Should the Bible continue to be used for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms?

No

3 of 254

by Clare Callow

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Forget the politics of the matter; using the Bible as an assurance against perjury in court no longer holds the relevance it once did. Arguments about equality, about broadening the legal system to take in a range of spiritual beliefs, or about political correctness pale when simply compared to the truth of the nature of modern man. In our cynical, modern culture, most people who believe in an eternal soul would happily use said soul to crowbar their way out of trouble.

The problem with the Bible is that the spiritual repercussions of swearing falsely (ie. with intent to lie) are too distant. People regularly whine when receiving a parking ticket, having convinced themselves that they will never have to face the consequences of their actions even though the authorities are relatively close - a parking officer, around one block away. Put this next to acts for which the consequences lie a possible fifty years into the future - if ever - and you no longer have the attention of the Pepsi generation.

Even the legal consequences of lying under oath are too distant for most people to cope with. People frequently tell the most stupid lies under oath - and who can blame them? Lies are another regular feature of modern culture. We lie to employers ('of course I'm experienced in C++ programming,' 'I am too ill to come in today'), parents ('I am fine'), friends, co-workers... in fact, Western culture encourages daily lies in the common 'How are you/Good' greeting sequence.

There are not a lot of things that will deter a determined liar if threat of legal or spiritual retribution don't suffice. Careful experiment with torture over the centuries has shown that threat of physical violence does not encourage truth-telling: the victim will simply tell the torturer whatever it is the victim thinks the torturer wants to know (one of the reasons coercion has been abandoned by the more reliable police forces). So, appointing an extra bailiff to stand over witnesses brandishing a sledgehammer will not do much good. Neither will the method of placing the witness's family inside a cage suspended over a shark tank and arming the judge with the button to trigger the drop - in fact, this may encourage perjury in some families.

For myself, I think a more effective method would be for someone to hold up a frog in one hand and a hammer in the other, and inform me that if I do not tell the truth, they will hit the frog with the hammer. This would give me more impetus to tell the truth than any piece of paper, to be completely honest with you. Not only does the frog give more of a feeling of immediacy (the life of the frog is there, in front of you, whereas the retribution - legal or spiritual - is a long way off), it conveys more of the import of the moment: if you do not tell the truth, this innocent young amphibian will die. There is also an environmental element, as frogs are pretty much the poster-child for climate change. Watching a frog being beaten with a hammer would also be extremely unpleasant, which is a surprisingly strong deterrent in modern 'me' culture.

In summary, the Bible is a fairly ineffective tool for ensuring truth holds sway in the courtroom, even for that small section of the population that invests their faith in it. Begin to talk about a rather thick, leather-bound copy of the Bible and a very small kitten, and you might have an effective method. Otherwise, the only place the Bible has in a court room is with any other available reading material.

Learn more about this author, Clare Callow.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.