Swearing on the bible, raise your right hand

[johnnyjones]

but what then do i do with CCC 2150: The second commandment forbids false oaths. Taking an oath or swearing is to take God as witness to what one affirms. It is to invoke the divine truthfulness as a pledge of one’s own truthfulness. An oath engages the Lord’s name. “You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name.” 81

and the paragraphs immediately following? hasn’t the Church spoken on this?

CCC 2150 references OT verses, and even in this nothing about objects being sworn upon are mentioned.

CCC 2154 Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus’ words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice.

Now you see the NT referenced, giving a clearer understanding of when an oath can be used. I earlier stated you should not swear on anything.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I thought you had to swear on bibles in court. Being if your on trial.

I found this at wikianswers:

Many jurisdictions in the United States provide alternate wordings, procedures, and/or documents for atheists who are placed in the position of “having to swear an oath” in legal proceedings. Similar considerations are made for other faith groups that do not use a Bible as their scriptural reference or for Christians in such sects that are prohibited from swearing oaths as the Dutch Reformed Church or the Quakers, as the Society of Friends is also called. When Herbert Hoover, who belonged to this last sect, was “sworn” in as the 31st President of the United States, for example, he took an affirmation.

These alternate wordings, procedures, and/or documents exist because of the fact that many of the Framers of the Constitution were themselves “Deists,” who did not hold with many of the teachings of the other religions of their day.
Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/Whenever_atheists_testify_in_court_do_they_swear_on_a_copy_of_the_Bible#ixzz26sJnTltN

Presidents don’t have to swear on Bibles to be sworn into office, either, as we see in Hoover’s case. Oh for the days when candidates and Presidents cared more for their scruples than their polls.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The disparity between states I find interesting. Maybe it’s a matter of historical affect? Georgia is much older than both (your) Colorado and (my) California.

Quite possible, but I also wonder if we used to have that and repealed it? Both are states have historically been more accepting of a variety of beliefs and life ways. And, oddly, our states had European settlements long before New England and Georgia, iirc.

 

[Julia_Mae]

CCC 2150 references OT verses, and even in this nothing about objects being sworn upon are mentioned.

CCC 2154 Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus’ words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice.

Now you see the NT referenced, giving a clearer understanding of when an oath can be used. I earlier stated you should not swear on anything.

Your oath in court is more like a contract between you and the state. You are affirming you understand that you must tell the truth. You do this because lying is a crime for which you can be prosecuted. It’s old-fashioned but the original intent was to be able to arrest people who lied. And sometimes they do.

 

[John_Lazarus]

In Canada you can swear, or instead “solemnly affirm”.

When I joined the Canadian Forces, I swore to serve. Legally, I would be just as bound to the Code of Service Discipline had I merely “affirmed”. Morally, though, I bound myself morseo by acknowledging my oath before God. I held a Bible as a visual representation of Him before Whom I made my oath.

The text of the oath – serve Her Majesty and her heirs, love/honour/obey the RSM, etc – is the germaine bit. The CF couldn’t really give a rat’s patoot whether God was involved or not, they legally had me by the boxers once I signed on the dotted line.

But the oath is a formality that raises the agreement between me and the Crown to something more than just a binding contract. An atheist would “solemnly affirm” – like, why specifically that? Can you cheerfully affirm instead? In this instance, remember Who said, “I tell you solemnly…” and what He meant when He said it.

It seems that oaths and solemn affirmations are used in very important or grave situations…like testifying in a court of law which will decide the fate of another human being. Or in my case, taking up arms for my country, and possibly dying for it (or as supposedly said by Patton, preferebly making the other poor sod die for his).

Legal trials, assuming public office, serving in the military…these are the kinds of things I believe where I believe participants are assuming, if you will, a solemn duty. So as a Christian I can show how solemn my promise is by making it formally before God… I am not swearing by God, but to Him.

And until the Holy See bans it, I will continue to make my oaths by formally acknowledging the presence of God and my submission to Him.

Hope I haven’t made a mess of this post… it’s five to three in the morning and I’m typing this with one finger on a cell phone.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[johnnyjones]

Your oath in court is more like a contract between you and the state. You are affirming you understand that you must tell the truth. You do this because lying is a crime for which you can be prosecuted. It’s old-fashioned but the original intent was to be able to arrest people who lied. And sometimes they do.

I understand what an oath in court is as almost anyone does. Swearing an oath according to the catechism is acceptable but as I said I’m talking about swearing ON the bible as opposed to a verbal statement only.

 

[Evan]

I was in court last week and the judge asked “Do you swear or affirm that what you say will be the truth?”

State of Washington, Pierce County Superior Court.

 

[johnnyjones]

Your oath in court is more like a contract between you and the state. You are affirming you understand that you must tell the truth. You do this because lying is a crime for which you can be prosecuted. It’s old-fashioned but the original intent was to be able to arrest people who lied. And sometimes they do.

Yes but should you swear on the bible as opposed to a verbal oath with just your hand in the air. This is the point I am making.

 

[Evan]

You shouldn’t be swearing on the bible or anything else. Swearing on the bible is mans attempt to show a forced truth by putting an object there for maximum impact.

Yes but should you swear on the bible as opposed to a verbal oath with just your hand in the air. This is the point I am making.

Johnny, are you arguing with yourself? Which side are you trying to justify?

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny, are you arguing with yourself? Which side are you trying to justify?

You mean you don’t understand. Swearing ON something, a specific object, as opposed to a verbal oath only is the distinction

 

[Evan]

Sorry.

I read

but should you swear on the bible

as

Yes but you should swear on the bible

with the you should and the should you in the wrong order.

 

[johnnyjones]

Sorry.

I read as

with the you should and the should you in the wrong order.

Got it. No problem.