Church of the Earth of NC

On another site the question was posed: Should Pagans be asked to swear oaths on the Bible? My response was the following.

An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath, to make a solemn vow.

The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties. It therefore implies greater care than usual in the act of the performance of one's duty, such as in testimony to the facts of the matter in a court of law.

<i><b>A person taking an oath indicates this in a number of ways. The most usual is the explicit "I swear," but any statement or promise that includes "with * as my witness" or "so help me *," with '*' being something or someone the oath-taker holds sacred, is an oath. Many people take an oath by holding in their hand or placing over their head a book of scripture or a sacred object, thus indicating the sacred witness through their action: such an oath is called corporal. However, the chief purpose of such an act is for ceremony or solemnity, and the act does not of itself make an oath</b></i>

If we are willing to accept the above extract from Wikipedia as a working premise for the understanding of the evolution of oath-taking, I would propose it is the words which make the oath, not the actions, which are just ceremonial. So, I could swear on a copy of The Lord of the Rings, which I consider to be something of a sacred book, and in many instances a much better read than the Bible. Bear also in mind the Christian Bible, for all its honor at the hands of the fundamentalists, is merely a compendium of other books assembled by a committee for the teaching of its own community about the Judaeo-Christian experience. I would feel just as bound by an oath sworn on a copy of the Diamond or Heart Sutras.

What do YOU think?

An interesting perspective -after all, what WOULD we swear on? - not all of us keep a Book of Shadows - nor would we be all that likely to offer it up to court officers that we might do so. There is no single book the we might call "THE BOOK," nor a single object. Any ideas guys?

Generally speaking, if a person choses not to swear on the bible in a court, they do not have to. There is an option of picking another holy book like the Qur'an, or just offer their word as their oath.

The few times I've had to offer testimony in court (the first during my high school's mock trial competitions), I've always given my personal word and gone from there. With actual court, I've always spoken to the lawyer ahead of time, and when they asked me to give my statement, I wasn't even offered a bible. I've never had a problem with it.

Michelle

"I would feel just as bound by an oath sworn on a copy of the Diamond or Heart Sutras."

consider what makes this statement true or if it's true for you?

An oath is only as good as our belief or faith in something.

This is evident in, in people's ability to lie in court. Because even within Christendom some no-longer believe in the divinity of the Bible. This can be found in any and all religions. if you don't believe in something, or truly have a working understanding of your beliefs or faith. This will become apparent, by the casualness in which, you take an oath. Usually evident by the lack of healthy fear or respect, by the ease in which someone takes an oath. Or by which more bind themselves to a specific statement.

Someone once said "neither swear by heaven or by Earth" and had an overall negative opinion on oath taking this person had a excellent understanding of faith, and a very strong belief in the things they held to be sacred.

in most religions, there are sound life lessons, we can learn from. while continuing to grow spiritually and mentally.


I believe words have meaning, as such they are important especially in the context of faith. What you believe does positively or negatively affect you and those around you. depending on how much faith you put behind it.

basically oath taking is not a good idea! And I have regularly refused to do so! for the simple fact my words have meaning, and meaning is transferred, to faith, faith has power!

The act of swearing on a bible is simply meant to be a visual action for others to see. It's meant to show proof, in essence a public proclamation, that one's word is true and binding because one is using the sacred text of one's faith to bind themselves to their word (as pretty much stated in the original post up above). Of course, again as the post states, the act itself of swearing on a bible is meaningless, if one does not consider the bible a sacred text and the act itself can use any other book or any item one would deem sacred in general. However, you would expect that the "other" book or item would represent truth, honesty, etc. because the nature of giving an oath in court is that while testifying one will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". So, I would propose that just because the "other" book/item is sacred does not mean it would be sufficient for the purpose at hand unless it holds in it testament to truth, honesty, and justice, etc.

With that said, two other points come to mind. One, why is it mankind must use anything of sacred value to give one's word? Mankind has evolved enough that giving one's word should mean something but that concept is inherent to the person giving their word. Obviously, if dishonesty is their nature then perhaps, no matter how they gave their word, it should be circumspect because of their dishonest nature. So, the action of giving one's word itself is null and void in this type of situation and therefore the book/involved is irrelevant.

The other point to come to mind is that truth, like beauty, is perceived differently by any given person based on their experiences and formative thoughts throughout the years. You can take any situation and any number of witnesses to that same situation from the same view and the same moment in time and the versions of the truth will vary as greatly as the number of witnesses that exist. Each of the witnesses' minds may have observed exactly the same thing but each witnesses mind will interpret the witnessed event based on the witnesses' perceptions of experiences in life. Which, of course, have diverged exponentially, from each of the other witnesses. So, telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is inherently limited as much as the act of swearing on a sacred text/item.

So, in short, the act itself of swearing on the bible is a nice visual but overall can be maniputated by the person offering the oath and doesn't guarantee the testimony being given. And with my pagan view of balance in the world and within myself the act of giving my word to me is most valuable and should I rescind my word without notifying those I gave it to, the negativity of my falseness will only come to haunt me later in some other form so somewhere along the line I would hope that each person builds enough character within themselves to either stand behind their word or not give their word at all. But, alas, we are all human and subject to the fallacies of human perceptions and when listening to testimony as an officer of the court or a jury member one must remember to take each thing with a grain of salt, as they say.