. . . under the penalty of perjury . . .

[37818]

". . . ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." -- Matthew 5:33-37.

". . . But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. . . ." -- James 5:12.


At issue is sworn statements versus unsworn true statements. That issue was a reason behind the first amendment of our constitution and behind the need for separation of the state from the church.

I addressed those verses in my very first post in this thread.

I think the admonishment to not swear an oath is basically saying that you should be honorable and honest enough that people know you are telling the truth without having to swear upon something else, like a bible, or God, or whatever higher authority. Your word should be high enough authority that people will know you are telling the truth yourself.

But does not address the issue given that there are Christians who believe one should not make or say oaths of any kind.

[Sparko]

But does not address the issue given that there are Christians who believe one should not make or say oaths of any kind.

They are wrong. overly literal and legalistic. now it is addressed.

[37818]

They are wrong. overly literal and legalistic. now it is addressed.

Huh, an explicit understanding of this teaching of Christ is wrong - supported by other texts (notably James 5:12).

OK. For the sake of that argument, will say, giving the minory of Christians are incorrect and really wrong in their understanding of that teaching. Even with that given to be the case - there is that minority who believe that way. The question of discussion in this OP is to disscuss the civil issue of how to allow unsworn statememts equal justice under the law?

Those who have taken the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America have sworn that it stands for "justice for all" among other things it represents. The issue comes down to, is a sworn statement to be deemed more valid than a true unsworn statement? As it stands, in fact, those who are sworn are biased against those who are unsworn. This is an evil.

[Cow Poke]

[37818]

Does anyone know the significance of swearing "by" or "on" something? Swearing by the moon or on your mother's grave etc? I've always wondered what that meant.

If it were something like God, I would assume that it referred to calling on God as your witness (either claiming that God will corroborate what you say, or that God is a witness to the vow/compact) thus subjecting you to divine punishment in the case that you break the vow. But what does it mean to swear by something inanimate?

Is it a matter of honor? That if you break the oath you bring dishonor to your mother's grave (or to the moon?), and people trust that you really don't want to dishonor your mother's grave (or the moon?)?

The Greek word en used, is one of three. Eis, en and ek. If understood as a direction. Eis is toward, en is stationary and ek is from. So en is stationary in relationship to something whether understood to be in something or on something.

[37818]

(Does he know that doing things backward or upside down is considered by some to be satanic? )

Did you know that Christianity stands against the mystery religions - the secret orders? Christians who obey that instruction (Matthew 5:33-37 - James 5;12) would be excluded from joining such groups - do to oaths of secrecy required by such groups in order to join them.

see for example: http://www.cuttingedge.org/free10.html

[Cow Poke]

37818, you seem like a decent enough chap, but every once in a while, you just seem to bog down in minutia. I don't see a crisis of faith here.

[Terraceth]

This page may be relevant.

[Sparko]

Huh, an explicit understanding of this teaching of Christ is wrong - supported by other texts (notably James 5:12).

OK. For the sake of that argument, will say, giving the minory of Christians are incorrect and really wrong in their understanding of that teaching. Even with that given to be the case - there is that minority who believe that way. The question of discussion in this OP is to disscuss the civil issue of how to allow unsworn statememts equal justice under the law?

Those who have taken the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America have sworn that it stands for "justice for all" among other things it represents. The issue comes down to, is a sworn statement to be deemed more valid than a true unsworn statement? As it stands, in fact, those who are sworn are biased against those who are unsworn. This is an evil.

a sworn statement in court is just a promise to tell the truth. They are saying, "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" and you are saying, "Yes, I do."

You are making a problem where there is none. Is there a reason why you can't promise to tell the truth. Does the bible say you can't make a promise?

[Sparko]

This page may be relevant.

yep. Pretty much what I said already.

[Joel]

a sworn statement in court is just a promise to tell the truth. They are saying, "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" and you are saying, "Yes, I do."

You are making a problem where there is none. Is there a reason why you can't promise to tell the truth. Does the bible say you can't make a promise?

I don't think 37818 has a problem with making such a promise. But that's not the same thing as swearing an oath.

I think in modern, increasingly-secular days we have lost the understanding of the idea of an oath. A promise or oath has been (as you suggest) reduced to a mere promise--an assertion assuring someone that you will do something. (Which is maybe a good thing, if the New Testament does teach us not to swear oaths.) An illustration of this fact is how people today don't know the answer to the question I posed regarding what does/did it mean to swear on/by something.

In 1689 John Locke wrote "A Letter Concerning Toleration" in which he urges total religious toleration and freedom. And yet he makes an exception for atheists, because of oaths: "[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."

So, as recently as 1689 oaths were something much more important and significant in society, whereas a promise as conceived today is something an atheist can do as much as anyone. Sometime since then the supernatural (for lack of a better word) understanding of oaths has been lost.

[Joel]

Regarding 37818's main topic about oaths being required by the state, a strong argument can be made against them when it is required by law.

For example, in the case of a military draft, the U.S. requires the draftee to swear an oath when inducted.
Or someone can be subpoenaed and required to testify (and thus swear an oath).
And people are required to file an income tax return and sign it "under penalty of perjury".

