns down the offer of the court Bible, saying he brought his own. He then perjures himself by saying that Idgie was at his Bible study class.

After being acquitted, Idgie exclaims, "I can't believe he swore on the Bible!" and Ruth replies, "Well, if that judge had looked any closer, he'd have seen that it was a copy of Moby Dick."

 

[drankin]

Since I haven't spent any time in a court of law, I can only assume that these are the words actually spoken when a person is sworn in and placed under oath. Are these the words still used?

If so, then I see a Constitutional problem. If a person believes in God, the oath has profound meaning. The believer sees eternal implications for their actions. If a person does not believe in God, then the words are "just words" having only legal implications. This suggests that believers are held to a higher standard than non-believers.

So it seems that "so help me God" should be removed from the oath, if it hasn't been already.

I'm having trouble following what your point is. If it is that there shouldn't be any religious reference, then ok. If you mean it makes a difference or suggests that it makes a difference, I don't get that. The point is that the court has an official statement from you that everything you are saying is factual. That's it.

"So help you God", doesn't mean anything to someone that is atheist. And it doesn't mean anything to a Christian because, it doesn't really mean anything. All in all, it's just a formality that wouldn't make a difference in a case of perjury.

 

[BobG]

I'm having trouble following what your point is. If it is that there shouldn't be any religious reference, then ok. If you mean it makes a difference or suggests that it makes a difference, I don't get that. The point is that the court has an official statement from you that everything you are saying is factual. That's it.

"So help you God", doesn't mean anything to someone that is atheist. And it doesn't mean anything to a Christian because, it doesn't really mean anything. All in all, it's just a formality that wouldn't make a difference in a case of perjury.

It might not make a difference legally, but it would cause a Christian more emotional distress to commit perjury than it would an atheist. That part of the oath should be omitted so Christians can commit perjury as easily as atheists.

Hmmm... that just doesn't sound quite right.

Finding a way to swear in people who can't swear any oath at all because of religious beliefs is probably a more relevant problem than whether "so help me God" is part of the oath.

 

[zomgwtf]

No it's not. Again, by definition this is not possible as the bible cannot be self-referencing. This is a matter of historical fact. The bible didn't exist when the books in the Bible were written. So the bible cannot make references to swearing on a bible! It is a logical impossibility. Now, swearing on a bible is taking an oath, but my point was that the oath is the problem, not the book used.

I don't want this to be a religious debate. Nor is that allowed. I was just making a minor point about the actual point of objection. What I'm saying is self-evident and irrefutable. What is discussed is taking any oath, swearing, etc. So in the strictest sense, any required oath could violate some people's religious beliefs. That is what matters here. There is no doubt that a spectrum of beliefs exist regarding oaths, or swearing, so that becomes a matter specific to each religion. Some religions do see any Bible as being sacred. So any given religion may consider a "Bible oath" as being sacred. But that would not automatically be true for all Christian religions.

Falsely invoking the name of God is another matter altogether. That is pretty much a universal no-no for any Christian religion, as well as Islam.

OHHH ok, I see what you're saying. All I was saying is that swearing on the bible IS a type of oath and some Christians refrain from doing this. It is a holy text you know, from God and all... Now if a Christian were to take oath on the Qu'ran, that's a hole different ball game.

 

[zomgwtf]

It might not make a difference legally, but it would cause a Christian more emotional distress to commit perjury than it would an atheist. That part of the oath should be omitted so Christians can commit perjury as easily as atheists.

Hmmm... that just doesn't sound quite right.

Finding a way to swear in people who can't swear any oath at all because of religious beliefs is probably a more relevant problem than whether "so help me God" is part of the oath.

That's why it's called an oath OR affirmation. They just require to know that you are going to tell the truth to the best of your abilities.

 

[Gokul43201]

When a religious person invokes the name of God in conjuction with an oath, they invoke eternal liability for their actions.

What are terms of their liability in the afterlife if a believer lies under oath without invoking the name of God?

 

[zomgwtf]

What are terms of their liability in the afterlife if a believer lies under oath without invoking the name of God?

Depends upon the religion...

EDIT: and the sect.

 

[Gokul43201]

Depends upon the religion...

EDIT: and the sect.

Pick one. Say for a Baptist, or a Methodist, or an Anglican ... I'm just curious about the extent to which God shows leniency if your perjury is not committed in his name.

 

[zomgwtf]

Pick one. Say for a Baptist, or a Methodist, or an Anglican ... I'm just curious about the extent to which God shows leniency if your perjury is not committed in his name.

Well in Christianity Jacob lies... a pretty big lie actually, and he gets forgiven. There are actually quite a few lies in biblical stories. They all get forgiven I believe except for when the serpent lies to Eve. Maybe even Lucifer gets forgiven too though. . Pretty much everything in christianity gets forgiven.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well in Christianity Jacob lies... a pretty big lie actually, and he gets forgiven. There are actually quite a few lies in biblical stories. They all get forgiven I believe except for when the serpent lies to Eve. Maybe even Lucifer gets forgiven too though. . Pretty much everything in christianity gets forgiven.

well, all your examples are old testament. which, i mostly take as a chronicle of things not to do, and here is why...

 

[zomgwtf]

well, all your examples are old testament. which, i mostly take as a chronicle of things not to do, and here is why...

Lol, I only gave two, it is by no means a comprehensive listing.

Here's even God lying in the New Testament:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2:11-12&version=KJV

Lol, I'm sure God is not a hypocrit, because hypocrites surely go to hell. So I'd assume that he forgives liars.
The fact of the matter is that Christians still believe in what is said in the Old Testament regardless of how you view it lol. And there are plenty of instances of lying, another example that springs to mind is Rehab lying to hide the Hebrew men.

 

[BobG]

The fact of the matter is that Christians still believe in what is said in the Old Testament regardless of how you view it lol. And there are plenty of instances of lying, another example that springs to mind is Rehab lying to hide the Hebrew men.

Well, that, too, depends on the particular religion - at least the importance of the Old Testament.

Catholics believe the average church goer should rely on the religious clergy to teach them about God and most of the Old Testament doesn't get a lot of emphasis. In any event, it's too hard for the average reader to understand and takes special training to interpret the real meaning of it. As such, the church picks the priests and assigns them to churches to ensure only qualified clergy are teaching religion.

Protestants believe the average church goer can read the Bible for themselves and the Old Testament is even thicker than the New Testament. How hard can it be to understand what's plainly written on the page? It shouldn't take any special training to comprehend and individual churches vote democratically to choose their own ministers and pastors.

It's no coincidence that Protestantism arose after the invention of the printing press.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, that, too, depends on the particular religion - at least the importance of the Old Testament.

Catholics believe the average church goer should rely on the religious clergy to teach them about God and most of the Old Testament doesn't get a lot of emphasis. In any event, it's too hard for the average reader to understand and takes special training to interpret the real meaning of it. As such, the church picks the priests and assigns them to churches to ensure only qualified clergy are teaching religion.

Protestants believe the average church goer can read the Bible for themselves and the Old Testament is even thicker than the New Testament. How hard can it be to understand what's plainly written on the page? It shouldn't take any special training to comprehend and individual churches vote democratically to choose their own ministers and pastors.

It's no coincidence that Protestantism arose after the invention of the printing press.

This is true but the stories are still there in the holy bibles of all christian religions. If a person confesses 'I am a Catholic' that necessarily in my mind means they believe in Catholicism which includes the Old testament. If they want to jump ship to Catholicism without knowing and understanding all of the beliefs associated with said belief than that's their problem. Actually God looks down upon this kind of behaviour in Christianity.

 

[BobG]

This is true but the stories are still there in the holy bibles of all christian religions. If a person confesses 'I am a Catholic' that necessarily in my mind means they believe in Catholicism which includes the Old testament. If they want to jump ship to Catholicism without knowing and understanding all of the beliefs associated with said belief than that's their problem. Actually God looks down upon this kind of behaviour in Christianity.

I take it you like John Wayne westerns better than Clint Eastwood westerns.

 

[zomgwtf]

I take it you like John Wayne westerns better than Clint Eastwood westerns.

LOL This killed me but I'll bite, what do you mean? hahahahahahahaha.

I like both though, my grandpa loved Clint Eastwood so I grew up watching them all the time.

 

[Proton Soup]

Lol, I only gave two, it is by no means a comprehensive listing.

Here's even God lying in the New Testament:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2:11-12&version=KJV

Lol, I'm sure God is not a hypocrit, because hypocrites surely go to hell. So I'd assume that he forgives liars.
The fact of the matter is that Christians still believe in what is said in the Old Testament regardless of how you view it lol. And there are plenty of instances of lying, another example that springs to mind is Rehab lying to hide the Hebrew men.

yikes, and i thought i was bad at reading literature

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty sure it was never a legal obligation to take oath to testify in the courts... was it?

It is not necessarily illegal to lie. For the court to have any legal authority on the matter of a person lying in court they must require the person to make a promise to tell only the truth.

Or do you mean an oath specifically as opposed to an affirmation? This would differ state to state here in the US. I am sure though that in places and times when people cared less about any one's religious sensitivities they were probably content with the idea that the oath would bind them regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

[BobG]

I take it you like John Wayne westerns better than Clint Eastwood westerns.

LOL This killed me but I'll bite, what do you mean? hahahahahahahaha.

I like both though, my grandpa loved Clint Eastwood so I grew up watching them all the time.

Pay attention to the supporting actors as well as the stars. John Wayne movies have a more Protestant outlook, while Clint Eastwood movies have a more Catholic outlook.

That really has more to do with the director than the actor, but Eastwood did movies for Sergio Leone.

 

[sillybilly]

They still swear on the Bible too, don't they?

I think we reformed that in Sweden about 35 years ago (we, too, used to swear under the mercy of God, or somethign similar), now you swear on your honor and conscience.


Slightly related question: Are Muslims allowed to swear on the Quran instead of the Bible?

actually yes they have many times i even no my dads friend did dat...

 

[chemisttree]

Pick one. Say for a Baptist, or a Methodist, or an Anglican ... I'm just curious about the extent to which God shows leniency if your perjury is not committed in his name.

So Ivan, you didn't want this to become a debate about religion, huh?

 

[zomgwtf]

Pay attention to the supporting actors as well as the stars. John Wayne movies have a more Protestant outlook, while Clint Eastwood movies have a more Catholic outlook.

That really has more to do with the director than the actor, but Eastwood did movies for Sergio Leone.

Lol wow, never would have thought of this.

 

[zomgwtf]

yikes, and i thought i was bad at reading literature

Ah it must require interpretation, how exactly do you interprete that story? (Other than God lying)

 

[zomgwtf]

Or do you mean an oath specifically as opposed to an affirmation? This would differ state to state here in the US. I am sure though that in places and times when people cared less about any one's religious sensitivities they were probably content with the idea that the oath would bind them regardless of their religious beliefs.

Yeah, I was specifically talking about oaths in a religious sense. What you say makes sense though.

 

[Gokul43201]

So Ivan, you didn't want this to become a debate about religion, huh?

There was no intent to turn it into a debate about religion, and I haven't. The point of the OP is predicated upon the requirement of eternal damnation only when perjury is committed specifically in the name of God. Being unschooled in the Book, I was merely verifying whether this was true, within the religions/religious sects of interest. Zomg has been helpful in pointing that it indeed is ... so there's nothing further to discuss along those lines. If I wanted to make this a debate on religion, I might have followed up on Zomg's response by questioning the value of such a system, but I did not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Pick one. Say for a Baptist, or a Methodist, or an Anglican ... I'm just curious about the extent to which God shows leniency if your perjury is not committed in his name.

Heh, well, for Catholics, a lie is a venial sin, while blaspemy is a mortal sin. For the former, you go to purgatory, for the latter, you go to hell. Other religions focus on repentance. But in all Christian religions that I've explored, blasphemy is considered to be one of the worst, if not the worst offense against God. It's the big Kahuna of sins.

In all or nearly all Christian religions, one can always be forgiven if they are sorry for their sins, but sorrow and repentance requires making right the wrong. So being sorry is not enough. One would normally have to correct the false testimony and take the punishment, in order to be forgiven.

I would have to do a little review to be sure as it has been a long time, but I believe that in many religions, blasphemy is the one sin that cannot be forgiven. For the Catholics, the wording was more along the lines of "knowingly choosing evil over good". Knowingly taking a false oath in God's name would probably qualify as knowingly choosing evil.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yeah, they do something else called an 'affirmation' if you don't take an oath.

