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.
As a European I'm curious about the fact that you have to swear on the bible in court in the US. What if you're a muslim or an atheist? Can you swear on the quran or the constitution or just be under oath skipping that stupid ritual?
Today it is well settled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution denies the government any authority to coerce a person into performing a religious act, including swearing oaths on a bible. To that end, the federal court system and most state court systems have established rules explicitly providing for witnesses to give either an oath, whether on a bible or other religious scripture, or an affirmation.
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath.
In politics, people have affirmed on the Constitution, the quran, a book of law, a Kindle, and other things. One guy affirmed on Captain America’s shield.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.
Beyond this scriptural authority, Quakers place importance on being truthful at all times, so the testimony opposing oaths springs from a view that "taking legal oaths implies a double standard of truthfulness" suggesting that truthfulness in legal contexts is somehow more important than truthfulness in non-legal contexts and that truthfulness in those other contexts is therefore somehow less important.
As usual, the bible is sufficiently contradictory such that there are plenty of cases where characters swear by their god or are instructed to do so.
The Commandment “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” relates directly to this: if you swear by Lord (the Jealous Sky Genie of the bible), you are compelled by this Commandment to carry out what you said.
It’s a legal proceeding. You should be swearing on the Constitution of the country, state or district, or some other representation of the law, which you will uphold in your testimony.
Swearing on a bible makes as much sense as swearing on a copy of The Hobbit.
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
