Interesting article on To Swear or To Affirm. I want to add that there is a religious group, Quakers, that do not swear oaths for religious reasons. We are advised to affirm instead. Indeed this is what I did when applying for a marriage license, to the discomfort of my fiancé.
This is intended to reflect a witness to integrity and has a biblical basis. Excerpt from a Friends Journal article:
" Traditionally, Friends have witnessed to Truth by refusing to take such oaths. George Fox, for instance, was very clear on the matter. When he was asked to verify the truth of his statements by taking an oath, he refused. Jesus, in Matthew 23:16-22, said not to swear, so Fox wouldn’t, either. Later Friends likewise refused. They said oaths implied a double standard of truth, freeing one to lie when not under oath. So early Friends didn’t swear, either. Period.
That is our tradition. But what about now? My yearly meeting advises Friends, when asked to take an oath, "to advance the cause of truth by simple affirmations, thus emphasizing that their statement is only a part of their usual integrity of speech" (Faith and Practice, New York Yearly Meeting, Advice 13). Other yearly meetings have similar advices. "
Hi Harriet! Thank you so much for such excellent additional information. It is my hope that more people will realize that the choice to "swear" or "affirm" is constitutionally legal. Adhering to the tenets of your particular religion (without trying to force others to do as you do) is also constitutional. Thank again for being a paid subscriber, and please share 'We Are Speaking" with others. Pam
Interesting article on To Swear or To Affirm. I want to add that there is a religious group, Quakers, that do not swear oaths for religious reasons. We are advised to affirm instead. Indeed this is what I did when applying for a marriage license, to the discomfort of my fiancé.
This is intended to reflect a witness to integrity and has a biblical basis. Excerpt from a Friends Journal article:
" Traditionally, Friends have witnessed to Truth by refusing to take such oaths. George Fox, for instance, was very clear on the matter. When he was asked to verify the truth of his statements by taking an oath, he refused. Jesus, in Matthew 23:16-22, said not to swear, so Fox wouldn’t, either. Later Friends likewise refused. They said oaths implied a double standard of truth, freeing one to lie when not under oath. So early Friends didn’t swear, either. Period.
That is our tradition. But what about now? My yearly meeting advises Friends, when asked to take an oath, "to advance the cause of truth by simple affirmations, thus emphasizing that their statement is only a part of their usual integrity of speech" (Faith and Practice, New York Yearly Meeting, Advice 13). Other yearly meetings have similar advices. "
https://www.friendsjournal.org/2009106/
Thanks for such good articles! Harriet Greenwood
Hi Harriet! Thank you so much for such excellent additional information. It is my hope that more people will realize that the choice to "swear" or "affirm" is constitutionally legal. Adhering to the tenets of your particular religion (without trying to force others to do as you do) is also constitutional. Thank again for being a paid subscriber, and please share 'We Are Speaking" with others. Pam