Atheism Stack Exchange Archive

Swearing on the bible

One of those things that always annoys me when I’m watching American movies is swearing on the bible.

Of course they have the option to skip it but it just feels wrong to me. Shouldn’t the state and church be strictly separated? Here in Belgium we just promise to tell the truth in court.

Answer 2752

Many Americans, when they’re about to provide testimony in a court of law, choose a holy book upon which to place their hands as an added affirmation that they will not perjure themselves (over and above the statement itself). The thought process is that if the book has some meaning to the person about to testify, then it would serve as an added confirmation of their honesty and sincerity.

Of course, the identity of the text upon which the person swears has little to no impact on them if they were planning on lying in the first place. I find it curious that a more appropriate text for such testimony – the Constitution – isn’t used more often.

Assuming the witness has a choice, there’s nothing implicitly wrong with the choice of a bible. It’s just not something I’d choose.

Answer 2742

Yes, they should be strictly separated.

Answer 2746

You can choose to “affirm” that you will tell the truth, rather than swear on a religious text. I believe the judge has to instruct the jury not to consider such secular affirmation as prejudicial against the witness.

Answer 2753

When I had to do that, I asked the judge if I can just affirm instead. If you watch the movie “People vs. Larry Flint” you will see a similar scene where he refuses to swear on a bible.

Answer 2769

I wouldn’t trust anyone who swore on the Bible. The Bible specifically states not to do this.

Answer 2894

If an atheist swears on any text, wouldn’t that instantly class them under perjury?

  1. Swearing on a religious text infers some scale of belief, and is conveying to the jury that you’re conforming to some sort of “Larger Diety” who will hold you to account if you should lie, and thus infers, that you’re less likey to lie. If you are an atheist, this is a lie.
  2. Even swearing on a non-religious text, such as the constitution, is meaningless, unless one believes the presence of said text and holding it in ones hands invokes some sort of magical power which holds you to your word which will somehow encourage you to tell the truth. As an atheist, you don’t believe in magical powers, so swearing on this non-religious text is a lie.

I don’t see how, in an atheist context, any good can come from having any texts sworn on by anybody. Even giving people the choice to “Opt In” to religious texts in my opinion can be a slightly dangerous occupation, as it can easily be misused as a device to win jurors on purely emotional grounds.

Making a statement in words, or possibly in writing ( with witnesses ), is good enough everywhere else in the legal system, “I swear to tell the truth or give you permission to lock me up for lying” really should be enough.

And to be honest, putting the whole books and “swearing on it” is really a big fanfare stacked on top of it makes it seem like there’s more certifiability to it than that, but its not, its just a masquerade.

Answer 2751

It should be, I will not swear on a bible but another non believer might and plan to lie.

All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.