The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[May 29, 2008 2:56 PM]

Jordan : →http://www.roanoke.com

Yes, if you are going to take an oath (a swearing before God), you can be required to put your hand on the bible.

But you are not required to take an oath. 49-9 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+49-9) allows you to make an affirmation. When you affirm, you are not required to put your hand on the "Holy Bible".

# 2

[May 29, 2008 3:12 PM]

c. trejbal

Thanks for that clarification, Jordan. I disagree with your definition of what an oath is, but that would wander. It still strikes me as odd that, say, someone who worships Athena could be compelled to put her hand on a meaningless (to her) book when taking an oath before her goddess.

# 3

[May 29, 2008 5:00 PM]

Henry

Or you could take an oath to Satan who is known as the "Father of Lies"

The Bible says that Christians shouldn't take oaths at all. How is that for irony?

# 4

[May 29, 2008 5:27 PM]

Josh

Sure seems like the Times focuses a lot on what people do with the bible. Mr. Trejbal apparently trolls city and country meetings searching out infractions. Don't the religion police have anything better to examine?

# 5

[May 29, 2008 8:46 PM]

Jay

@C. Trejbal: From M-W.Com -- Oath: a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says

But your point is interesting. There is a movement around the country to allow different books of faith to be used (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275266,00.html as an example).

# 6

[May 29, 2008 8:49 PM]

AJ

Yep, the ole 'good book" is rife with irony. It sure is. One could do a whole blog just on that.

# 7

[May 29, 2008 10:20 PM]

C Ramsey

Seems like Jordan is correct. Every source from Webster's to Black's Law Dictionary defines an oath as some sort of promise or assertion that calls on God to witness the veracity of the statement.

But none of this is as surprising or shocking as Christian makes it out to be. It just evinces a fact that he is loathe to admit. That is, that this country and its governmental systems have foundations based in the Christian faith.

Hard to believe this atrocious law hasn't been changed. Where's the ACLU when you need them?

# 8

[May 29, 2008 11:13 PM]

c. trejbal

Seems like you didn't look very hard, Ramsey. Right above, we have Jay giving us MW's definition which says it is USUALLY before A GOD. That, of course, is only definition one, though. MW-2 reads "A solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words." Nope, no mention of gods there.

Or we can go with the OED "A solemn or formal appeal to God or to a deity or something held in reverence or regard, in witness of the truth of a statement." Lots of nonreligious options there.

Try as you like to shoehorn your gods into the law, it's still unconstitutional and contrary to the history of the nation.

# 9

[May 29, 2008 11:29 PM]

C Ramsey

Oh please, Trejbal. Like I had anything to do with writing the multitude of historical government documents that reference God.

And apparently you are the one who didn't look closely enough. Jay's post says " a solemn, usually formal, caling upon God or a God". The word 'usually' in that sentence modifies the word 'formal', not the phrase 'calling upon God'. Pay attention, that grammar can be tricky stuff.

But I shouldn't be surprised at your reading of Jay's post. I never cease to be amazed at how liberals twist the Constitution and claim it means whatever they think it should mean. And if the facts aren't on your side, ignore them, or claim they mean something else.

Despite your clear disdain for Christians, the Constitution guarantees the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.

# 10

[May 30, 2008 12:31 AM]

Ed H

Anything religious in the founding generation of US history was a hangover from British tradition. The founders were clear that they wanted to change everything that was wrong with the British system, and in particular they intended for this country to have religious liberty. The only references to religion in the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, are made in passing and were conventional rhetorical expressions of the time, with as much meaning as ending a letter with "Your most obedient servant".

# 11

[May 30, 2008 7:57 AM]

Blue John

The New American Webster's College Dictionary defines oath as:

1) a solemn statement, with God as witness.

2) a curse.

It's strange that the folks that support certain rights by saying criminals will ignore the law, think that these same criminals will uphold the law if they swear to tell the truth.

# 12

[May 30, 2008 8:10 AM]

c. trejbal

I apologize. I hate when these sorts of discussions devolve into battles of the dictionaries, and I helped that happen in this case. Carry on if you must. I withdraw from this part of the thread.

# 13

[May 30, 2008 8:52 AM]

Ed S.

I think Christian's original point was still valid, in that the portion of code he cited referred specifically to the Holy Bible, while most (all?) definitions of "oath" given refer to God *or another deity*. So I found his point valid: someone who worships Ra may have to swear an oath on the Bible, but it would be meaningless to them.

However, I think Jordan quickly cleared all confusion with his timely posting about affirmations.

Christian, I was originally going to comment that, though I have no research to back it up, the law was probably written at a time when most Americans (or at least legislators) were Christian. And over time, though it was somewhat amended by the inclusion of affirmations, it stands because lawmakers are too busy writing new laws instead of keeping the current code book tight and clean.