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% | 2417 votes | Total: 4277 votes | |
| No | 43% | 1860 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThere is value in keeping time honored traditions. They are part of our heritage, the very fiber of who we are. Whether or not we like what we are, we cannot go back and change our heritage. The founding fathers were unequivocally of Judea-Christian origin, and the Bible was the symbol of truth and law, as it has been for hundreds of years prior to the founding of our country.
During the 2005 Supreme Court ruling regarding monuments bearing the likeness of the Ten commandments, it was argued that the "Ten Commandments " [are] a uniquely potent and commonly recognized symbol of the law."
The Bible is an account of laws given to humanity not just for redemption but also for the benefit of social structure. The laws we have today are greatly influenced by the laws within the Bible. Hence, it has for centuries been the symbol of law and truth.
Today, whether or not a person believes the contents of the Bible, it still exists as a symbol of law and truth. A person taking an oath upon the Bible is not necessarily embracing the contents as religious truth, but by the symbol of law and truth, they are pledging to tell the truth. Contained in the Ten Commandments are the fundamentals of what we as a law abiding nation believe to be right in society: "Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither shalt thou steal." And also another segment which is relevent to someone taking an oath in a court of law: "Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour." A person does not need to believe the Bible has religious value in order to believe the face value of such content.
It is interesting and noteworthy to mention that in taking an oath, the oath taker is not required to say "So help me God", but simply I Affirm'. Again, this focuses more upon the universal symbolization of the Bible rather than a belief in the content as religious. This way, regardless of a person's religion or lack of religion in the case of an atheist, the latitude is given for the oath taker to make a secular affirmation instead of a religious vow.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly made rulings recognizing the benefit of certain traditions for the cohesiveness of our society and has had the wisdom of determining that certain things can be religious in nature but secular in purpose, such as in the aforementioned 2005 Supreme Court ruling regarding the monument of the Ten commandments in Austin Texas.
In the so called "Lemon test", (Lemon v. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)], it was declared that that a government practice is constitutional if, as articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
No other symbol of law and truth embraces more of our heritage. To replace it with some other symbol, or abolish the symbolism of it altogether would certainly diminish the gravity of the act of taking an oath. I say leave it alone.
Learn more about this author, Mac a'Bhaird.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Defenders of this custom often cite that the United States was built as a "Christian nation;" they mention the founding fathers and claim that the foundation of the U.S. was one of unified Christianity, and that simply because non-believers are more prevalent today is no reason to dismantle a tradition rooted in the largest religious denomination in the country.
The truth in that defense is that yes, Christianity is currently the largest organized religion in the country, with 76.5% of Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2001 (religioustolerance. org). But the truth is that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. This was clearly echoed in the 1797 treaty the U.S. forged with Tripoli, which was signed into effect by John Adams and drafted by none other than George Washington himself:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility...it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
While the secularism referred to in the above text seems lost among today's prominent Christian following, the truth remains that the founding fathers were concerned more with religious freedom than with religion itself. Thomas Jefferson remarked that "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man," a statement no serious presidential candidate would ever make today for it would surely cost him the election. Even believers from Jefferson's era, like Benjamin Franklin, were more deistic than theistic, believing in one Creator but refuting the concept of the meddlesome God who listens to our prayers and punishes our sins. "You desire to know something of my religion," Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter to Ezra Stiles. "I believe in one God, creator of the Universe...I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure." This deistic, uninvolved God is drastically different from the vengeful, egomaniacal God of the Bible.
This raises the question as to whether the Bible itself is a book worthy of such a high privilege, that we should swear on it in ceremonies and courtrooms. Granted, there are some good morals in the Bible, but any positive lesson is unfortunately overshadowed by the racism, misogyny, and genocide exacted by God throughout the Old Testament. Even Jesus of Nazareth, reportedly a peace-loving pacifist, says and does some pretty cruel things in the New Testament; not to mention the way the Bible ends, with the Book of Revelation ushering believers into wild bliss while non-believers are left to perish. The bottom line is that the Bible, while obviously important to many Christians, and obviously powerful in a literary and historical context, is an offensive and antiquated text, one which condones female subservience and slavery. Should we, today in 2009, be swearing on such a book?
Some defenders of this practice will claim that the custom is simple tradition, no different from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance - which also claims that we are "one nation under God" - and should not be taken so literally. But should one practice be deemed okay simply because it's what has always been done? The aforementioned founding fathers, who built this nation not on religion but on religious freedom, did so because they were forward thinking men. Religious freedom dictates that not everyone in the country is the same religion, but that all have the right to practice said religion (or no religion) free from prosecution. To force citizens to utilize an obviously religious book and, ostensibly, swear to "God," goes against what the founding fathers actually intended.
It is true that the Bible's influences can be seen even today, from the fine print of our laws to the depths of our morality. But this phenomenon has its origins buried in the past, and is forever unchangeable. We cannot alter what the Bible was used to produce, or how it influenced the law-makers to create that which they deemed just. Those changes have already been made. But we are constantly evolving, making changes to the laws as we find them unjust. To make everyone swear on a book only some believe in is to retard the progress of religious freedom set in motion by our founding fathers. The Bible has no place in the courtroom of an upward moving society, for it is not God's laws that dictate our government, but our own.
Learn more about this author, Andrea Nostramo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
