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

[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. (:rofl:)

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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 how does "God's Law" trump the moral conscience of an atheist (who, by the way, can not wash off his sins by yapping to some designated "Holy Man", slaughtering some divinely selected animal, or otherwise performing some prescribed ritual)?

If having character is doing the right thing when no one's watching, and the religious feel compelled to do the right thing because they are always being watched by a God, then they sure need to find some other way to demonstrate character!

And yes, this is now turning into a debate on Religion, but I didn't start it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Would that include marriage vows?

As an example, Catholicism doesn't allow divorce

 

[BobG]

As an example, Catholicism doesn't allow divorce

It doesn't recognize divorce. There's a difference. A Catholic can get divorced with no penalty. They just can't remarry since, in the eyes of the church, they'd be committing adultery.

The difference is important.

It's perfectly acceptable to make arrangements for support of the children, division of the property, support of a spouse, etc in the event they're no longer going to be living in the same household. Where each person lives doesn't define whether they're still married or not in the eyes of the church.

This provides an escape so a person isn't choosing between physical abuse of themselves and/or children on a routine basis, poverty, and/or eternal damnation. They can leave an intolerable situation. They just can't enter into any new relationship.

In other words, you can check out any time you wish, but you can never leave.

Unless a spouse created a situation so intolerable that the church granted an annulment. I think the strictness of criteria for annulments tends to vary. During some decades, annulments are easy to get - during others they're almost impossible to get. Or maybe the criteria between priests just varies.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

IIRC, the church generally only recognizes adultery as a reason for annulments.

 

[BobG]

IIRC, the church generally only recognizes adultery as a reason for annulments.

So as soon as their former spouse remarries, then they can get the annulment and are free to go?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So as soon as their former spouse remarries, then they can get the annulment and are free to go?

That... Is an amusing connection for sure. I have never thought of it that way. But technically, yes, I suppose.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So how does "God's Law" trump the moral conscience of an atheist (who, by the way, can not wash off his sins by yapping to some designated "Holy Man", slaughtering some divinely selected animal, or otherwise performing some prescribed ritual)?

If having character is doing the right thing when no one's watching, and the religious feel compelled to do the right thing because they are always being watched by a God, then they sure need to find some other way to demonstrate character!

And yes, this is now turning into a debate on Religion, but I didn't start it.

Its a matter of the difference between theory and practice. A properly religious person theoretically will do the "right" thing because it is right and not because some book or priest says so. Similarly a "good citizen" will do the "right" thing because it is right and not because the law says so. We can see the deficiency of theory in either case.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So how does "God's Law" trump the moral conscience of an atheist (who, by the way, can not wash off his sins by yapping to some designated "Holy Man", slaughtering some divinely selected animal, or otherwise performing some prescribed ritual)?

You missed the key part about making right the wrong, in order to obtain forgiveness. Moral consequence is admittedly a completely internal concept, while God may be real. For the believer, even serving time in jail for perjury does not relieve them of their eternal liablity. In principle, [depending on the religion] they would still have to admit to the lie, in order to be forgiven. An atheist willing to pay the price of lying, could just serve their time in jail, rather than admit to the lie.

If having character is doing the right thing when no one's watching, and the religious feel compelled to do the right thing because they are always being watched by a God, then they sure need to find some other way to demonstrate character!

Regardless of your personal interpretion, a religious person believes the "threat" is real.

And yes, this is now turning into a debate on Religion, but I didn't start it.

Yes, you did. This is not about religion. This is about the law, and interpretations of Constitutional protections. I also stated that this assumes that legal precedence for the original argument does exist, as has been suggested. I was just following the legal logic.

 

[magpies]

Having something about god in the oath could make it seem more important. I don't see how that's a bad thing for the courts. It also probably makes it more likely for the person in question to self incriminate them self and that's one more good thing for the courts.

 

[pallidin]

Separation of Church and State.
Else it ends-up in a bar fight. Just the way it is...

 

[pallidin]

It also probably makes it more likely for the person in question to self incriminate them self and that's one more good thing for the courts.

That does indeed happen. Almost as if their "swearing-in" becomes their platform of "confession" for some whom are emotionally em-burdened by their "secrets"

 

[Al68]

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

Why not? One could easily argue that, although most don't realize it, Das Kapital was the single most influential writing of the twentieth century by far.

And "So help me Marx" does have a nice ring to it, as much as I hate to admit. It does represent the religion being pushed on everyone today.

 

[zomgwtf]

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?

