Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!ask
From: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Swearing in Court - Separation of Church/State
Message-ID: <1176@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 00:17:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1176
Posted: Sat Oct 12 00:17:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 21:38:16 EDT
References: <120@desint.UUCP> <1695@akgua.UUCP>
Reply-To: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet)
Followup-To: net.legal
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 17

> 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 the reason why affirmation is used, but the U. S. Constitution
specifically contains "affirm" as an alternative to "swear" in the oath
that the president takes.
-- 
Art Kamlet  AT&T Bell Laboratories  Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask