Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion
Subject: Re: Swearing in Court - Separation of Church/State
Message-ID: <120@desint.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 04:50:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: desint.120
Posted: Mon Sep 30 04:50:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 04:48:05 EDT
References: <1695@akgua.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Followup-To: net.legal
Organization: SAH Consulting, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 31
Xref: watmath net.legal:2416 net.religion:7879

In article <1695@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes:

>"I swear (or affirm) that I will tell the truth, the whole
>truth, and nothing but the truth...so help me God."
>
>I assume this is a carry-over from the British legal system
>from which ours basically sprang.  I understand that the 
>affirmation alternate was a concession to the Quakers of
>early America who would not "swear".  I'm not familiar enough
>with Quaker thought and doctrine to know why. (any Quaker takers ?? :-))

I don't know about "so help me God."  But "In God We Trust" was added to
our coinage during the McCarthy era, as was the "under God" phrase in
the Pledge of Allegiance.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is
true in the case of "so help me God."  Note that some courts are portrayed
as using Christian Bibles for witness swearing.

>But that is a side issue,....why has this thing of oaths and
>Bible and swearing persisted apparently without comment 
>from our founding fathers (and mothers.) ??

If I'm right, there's only a 35-year persistence.

>Why haven't the anti-religion groups pressed harder or
>been more successful in this area ?

In two words, Falwell's ilk.
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com