Or would that mean that he's sinning by not loving and honouring his wife properly? I'm not sure what the bible says about the male wanting to have sex though so it may be perfectly true what you are saying, I've never really looked into that and as such I can't recall specific parts of the bible dealing with it at the moment. It could also be because I'm slightly tipsy though haha.

 

[zomgwtf]

Regardless of your personal interpretion, a religious person believes the "threat" is real.

Agreed, completely. If the person is truly religious (no one can really know this aside from that individual) and they take an oath, they truly will fear the outcome if they break that outcome. I have no doubt in my mind on this.

Does this mean that religious persons are more truthfull than non-religious people? Probably not.

 

[Gokul43201]

You missed the key part about making right the wrong, in order to obtain forgiveness.

Jeeze! You think that only a religious person deals with the concept of making right a wrong?

Moral consequence is admittedly a completely internal concept, while God may be real.

On the contrary, one might say that God is merely a matter of the conviction of your beliefs while an atheist's internal morality is a perfectly real thing, an not a matter of faith.

For the believer, even serving time in jail for perjury does not relieve them of their eternal liablity. In principle, [depending on the religion] they would still have to admit to the lie, in order to be forgiven. An atheist willing to pay the price of lying, could just serve their time in jail, rather than admit to the lie.

This is mind boggling. Where do you get this stuff from? Atheists do not feel a need to "admit to the lie"?

Yes, you did. This is not about religion. This is about the law, and interpretations of Constitutional protections. I also stated that this assumes that legal precedence for the original argument does exist, as has been suggested. I was just following the legal logic.

Ridiculous! You were the one that veered off the original topic and started making claims that irrespective of oaths, religious people are inherently held to higher standards of truth than the non-religious. That's your own personal idea based on what appears to be a complete ignorance of how an atheist might have a moral conscience. It has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional law.

 

[BobG]

Wouldn't a very religious person be more likely to commit perjury - especially if they'd committed a crime? Especially if they belonged to a religion where they had to confess their sin to God?

Sharing a secret with God, especially a very damning secret, is a very intimate experience for some people. Committing a crime and having to confess that crime and having only one being in the universe know the darkest and innermost secrets of the crimes one has committed can actually strengthen a person's commitment to their religion, increase the amount they donate at offerings, etc. And forget the threat of eternal damnation! Isn't an extremely close, intimate relationship with God worth eternal damnation?

Okay, it's only anecdotal, but in This American Life episode, former Saturday Night Live castmember Julia Sweeney recounts her younger years and her early life of crime... and how it affected her religious life. (You have to choose to either donate or to not donate before being directed to the episode).

By the way, after listening to the Sweeney clip, or perhaps even instead of listening to the Sweeney clip, jump to minute 41 and the portion about senior citizens and shoplifting. I was never able to forget this clip, especially the old lady's comment about making friends with other members of her recovery group, but I find this clip even more fascinating than I did the first time I heard it years ago.

 

[chemisttree]

How long will this "non-discussion" of religion be allowed on the forum? Does anyone follow the rules anymore?

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.

This entire thread is about value judgments stemming from religious beliefs, to wit:

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.

It cannot be more clear than this. Why is it allowed?

 

[mikelepore]

In any U.S. court, if you don't want to say "so help me God", there's no problem. As you take the witness stand, just say, "Judge, I wish to affirm." Now they know your preference.

 

[zomgwtf]

How long will this "non-discussion" of religion be allowed on the forum? Does anyone follow the rules anymore?

'Non-discussion' :rofl: Are you offended by the discussion sir? I think the people of these forums, especially in this thread have followed the rules to a T.

This entire thread is about value judgments stemming from religious beliefs, to wit:

It cannot be more clear than this. Why is it allowed?

That's not a value judgment what the hell are you smoking? Pass some.

Nothing you quoted and bolded that supposedly is a 'value judgment' judges the values of any religion, it simply discusses them.

 

[BobG]

In all seriousness, you don't look at this from the point of view of a person that lies on the witness stand, since they're committing a crime.

You have to look at it from the point of view of a person that tells the truth. If a person doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe in swearing an oath and refuses to include the "so help me God" part, does it increase the chances of a jury perceiving him as a liar? If it does, then the "so help me God" part shouldn't be included for anyone.

A "Do you understand that you're obligated by law to tell the truth, that lying is perjury and that perjury is a crime punishable by x period of imprisonment and a fine of x dollars?" should be a sufficient "swearing in".

Now, a good lawyer might still ask his witness to wear a necklace with a cross, since the majority of the jury is likely to be Christian and might believe a religious person is more likely to tell the truth, but there's not much you can do about that.