I thought that an affirmation is what you took when you left out the "so help me God" bit. See, for example, the Judiciary Act of 1789:

And be it [further] enacted, That the Supreme Court, and the district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In all or nearly all Christian religions, one can always be forgiven if they are sorry for their sins, but sorrow and repentance requires making right the wrong. So being sorry is not enough. One would normally have to correct the false testimony and take the punishment, in order to be forgiven.

I would have to do a little review to be sure as it has been a long time, but I believe that in many religions, blasphemy is the one sin that cannot be forgiven. For the Catholics, the wording was more along the lines of "knowingly choosing evil over good". Knowingly taking a false oath in God's name would probably qualify as knowingly choosing evil.

This is also one of the key differences between Catholics and Protestants, I think, at least this is how it was in Luther's time - Catholics go to heaven by doing lots of good deeds (most of which involve giving your money to the church), whereas protestants hold that only by firm regret and acceptance of forgiveness can you enter heaven. So no matter how many orphanages in Ghana you build in the name of God, unless you're really sorry for eating your bread instead of giving it to that poor man, you're screwed.

This is speaking of protestantism in general, of course many of the smaller sects have different views on this *coughWBCcough*

 

[zomgwtf]

This is also one of the key differences between Catholics and Protestants, I think, at least this is how it was in Luther's time - Catholics go to heaven by doing lots of good deeds (most of which involve giving your money to the church), whereas protestants hold that only by firm regret and acceptance of forgiveness can you enter heaven. So no matter how many orphanages in Ghana you build in the name of God, unless you're really sorry for eating your bread instead of giving it to that poor man, you're screwed.

This is speaking of protestantism in general, of course many of the smaller sects have different views on this *coughWBCcough*

Not to start a debate on religion here or anything but in Catholicism it's not just 'all' about doing good deeds. It's assumed that when you are doing good deeds and when you are a practicing Catholic that you are doing them for the proper reasons. They still believe, very much, in repetence just like the other religions. However many christian religions do not believe in 'venial' and 'mortal' sin. They believe all sin is mortal sin.

Actually in Catholicism, some people believe that in your dying hours you are visited by Saint Michael, who gives you a chance to honestly repent everything and get into heaven. The repenting has to be sincere though, and obviously God will know if you are lying or just doing it for selfish reasons.

Things in various Catholic/Christian religions that are 'unforgivable' are varied but include the most popular:
a)False oath! Big no-no.
b)Homosexuality
c)Hypocrisy
d)Not accepting Christ as your saviour

In some of the religions however they don't like the idea of 'fearing' god or the idea that if you mess up once your done for, so they make EVERYTHING forgivable. So to them the only unforgivable sin is not accepting Christ.

These sort of things cause many debates between the various churches but the problem is that they are all supported by the Bible. over at rationalskepticism.com they are trying something. You go in and you make a comment from the Bible. For instance you say: God does not want us to kill. The person will then, using the bible contradict that statement and show you that God DOES want us to kill. So far it's been true even when someone brought up God does like capitalism. ()

I hope this post isn't too off topic and I don't mean to start a debate about it, it's just that 'understanding' the bible and seeing it through the eyes of various religions is pretty interesting to me. I can see how it would be confusing to a lot of other people though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is only appropriate to discuss religious view as they pertain to the op. Gokul was asking a question specific to the Constitutional grounds for objecting to oaths invoking God's name.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It does strike me that a religious person is always implicitly held to a higher standard than an atheist, even without taking a God oath; ie. there is God's law and punishment, as well as man's law. So if there is a legal basis in keeping with the op, for excluding the "so help me God" clause, then it would seem that the same legal argument could be made for any testimony in court, by believers. Therefore, believers should never be compelled to testify in court.

Just following the logic for fun here.

 

[BobG]

Things in various Catholic/Christian religions that are 'unforgivable' are varied but include the most popular:
a)False oath! Big no-no.
b)Homosexuality
c)Hypocrisy
d)Not accepting Christ as your saviour

Would that include marriage vows?

When the woman takes a vow to "love, honor, and obey" her husband, does that mean when he wants sex and she claims to have a headache that she faces eternal damnation?

Or does it just mean that the guy is then free to ignore that vow about forsaking all others?

Or are both headed down the road to eternal damnation?