Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion
Subject: Re: Swearing in Court - Separation of Church/State
Message-ID: <761@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 11:37:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.761
Posted: Fri Sep 27 11:37:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 00:49:27 EDT
References: <1695@akgua.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.legal:2400 net.religion:7811

> 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 ?? :-))
> 
> However, if they base their position on the Scripture where both
> Jesus in one of the Gospels and the epistle of 
> James 5:12 tell us clearly NOT to swear oaths when we make a 
> promise, but to let our yes mean yes and no mean no, then I 
> understand.
> 
> I will not swear an oath in any court room that I will tell
> the truth.

This is essentially the reason why Quakers do not "swear".  Their
position is that one should always tell the truth, and that there
should not be a "double standard" of truth, one for the courtroom
and another for daily life.  The scriptural reference you mention
is often given in support of this stand.

-- 
Glend.	I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot.	Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
	do call for them?    --  Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(UUCP)
	bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com