by Richard Sprigg

Created on: May 12, 2009   Last Updated: May 14, 2009

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.