Swear Words
The phrase “so help me god” is a routine part of the American system of government. It is found in oaths of office. It is found in our courtrooms. Where it is not found is in the Constitution. In fact, the word “god” is not present at all. Article II, Section 1 gives the following “oath or affirmation” for the President: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” George Washington added a bible to the ceremony and tacked on “so help me god” to the end of the oath. All 41 other presidents have followed suit. How would the country now react to a President’s refusal to continue this tradition?
Michael Newdow, a brave California atheist, filed suit to prevent George W. Bush from including religious acts in his second inauguration, including prayers by Christian ministers. His challenge was rejected, but the arguments on which he built his case seemed somewhat shaky. Hopefully, this will not be the last attempt to stop this clear violation of the establishment clause.
In a court of law, you will also be asked to swear on a bible. It is the “default setting” for jurors and witnesses. A secular affirmation is available if requested, but it seldom is. This is partially because people don’t know it’s available. For witnesses and defendants, it’s often because a failure to swear on a bible is considered prejudicial to a jury that is almost always predominantly Christian. So, for atheists (and other non-Christians), the intellectual honesty of refusing to swear on a book you find meaningless could increase your chances of conviction. So much for fair and impartial. So much for equal protection. While there is no legal compulsion for a politician or a participant in our judicial system to swear on a bible or invoke the name of god, the fact that anyone is allowed to do so makes the system unfair to nonbelievers. If the majority can include their religion in government and law, the minority is harmed because their failure to do so is regarded as suspect.
In March of this year, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for a man convicted of murder, kidnapping and rape. During the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors consulted the bible in the deliberation room. Since this is material outside of the case, it was illegal under Colorado law. If the bible in the jury room is illegal, why is the one in the courtroom allowed? If the bible isn’t trusted with justice, why would it be trusted with truth? Since faith is immeasurable, who’s to say that swearing on a bible, even for any individual Christian, will make him more likely to tell the truth or perform the duties of his office better or more faithfully? “Pain and penalty of perjury” and the desire for reelection apply to everyone, and these should be the only motivations required.
~I AM~
June 30th, 2005 at at 3:18 pm
I love Michael Newdow! He spoke at my school (which had a bomb threat called in), and he was great. He handled aggressive, religious audience members perfectly. I’d love to see him speak again.
June 30th, 2005 at at 3:21 pm
Thats cool info GeneralZod, I had no idea.
Insightful observation, I AM, about the hypocrisy of swearing on a Bible in court if one is a non-Christian.
In reality, for me as an atheist to swear on a Bible in court would be almost a lie in itself. But for me to NOT swear on a Bible in court would be detrimental to my image and credibility in the eyes of the typical American jury. How could I explain to the jury, that for me to be truthful and honest and credible in the court would necessitate NOT swearing on a book which I consider to be fairy tales?
Oh, how religion twists the minds of otherwise good people.
June 30th, 2005 at at 4:58 pm
I have thought about this often… not so much from the perspective of a criminal, but more as a witness. If I were called to testify, I would refuse to swear on the Bible. I don’t get the point anyway. Plenty have sworn on Bibles and still perjured themselves – even so-called believers.
I also think it’s an interesting distinction, that it’s okay for the players in the trial to swear on a Bible, but not okay for the jury to consult one. That case bothered me, too.
Thought provoking post, I Am. I think you should run for office some day.
June 30th, 2005 at at 6:08 pm
For the close-mided Christians, I guess it looks like the person who refuses to swear on the Bible will lie, and therefore wouldn’t want to “feel guilty” by lying on such a holy book. Just another reason why we need to get this banned from the courtroom. For me, this is MUCH more important than having the 10-Cs displayed. Why does that have priority over this?
