Religion & Spirituality >
Religion & Spirituality (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the Bible continue to be used for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms?
Results so far:
| Yes | 57% | 2412 votes | Total: 4263 votes | |
| No | 43% | 1851 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesLet's face it: the separation of church and state in America can be confusing as all get-out. Just when you think you've got Jefferson's "wall of separation" down pat, every now and then a Supreme Court ruling comes along and turns everything you thought you knew upside down. Now I'm not much of a church-goer, but there is something deeply wrong-indeed, deeply anti-American-about eliminating the use of the Bible for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms. It seems perfectly ok for atheists and secularists to deny the existence of God, which they have every right to do. But when someone believes there are objective moral values in the world, all of the sudden he is a fanatic. And if those objective moral values happen to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, why, the very public acknowledgment of that view becomes a violation of the Constitution.
What nonsense. The campaign against the Bible is merely the philisophical cover for an attempt to deny the existence of objective moral values. Instead of arguing the merits of the issue, secularists are trying to win the argument by default on the grounds that the other side is bent on turning the U.S. into a theocracy.
Nothing sticks in the craw of secularists more than the explicit references to God in our currency, national seal, legislative prayers, "Pledge of Allegiance," national anthem, and oaths sworn in federal courts. Such motifs, religious and unapologetic, are portrayed as double standards, a virtual endorsement of one religion over another by the federal government, a breach of the American tradition of pluralism, free-exercise, liberty and justice.
That portrayal is denial masquerading as constitutional purity. You want Darwinism? You want atheism? How about a people who proclaim the death of God, commit all manner of socially unacceptable behaviors, like stealing, with the rationale that there is nothing to prove that molesting child is really wrong? If the Ten Commandments are irrevelant, do objective moral values really exist? Says who? Without the Bible, there is no absolute right and wrong which does not change.
But the truth is that objective values do exist, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse didn't just become wrong over the years as natural products of evolution. They were always wrong. The man who says it is morally acceptable to murder is just as mistaken as the man who says 1+1=3. And so the Founders, mindful as they were of inherent human depravity, gave us a Constitution that, while truly a secular document, clearly bears the mark of the men who believed in universal rights as given by God and that those objective moral values were permanently enshrined in the Bible. And not even Jefferson, the most secular of the bunch, had any doubts about that.
Learn more about this author, Jeffrey Jason Hill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should the Bible continue to be used for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms?
Despite my belief that the Bible is a powerful symbol of integrity and justice, I do not believe it should be used in court rooms or for swearing in ceremonies. I recognize that the reason we have the tradition of swearing on the Bible is to symbolically remind the oath maker that his integrity or lack thereof is being scrutinized by a higher than human authority. It is the symbolic representation that the person's credibility is appealed to by not only human but also divine justice. I also realize that certain symbols are powerful evokers of what psychologist Carl Jung called the collective unconscious - that part of our unconscious minds where through symbolic representations we are interconnected with the rest of humanity. Throughout history, certain symbols have come to represent humankind's wider embrace of deeply set shared values. The symbolic concept of justice is one such deeply entrenched value; personal integrity is another. Our outward expressions of conformity to society's values are but the tip of the iceberg. When we swear on the Bible, we are calling on the much more profound, but largely unconscious 80% that lies just beneath the surface of our consciousness.
I have three major issues against using the Bible in this manner. Firstly, used this way the religious significance of the Bible is ambiguous. The focus is on its power to evoke a largely unconscious impulse towards honesty and integrity rather than a response to God's personal revelation of Himself. This misrepresents and sullies the Bible's intended purpose. The Bible is meant to guide its readers to a personal relationship with God - not merely be a test of integrity or honesty. It is a book where mercy triumphs over judgment. It's meant to inform: that all of us, including judge, jury, defendant and prosecution are sinners in great need of God's forgiveness and transformation. Threatening condemnation for sin and compelling us to good behaviour is only a small part of its message. Its far greater significance is to serve as a gateway for redemption from slavery to forces that our destroying us and separating us from God's love. Reducing its symbolic message to simply being a standard for honesty and integrity is in itself a travesty of justice. As a Christian, I am troubled by this misuse as I believe it gives to others a false impression of our faith.
Using the Bible in this manner also imposes on followers of other faiths, atheists and agnostics a tradition that is not in keeping with a pluralistic society. As a Christian, I deeply believe that the Bible's message is for all people. I also believe, however, that whenever we have historically attempted to impose our faith on others we have grossly misrepresented it. Swearing on the Bible is a vestige of what was once a repressive use of religion to control the lives and values of others. Biblical Christianity transforms lives and renews minds; it does not demand conformity. I live in a province in Canada where one of the historical events it takes great pride in arose out of an injustice involving the swearing in ceremony of an elected member of government. A Jew, named Ezekiel Hart, was elected by the predominantly French Canadian Catholic members of his constituency to represent them. At the swearing in ceremony, as a matter of conscience, he would not swear upon the Christian Bible. Certain members, who opposed him, were able to prevent him from taking up office over this issue. He was re-elected a few years later and offered to swear upon a Hebrew Bible but again was rejected. It was not until he was a much older man that Louis Joseph Papineau, the son of the very person primarily responsible for Hart's rejection, led the movement that eventually allowed for Jews and members of all faiths to hold office in Quebec, whether or not they were willing to swear on the Bible. Quebec was the first region in North America and the British Empire that offered such a right. It became a landmark statement of civil rights and equality for Jews during the early to mid nineteenth century.[1]
Although there are now safeguards protecting people who conscientiously object to the Bible's use for oath making and swearing in ceremonies; there, nevertheless, remains a connection to a history of its repressive use. It may be timely, in terms of social change and the cultural values of both Christian and non-Christian alike, to drop this archaic use of the Christian scriptures.
A third reason for no longer using the Bible in this manner is that it appeals to a superstitious, and superficial mindset rather than to the genuine integrity of the person. The Bible warns against such use of religious relics and symbols.[2] Superstition is limited in its effect to elicit honest responses and insulting to people who find such belief systems intellectually offensive. For people of genuine integrity it is enough to simply pledge their word before their peers as a statement of their good intentions. There is no higher bond of truth. For those without integrity, it is doubtful the Bible will call it forth.
As science progresses it may be readily possible to ascertain whether truthful responses and honest commitments are being made. We know from lie detector testing that it is possible to test for honest responses in a manner that is becoming increasingly more objective and accurate. Such measures are potentially highly intrusive to basic freedoms and privacy and hopefully will never be universally acceptable in a justice system that supports the principal of established innocence until proven guilt. Perhaps, for witnesses who have a record of perjury, lie detectors could be used during the giving of testimony. Similarly for extremely sensitive positions affecting national security pledges of office might be similarly scrutinized. Such possibilities seem draconian in their potential for misuse by authority, but the notion is not farfetched. From an historical perspective, the misuse of the Bible, for swearing in and oath taking when combined with a superstitious belief system and religious repression has already had draconian consequences for some.
[1] For more on Ezekiel Hart see Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online: http://www.biographi .ca/009004-119.01-e. php?&id_nbr=3429 &interval=20& ;&PHPSESSID=ychz fqkvzape
[2] Matt. 5:33-37
Learn more about this author, Steven Macpherson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
