16 of 149

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Whilst those of true Christian conviction would argue otherwise, the use of the Bible in taking the oath has almost certainly lost its meaning for the vast majority of people who take their oath upon it. Many of them will not even be nominally' Christians, much less of a true belief why then should they be held to this archaic form?

They shouldn't.

But that doesn't mean that the Bible shouldn't continue to be used.

The swearing-in ceremony whether it is of a jury or of a witness in a court of law, or in the taking up of a public office, must remain a solemn occasion. The oath must be taken with due pause and respect for its seriousness.

For many the taking "hold of the Book in the right hand" and reading or reciting the oath, gives that pause.

It is not the threat of divine retribution should they break their oath that holds witnesses to the truth and officers to their dutyearthbound legal and/or financial retribution for contempt of court, perjury or demeaning the public office probably holds far more fears for most. Even so, the weight of the Bible in their hand and the solemnity of the occasion, the actual ritual of taking the oath is a pause for thought. A few seconds in which to consider how much weighs upon whether or not they will live up to what they are about to promise.

There must however be an alternative as in English courtrooms there has been for centuries. Those of other faiths can choose to take the oath on the holy book of their own religion, or along with those of no faith they can choose to affirm'.

Without the aid of any prop, a witness in the English legal system who does "solemnly affirm that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is as bound as any who choose to hold the book and solemnly swear' to do likewise.

Indeed one of the first groups to decline to take the oath were the Quakers, on the grounds that to do so implied that there were two levels of truth that told under oath, and that told at any other time. Their faith, they held, bound them always to be sworn-to-God truthful. For them the Bible was not required. Nor should it be for anyone else.

That is the issue to be decidednot whether the Bible should continue to be usedbut whether it MUST be used.

To the former I would argue YES. Anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian, the oath should be taken on the Bible unless they bear witness to a true belief in line with that of the Plymouth Brethren.

To the latter I would argue, NO. To require a person

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should the Bible continue to be used for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms??
We want to hear your view. Write now!