July 1st, 2005 at at 12:59 am
I am a christian and I understand the value alot of my fellow close-minded peers put on swearing on a bible, however I do support that it should if not be banned, then at least not be mandatory. I think that allowing the bible to take an active part in proceedings (as opposed to say, the 10-C’s which are inanimately hanging on the wall) could be construed as crossing the line of church-state separation. Also, in the bible Christ informs us not to take oaths, but rather have a simple trustworthy yes or no. In light of his commandment, it seems sort of hypocritical or shameful to swear on the bible…
July 1st, 2005 at at 6:54 pm
[...] Messy Christian and Jeff the Baptist have all dicussed swear words. Much different from The Evangelical Atheist’s discussion. Which is retarded. Our friends abo [...]
July 2nd, 2005 at at 2:22 am
On the one hand, I have to think that anything that makes superstitions witnesses more likely to tell the truth might be beneficial to the cause of justice. On the other hand, I would not want witnesses’ refusal to swear on the Bible to be taken as an indication they are less truthful than those who do.
The problem here, as elsewhere, is not the religion but the making of a public spectacle out of it. If witnesses were sworn in private, prior to their appearance on the stand, we could save court time and be spared of having to go through this pointless little ritual time and again.
July 3rd, 2005 at at 12:56 pm
The addition of the ’so help me god’ thing is just another instance of the bankrupt moral character of people who are religious. They insist that if God had not said that murder was wrong, it would be okay to murder. If God did not condemn rape, it would be okay to rape. These people are psychopathic. From the way they talk of morality, you would think that God is the only thing keeping them from mass murder. They have to add the ’so help me god’ to the end because their character is so twisted that God is the only thing that stops them from lying.
July 4th, 2005 at at 5:44 pm
Before, someone said to make the passages from the bible shorter, but i think i disagree, it is better to keep the longer and informative. That way we know the enemy, and can clearly see the whole story and that you aren’t taking anything out of context. This is a wonderful series keep it up!
July 4th, 2005 at at 7:05 pm
woops, sorry i posted this comment under the wrong post…
July 6th, 2005 at at 6:53 pm
OK, so what can we do about it. If you testify, you can make a point, which will change nothing and might get you hung. Most of us will never see the inside of a court room nevermind swear on the Bible.
That’s not the point. Politically, how do we present the arguement that swearing on a Bible is INTRINSICALLY UN-AMERICAN. Talibanesque if you will? How do we deliver that point? And to who could we possibly make that point, that would make any difference?
July 6th, 2005 at at 10:03 pm
How do we deliver that point? And to who could we possibly make that point, that would make any difference?
If there were some single person (or collection of people) to whom making this point would bring about change, I would be on the phone with that person right now instead of replying to your comment.
You’re right. There’s no one. That’s why I’ve chosen to make the point to everyone, by writing this blog (not that everyone reads it). Convincing politicians and judges is useless while the majority of Americans support this kind of thing. The most important mind you can change at this phase is that of the next person you meet.
July 8th, 2005 at at 4:21 pm
Right on. It’s too bad when that next person is my Dad. He sux to talk to.
November 7th, 2005 at at 7:02 pm
i read what you all had to say and I think it makes perfect sense to take swearing on ANY holy book out of the courtroom. Too bad no one really cares about it because non-Christians are a minority. (I’m Muslim, by the way)
April 25th, 2006 at at 4:28 pm
[...] as i was leaving i heard the rest of the people begin to stand up and then ultimately swear on the Bible? this struck me as odd considering how many arguments are based around christianity, the founding of our nation, the relationship between the two, religious descrimination, etc. and here was a court full of people swearing on the book that, in recent days, has come to mean nothing more than a collection of stories about a great man. its been reduced to a winston churchill biography! so i came home and did some research…. *forum on the topic of swearing on the Bible *****atheist who brings about interesting argument **********using the koran instead [...]
January 27th, 2007 at at 1:08 pm
apple g4 laptop sale used…
Cris notti fresh apple g4 laptop sale used med. Online well-spring for towering distinction new compare direction shoes….