In the latter case that is arguably a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments. But putting that aside, the idea of forcing people (without a choice) to swear an oath seems shady at best to me. It has usually been argued through history that a promise/contract/etc is not binding when the person is forced to make it (under duress, threat, or coercion). Many have argued that it's morally okay to lie to a robber. What if the robber coerces you to swear to not lie to him via threat of shooting you? If that does morally bind you, then it seems like a rather morally heinous thing to force someone to swear an oath. If it doesn't, then it's at best worthless, and yet is going to trouble people's consciences, as well as directly violate their consciences in the case that they believe swearing the oath is immoral. In either case it shouldn't be required by law.

In other cases there is some room for choice. For example, "jury duty" in the U.S. is not as mandatory as military conscription, because if you state that you cannot swear the juror's oath, or cannot follow the oath, then you will be dismissed. But even in that case it has the effect of disallowing from jury service those who won't swear oaths for religious reasons, or those who for whatever reason cannot in good conscience agree to the content of the oath. (For an extreme scenario, imagine a country that required jurors to swear that they will return a "guilty" verdict. The fact that only those willing to swear the oath are permitted to be jurors taints the jury.)

Other things like citizenship oaths are similar. Or say if an oath were required to get a drivers license, again it could be a significant restriction of freedom for some people.

[edited to add]
It seems that at least in the case of testifying in court, people are accommodated by being allowed to "affirm that you will tell the truth..." rather than "swear".
[/edited to add]

[Sparko]

I don't think 37818 has a problem with making such a promise. But that's not the same thing as swearing an oath.

I think in modern, increasingly-secular days we have lost the understanding of the idea of an oath. A promise or oath has been (as you suggest) reduced to a mere promise--an assertion assuring someone that you will do something. (Which is maybe a good thing, if the New Testament does teach us not to swear oaths.) An illustration of this fact is how people today don't know the answer to the question I posed regarding what does/did it mean to swear on/by something.

In 1689 John Locke wrote "A Letter Concerning Toleration" in which he urges total religious toleration and freedom. And yet he makes an exception for atheists, because of oaths: "[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."

So, as recently as 1689 oaths were something much more important and significant in society, whereas a promise as conceived today is something an atheist can do as much as anyone. Sometime since then the supernatural (for lack of a better word) understanding of oaths has been lost.

yes I understand that. An Oath is to say, "If I am lying, then may severe consequences from (object of oath) befall me" - usually a supernatural entity. Today, you could say the entity is the Law, since there are severe penalties for perjury, except that there is no supernatural entity that will tell the court if you are lying or not, just being caught by the lawyers (who of course all work for the devil)


The bible is merely saying that you should be so truthful that nobody doubts your honesty and so you should never have to swear an oath. You should be beyond reproach and completely trustworthy. Don't be the type of person where others make you swear an oath in order to trust your words. But it is not saying that swearing an oath is wrong in itself, sometimes, like in law, you have to do so to satisfy the requirements. Of course you should never swear to some non-existent supernatural power or on something evil. That would go without saying.

[37818]

It it is over "oaths" that there was a need for a wall of separation between church and state. And in Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus effectively forbade any kind of oath for His followers that was a reason behind that need.

Source: "Puritan.htm"

85210.jpg
_{Engraving of a statue of Roger Williams (1603-1683), Puritan minister who was expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 for his extremist views and who advocated religious liberty. Williams founded the city of Providence, Rhode Island}

The Roger Williams Controversy

Roger Williams, a Separating Puritan minister, arrived in Boston in 1631. He was almost immediately invited to become the pastor of the local congregation. Williams refused the invitation on the grounds that the congregation had not separated from the Church of England. He then attempted to become pastor of the church at Salem, but was blocked by Boston political leaders, who objected to his separatism. He thus spent two years with his fellow Separatists in the Plymouth Colony, but ultimately came into conflict with them and returned to Salem. There, he became pastor in May 1635, against the objection of the Boston authorities. Williams set forth a manifesto in which he declared that 1) the Church of England was apostate and fellowship with it was a grievous sin; 2) the Massachusetts Colony's charter falsely said that King Charles was a Christian; 3) that the colony should not be allowed to impose oaths on its citizens because that was forbidden by Matthew 5:33-37

Williams' actions so outraged the Puritan leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony that they expelled him from the colony. In 1636, the exiled Williams founded the city of Providence, Rhode Island. Williams was one of the first Puritans to advocate separation of church and state and Rhode Island was one of the first places in the Christian world to recognize freedom of religion.

© Copyright Original Source

From Article Six of the United States Constitution:

. . . The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Matthew 5:33-37.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

". . . If ye love me, keep my commandments. . . ." -- John 14:15.

". . . And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? . . ." -- Luke 6:46.

[Cow Poke]

It it is over "oaths"...

Ya know, you seem like a really sincere guy, but I think you're a bit legalistic when it comes to certain issues.... I think Christ will be a bit more concerned about our obedience to the Great Commission, and not so worried that I put my hand on a Bible and "swore to tell the truth".