swearing on bible

[Moccomouse]

A quick question: in light of the recent controversy over the ten commandments rock, a friend of mine brought up another question: do they still make you swear on the bible when testifying in court? If they do, could that be construed as forcing someone to acknowledge christianity? Why do they do that in the first place? Can you opt out, choose not to swear on the Bible?

Any thoughts about this?

 

[roger]

No, not in MD at least, when I went to court a few years ago.

edited to add: I was innocent. Innocent, I tells ya!

 

[Suddenly]

A quick question: in light of the recent controversy over the ten commandments rock, a friend of mine brought up another question: do they still make you swear on the bible when testifying in court? If they do, could that be construed as forcing someone to acknowledge christianity? Why do they do that in the first place? Can you opt out, choose not to swear on the Bible?

Any thoughts about this?

At least in my state they do not use a Bible. Furthermore, it's customary to allow one to "swear of affirm," so it's not required that the witness "swear."

 

[Moccomouse]

Any states where they still require this?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I don't know if it was ever required anywhere. It was standard practice, but you could simply affirm without the use of the bible. I would rather they used a copy of the constitution to swear people in for testimony or into high office, but, hey, that's just me.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know if it was ever required anywhere. It was standard practice, but you could simply affirm without the use of the bible. I would rather they used a copy of the constitution to swear people in for testimony or into high office, but, hey, that's just me.

Exactly. I would gladly raise my right hand (despite being left handed) and swear anything I was asked (assuming I believed in it) for any civil oath, but I won't do the hand on the Bible thing. I will place my hand on the Constitution for an oath as that is a document I believe in.

 

[Pahansiri]

The Bible that most, I can not say all for sure but most governmental ceremonies including the swearing in of a President is not done with the “ Christian” Bible in reality instead it is done with the Jefferson Bible.

President Jefferson compiled from the NT what he felt was relevant and more so true, removing “magic” and violence etc seeking to display only morals etc.

Mark Twain said “"The Bible has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

Jefferson’s Bible was a remedy if you will to this.

 

[ceo_esq]

I am not aware of any states that require a witness or declarant to swear (rather than affirm) or to touch a Bible or other sacred object when making an oath. Even where a witness opts to swear a sacred oath, a Bible is often not used. The reason, incidentally, that the Constitution provided for affirmations to be given as an alternative to oaths was not for fear that an oath requirement would be construed as an endorsement of Christianity, but out of deference to certain Christian sects (notably, Quakers and Mennonites) that have scriptural objections to swearing oaths.

Whether an oath or affirmation is given in court, the person in question becomes legally bound to utter the truth, and the penalties for perjury are the same in either case.

The Bible that most, I can not say all for sure but most governmental ceremonies including the swearing in of a President is not done with the " Christian" Bible in reality instead it is done with the Jefferson Bible.

This is not true. The Architect of the Capitol keeps records (albeit not always complete) of the Bibles used for inaugural ceremonies, and those records do not reflect any known instances of the Jefferson Bible being used for such purpose. At least in the past 50 years, it has been most common for the incoming president to use a family Bible.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings ceo_esq

I did mis-speak the Jefferson Bible is still used in many places rather then the King James for example and was used by some Pres.of course including Jefferson but it does seem not in some time. For many years all new Senators and congressmen were sworn in using it i.e.

The Government Printing Office published it in 1904 and distributed the copies to Congress in early 1905.

Interestingly, a tradition developed - lasting over 50 years - of presenting a copy of Jefferson's "Bible" to each new Senator and Representative at their swearing-in ceremony with each new Congress. The sponsors of this tradition are still unknown at this time. Nevertheless, the tradition ended quietly in the 1950s. It was restored in August, 1997 when Dr. Patton delivered 535 copies of this new edition of Jefferson's "Bible" to every member of the 105th Congress! In January of 1999 our 40 new representatives and 8 new Senators received their copies.

One of the many reasons Jefferson wrote it was the following passage.

James 5:12 states, "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."

This passage makes it a “sin” for any Christian to swear an oath.

 

[swstephe]

Jefferson Bible was a compilation of verses that Thomas Jefferson selected as being most likely accurate. It is not just a different translation, it is more of a "story bible" where the gospels are re-arranged to form a single consistent story. It is a quick read. I found it interesting that it removes all divinity, and would therefore be blasted by just about every mainstream sect.

It is unlikely that the Jefferson Bible was used at Jefferson's own innauguration since it was published in 1819, about 10 years after his presidency. It would not be considered a "Bible" and would not be used for swearing an oath as it would not be considered a Bible by most people.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings swstephe

Jefferson Bible was a compilation of verses that Thomas Jefferson selected as being most likely accurate. It is not just a different translation, it is more of a "story bible" where the gospels are re-arranged to form a single consistent story. It is a quick read. I found it interesting that it removes all divinity, and would therefore be blasted by just about every mainstream sect.

Yes, this is what I had said above I did not say it was just a different “translation” but in essence it is is to a point as it is how Jefferson “translated” what was written, .i. taking what he found wrong or silly and keeping what he felt “true” and useful.

{quote] It is unlikely that the Jefferson Bible was used at Jefferson's own innauguration since it was published in 1819, about 10 years after his presidency. It would not be considered a "Bible" and would not be used for swearing an oath as it would not be considered a Bible by most people.[/quote}

Again I am on a roll today and am wrong as to him using it as it is true he did not do the book which was really at first Jefferson's original paste-up job, was not finished or done by him until 1820.

It was not until 1904 that Congress published, posthumously, the book.