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% | 2416 votes | Total: 4276 votes | |
| No | 43% | 1860 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe answer to this is a resounding "Yes!" Now why should this custom be perpetuated? If you think about it, three of the five major religions in the World, recognize the writing in it. The five religions being Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. The two religions that don't recognize anything in the Bible are Buddhism and Hinduism, which both predate the Bible. The purpose of using a Bible for swearing-in for ceremonies and in courtrooms is to instill in the oath taker, the importance of being truthful. So why would this work for 3 out of the 5 major religions?
Judaism recognizes the first five books of the Bible, commonly referred to as the Pentateuch or Pentarch (the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and these are key because they are also know as the Books of Laws which document the Commandments given to Moses by God. So a Jewish person may not believe the entire Bible but they can definitely identify with it which makes swearing on a Bible meaningful.
Christians recognize both the books in the Bible that deal with the times before Jesus came (referred to as the "Old Testament") and after His arrival (generally referred to as the "New Testament"). So they would most strongly identify with the significance of swearing-in on a Bible to remind them to be truthful. For some Chrisitan religions like Roman Catholicism, the Bible is more than a book but an icon as well. It is not unusual to ask a priest to bless a new Bible.
Finally the Muslims recognize both the Old and New Testaments like the Christians but there is a belief in the Prophet as the Final Messenger of God. So similar to the Jewish folks, they would understand the sacredness of God's word when taking an oath to be honest. They are very devout religious practitioners with a number of customs to observe (i.e. no alcohol, no pork, etc) and I am impressed by their dedication.
Interestingly enough the Jews also command my respect with many practices and customs to follow to be a good practicing Jew. It is ironic the Jews and Muslims don't get along better than they do. Only a handful of Christian sects such as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehoval Witnesses, have similar practices to show their dedication to their religion.
One would be hard pressed to find an alternate to the Bible that would be recognized by all three religions. I can't think of any alternates myself and would challange the reader to think or one or better yet, find an icon or object recognized as sacred by all five major religions. Good Luck!
Learn more about this author, R Shimoda.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Some years ago, the New York Supreme court underwent a facelift: when the time came to rebind the Bible, it was discovered that generations of witnesses had sworn on Webster's dictionary.
Amusing though this may be, it speaks to the heart of the question. An oath taken is not a trivial matter: providing someone with the opportunity to break that oath by the simple sophistry of objecting to the book used is rather foolish. On the other hand, the daunting task of how and what to replace the book with is quite another matter. Clearly society cannot and should not provide a massive library so that every individual may have a relevant text to swear by, if for no other reason that a witness swearing on 'The Satanic Bible' would likely prejudice the Jury.
I recall seeing a trial in England where a witness, a traditional (Gardnerian) Wiccan, affirmed on her 'Book of Shadows'. While the oath obviously was meaningful to her, the majority of the court officers and the jury were clearly less than convinced; they seemed split between thinking that the witness was deranged and that she was evil.
Given not only the spectrum of religions, but also the number of atheists and agnostics in the general population, the fact that most individuals take the swearing of an oath seriously is indeed surprising.
I suggest that a re-examination of the problem is required: In the case of the USA the one document that seems to be universally venerated is the Constitution. I suggest that perhaps requiring individuals to swear in upon this document would serve two purposes, in that the document itself is relatively non-denominational and also the basis of all laws in the USA.
This would also highlight the error of perjury: not only would it constitute the breaking of an oath, but a failure in a citizen's duty to his country and a disrespect of the constitution upon which that country is founded. Further, there can be no conflict between the religion under which the oath was sworn and the law being enforced, which is sometimes the case in the current system. I suggest that this would resonate far more strongly with the sizeable minority of citizens who are non Christian, while the Christians can accept it as rendering unto Caesar.
Will this result in a lower level of perjury? I doubt it, but it would certainly provide an equal and non-denominational basis for an oath, which all loyal citizens would have to respect.
Learn more about this author, Richard Sprigg.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
