Swearing an oath on the Quran

Originally posted by whodey
What about Congressmen swearing on a book that they hold to be sacred? Do you not think by doing so they are more likely to take such oaths more seiously? Perhaps atheists could swear on a book by Dawkins or Darwin.

Why swear on a book at all? Isn't it really all up to your own honor anyway? If one must swear upon something, why not the US Constitution?

Originally posted by telerion
Why swear on a book at all? Isn't it really all up to your own honor anyway? If one must swear upon something, why not the US Constitution?

The concept is to swear on a book you deem to be a moral authority to which you live your life by. Therefore, the text that you elevate as being a moral authority would be the only text in which it would make sense to swear upon. You could use the Constitution as a document to swear upon, however, only if you respected it as the basis for your morality. Otherwise you might as well swear upon the latest addition of Newsweek.

Originally posted by whodey
The concept is to swear on a book you deem to be a moral authority to which you live your life by. Therefore, the text that you elevate as being a moral authority would be the only text in which it would make sense to swear upon. You could use the Constitution as a document to swear upon, however, only if you respected it as the basis for your morality. Otherwise you might as well swear upon the latest addition of Newsweek.

Interestingly, some Christian sects like the Quakers, refuse to swear oaths based on Jesus' words in Matthew 5: 33-37:

33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;

35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

EDIT: And James 5:12:

12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Interestingly, some Christian sects like the Quakers, refuse to swear oaths based on Jesus' words in Matthew 5: 33-37:

33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 [b]but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the thron ...[text shortened]... by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.[/b]

Its nice to see you reading your Bible again no1. Actually this verse did cross my mind when discussing the issue of swearing upon the Quran and the Bible. Perhaps one could choose not to swear based upon the religious beliefs? For me it would actually be a better indicator of a motivation for conducting themselves on a moral high ground. After all, it would be easy to swear by pretty much anything by any religious/sacred text if words mean little to them. On the other hand, someone who is thougtful about the words they speak I think would have a better chance of telling the truth than one that is not. I wonder if one could forgo swearing an oath and still serve in government?

Originally posted by whodey
The concept is to swear on a book you deem to be a moral authority to which you live your life by. Therefore, the text that you elevate as being a moral authority would be the only text in which it would make sense to swear upon. You could use the Constitution as a document to swear upon, however, only if you respected it as the basis for your morality. Otherwise you might as well swear upon the latest addition of Newsweek.

But since there is no way of telling whether the person swearing upon that that text actually believes in the text's significance against a moral authority, or even whether the person swearing comprehends the act in terms of some moral authority, the act is useless in determining the truth of the swearer in future interaction.

Even if he does believe in the significance it still does not mean he will tell the truth thereafter. The act is symbolic and nothing more.

Originally posted by Starrman
But since there is no way of telling whether the person swearing upon that that text actually believes in the text's significance against a moral authority, or even whether the person swearing comprehends the act in terms of some moral authority, the act is useless in determining the truth of the swearer in future interaction.

Even if he does believe i ...[text shortened]... t still does not mean he will tell the truth thereafter. The act is symbolic and nothing more.

Actually a significant number of people are less likely to lie after taking an oath so in the case of witnesses in court it is more than just symbolic.
I don't know whether it has any effect in politics as it is a once off event at the start of a career which is easily forgotten. The political system favors dishonest people anyway so most politicians are dishonest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually a significant number of people are less likely to lie after taking an oath so in the case of witnesses in court it is more than just symbolic.
I don't know whether it has any effect in politics as it is a once off event at the start of a career which is easily forgotten. The political system favors dishonest people anyway so most politicians are dishonest.

The political system favors dishonest people anyway so most politicians are dishonest.

That might well be true for South Africa.

Originally posted by Halitose
That might well be true for South Africa.

It applies in many countries including South Africa, Zambia and in my opinion the US and the UK as has been seen by the actions of the leaders of those countries.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually a significant number of people are less likely to lie after taking an oath so in the case of witnesses in court it is more than just symbolic.
I don't know whether it has any effect in politics as it is a once off event at the start of a career which is easily forgotten. The political system favors dishonest people anyway so most politicians are dishonest.

Do you have any studies to back this claim up?

My point was not that the oath was sworn, but that it was sworn on something.

Originally posted by Starrman
But since there is no way of telling whether the person swearing upon that that text actually believes in the text's significance against a moral authority, or even whether the person swearing comprehends the act in terms of some moral authority, the act is useless in determining the truth of the swearer in future interaction.

Even if he does believe i ...[text shortened]... t still does not mean he will tell the truth thereafter. The act is symbolic and nothing more.

Point taken. It reminds me of a certain passage of scripture which is Jeremiah 17:9 that says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatly wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Also Romans 3:4 comes to mind that says, "...Let God be true, and every man a liar..."

Having said that I think it still imperative to make men accountable for their actions. If they say they will do something they must be held accountable. In any job, which includes politics, the expectation of that job must be laid out before them and agreed upon. Only in such a case can they then be held accountable for what they do or do not do according to their job expectation. I think swearing an oath often drives home the importance of such an agreement, however, not in all circumstances as has been pointed out. The question, I think, is are we better with it or without it? I guess what we need are cold hard facts. What is the statistical likelyhood of oaths producing a better result than without an oath?

Originally posted by whodey
Its nice to see you reading your Bible again no1. Actually this verse did cross my mind when discussing the issue of swearing upon the Quran and the Bible. Perhaps one could choose not to swear based upon the religious beliefs? For me it would actually be a better indicator of a motivation for conducting themselves on a moral high ground. After all, it wo ...[text shortened]... an one that is not. I wonder if one could forgo swearing an oath and still serve in government?

The US Constitution says you can "affirm" rather than swear an oath.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The US Constitution says you can "affirm" rather than swear an oath.

Well there you go, problem solved. A Christian need not swear an oath.

Originally posted by whodey
Well there you go, problem solved. A Christian need not swear an oath.

A Christian aint supposed to swear on anything ,except their own
word.

Originally posted by whodey
Well there you go, problem solved. A Christian need not swear an oath.

Two Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, didn't. But I wonder in the present political environment what would happen to a Christian politician who refused to swear on the Bible.

Originally posted by Starrman
Do you have any studies to back this claim up?

No, it is a personal observation.

My point was not that the oath was sworn, but that it was sworn on something.
I have met a number of people who have been witnesses at court and the say quite clearly that they would not lie while under oath but would happily do it at other times.
Interestingly people who frequently swear on something without being asked to are usually the dishonest ones.