With or without God?

o7The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union

has filed suit in that state’s Superior Court to allow oaths to be

taken on the Koran. North Carolina law states that oaths must be

taken on “Holy Scriptures,” though it allows for people to raise

their hand if their beliefs do not allow them to swear on a Bible or

to simply affirm that their testimony will be truthful if they do not

have religious faith. Should the court allow witnesses to swear oaths

on sacred religious texts other than the Bible?f7

To me, using the Bible as a talisman is offensive. Jesus

specifically told his followers not to swear an oath at all. He told

them to “simply let your yes be yes” and “no be no.” Beyond that, as

the old saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”

Any Protestant will tell you that there is no intrinsic power in

the books that hold our sacred texts. It is the words that are

sacred, not the paper. I am less likely to trust someone who says, “I

swear upon the Bible,” or “I swear to God,” than someone who simply

says, “I give you my word.”

The requirement of taking an oath causes a problem for the states.

Merriam-Webster, who helped define American English as unique, lists

an “oath” as “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.”

If a state is trying to eliminate God from the picture, they need

to eliminate oaths altogether, according to Webster, since an oath by

definition is a “calling upon God.”

A court should not require anyone to make an oath on the text of

another faith. If a witness would prefer to swear by using a sacred

text, then that should be up to the individual, not the court. My

faith is big enough to allow it, I give you my word.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was born into a Jewish

family but was baptized into the Church of England. His conversion

was probably motivated by the fact that only members of the Anglican

Church were allowed to hold seats in the House of Commons. He

retained his Jewish identity, and his allegiance to Judaism was an

open secret.

Queen Victoria once asked him, “Mr. Disraeli, what is your real

religion? You were born a Jew, and you forsook your great people. Now

you are a member of the Church of England, but no one believes that

you are a Christian at heart. Please tell me, who are you and what

are you?”

To which Disraeli is famously said to have answered, “Your

Majesty, I am the blank page between the Old Testament and the New.”

Those who aspire to office or who serve as witnesses in court, and

identify themselves with the blank pages between religions or the

blank pages of no religious faith, must be permitted to foreswear

allegiance to God and simply swear allegiance to the truth. But what

of those for whom putting a hand on a religious text will strengthen

their determination to act and speak truthfully? Since there is such

divergence as what constitutes God’s Word, I am in favor of

eliminating the ritual of swearing an oath on scripture.

After all, where would it end? Could we abide a Scientologist

taking an oath with his hand covering L. Ron Hubbard’s “Dianetics”?

Thomas Jefferson excised what he considered to be religious dogma

and supernatural elements from the New Testament and retained the

ethical system of Jesus in a Bible of his creation. Should a witness

be permitted to swear on Jefferson’s Bible?

What others call the Old Testament, I call the entire Bible. Would

it suffice for me to take an oath on a book that ends with the

Prophet Malachi?

Many Christians do not consider the Book of Mormon to be

authoritative. Should Mormons be permitted to swear on that text or

the Doctrine and Covenants, which is considered canonical?

Should Wiccans swear on a book that contains the foundation of

their teaching?

What about “bibles” written by cult leaders, or books of

incantations and sorcery considered by some to be sacred? Hitler

provided the holy scriptures for his new religion and “Mein Kampf,”

instead of the Bible, took the place of honor in the homes of

thousands of German families. The Nazis chose this title to replace

the prayer book as the appropriate wedding gift for young couples.

Could today’s neo-Nazis swear on “Mein Kampf”?

Swearing on a Bible is customary, not legally mandated or binding.

Many have taken an oath with hand on Scripture and immediately

proceeded to violate the Ninth Commandment. If their false testimony

is discovered, they are charged with a crime against the state and

not a sin against God.

Whether theist or nontheist, an oath to speak the truth before man

should be sufficient to accept his testimony. It does not matter to

whom the taker of the oath swears.

What is important is that he be impressed with the solemnity of

the occasion and the significance of veracity. The intention is that

witnesses should feel a deep sense of accountability and this can be

accomplished without the presence of a holy text. A Bible is not

necessarily a safeguard against falsehood and evasion. We should be

quite content with an affirmation rather than a religious oath.

After all, those who subscribe to their own religious texts see

all others as just so many blank pages.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Even though I have never had to testify in court -- and therefore

never been sworn in -- the commonly used oath is etched forever on my

brain, probably because of watching too many “Perry Mason” episodes

as a child.

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth, so help you God?”

It was always shown to be a very solemn affair, with the left hand

placed reverently on the Bible, the right hand held up with palm

facing forward. I understood that if the person testifying was lying,

something unexplained might happen to him, given he had taken this

oath with his hand on the Bible.

I am glad the laws concerning oaths in courtrooms are gradually

changing to reflect not only the diversity of populations, but also a

movement away from superstition.

I think it is an important, but only intermediary, step to allow

oaths to be taken using holy scriptures other than the Bible. It will

lead to all kinds of haggling over whether, for example, Taoists may

use the Tao Te Ching or if Scientologists can use the writings of L.

Ron Hubbard.

I hope it will be soon that courts move entirely to a

straightforward approach of making sure witnesses understand the law

against perjury and state that their testimony is truthful.

In the Zen tradition, along with all religions, truth telling and

abstaining from lying is basic to living a life in integrity within

our family and community. One of my favorite teachings of the Buddha

is: “When you see for yourself that a thing is unwholesome put it

down. When you see for yourself that a thing is wholesome, take it

up.”

The punishment or karma of not telling the truth may be extensive,

but most important, lying puts us at odds with ourselves and others

and is a hindrance to waking up to the true nature of our life. Lying

in court can be especially harmful, setting it apart from

run-of-the-mill gossip and slander, because it can be so destructive

to the reputation and property of follow citizens.

I believe it would be a good direction if courts moved away from

the tradition of swearing an oath of any kind, whether it be using a

Bible or Koran, and toward making a simple statement that the

testimony I am about to give is truthful.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

When an American friend who ministers in London was about to take

his oath for British citizenship, the choice he was given was “With

God or without God?”

He responded, “With God, please.”

Then, to place his hand upon as he took his oath, he was given

possibilities including the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, a

whole Bible including the Apocrypha, a Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita,

Buddha’s Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, a Book of

Mormon, and more on a library cart that officials had readily

available. My friend, ever an Episcopalian/Anglican, chose a

contemporary Book of Common Prayer.

Different people have different sacred texts, different holy

scriptures. We should swear oaths in ways which will enable us to

keep the commitments we make ... with God!

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar