A Pleasant Surprise From A Spam Email

Garrette · 19th October 2009, 07:09 AM

I'm in Baghdad now and have been a while. A couple of months ago I discovered that a cousin I have not seen in decades is here as a civilian contractor on the same complex. Our schedules don't match up, and we don't have tons in common, but we've managed two dinners together plus a miniature tour of the palaces here.

Since we hooked up, he has forwarded to me two religious emails of the type that is both heart-string-tugging and Christianly-indignant. I grew up in a religious family, most of which is still religious. My cousin's branch of the family is very religious. Also red-necky. I can say that because I'm a redneck, too.

I ignored the first email and deleted it because it was more sugary nothingness than anything to raise the bile. But this morning I got the second one. Here's the text as it came to me:

Quote:

Subject: ... so help me God.

EMAILING F

AGREE OR DELETE

If You Choose To Delete You Are Part Of The Problem
Me? I'm Passing It On.

It seems to get worse daily.

This is by a daughter of a murdered couple in Raytown , MO , who
had a Bible and Bookstore on 63rd street . Just one more example:

When I had to testify at the murder trial of my parents a week
ago, I was asked to raise my right hand. The bailiff started out "Do you
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

I stood there and waited but she said nothing. She said "Do you?"

I was so stunned I blurted out "What happened to "so help me God'?"

She came back with "Do you?" I replied yes, but I was perplexed.

Then the judge said . "You can say that if you want to."

I stopped, raised my right hand, and finished with "So help me God!"

I told my son and daughter that when it came time for them to
testify, they should do the same.

It's no wonder we have so many problems in this country. If I'd
had my wits about me I'd have told them that taking God out of the
courtroom is only going to result in more criminals and murderers.

I don't know what can be done about it, but it's time for us to
step up and DO something.

NBC this morning had a poll on this question.. They had the
highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of
their polls, and the percentage was the same as this:

86% to keep the words, 14% against. That is a pretty 'commanding'
public response.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't.

Now it is your turn.. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in
God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such
a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God
in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is the world catering to this 14%?

If you agree, pass this on, if not, simply delete....

In God We TrustOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me

I nearly deleted it with no comment. After all, I am in large part a coward and have not felt need to advertise that I am now atheist. I've always answered honestly when asked about my beliefs, but have never initiated those conversations with some in my family. Why should I risk alienating my cousin?

But I couldn't help it. This was my response in a Reply To All message, carefully worded to avoid discussing Christianity itself or my lack of belief in it:

Quote:

I can't say I agree with this at all.

The words are not required because state-mandated faith is not required, and if it were, it would result only in the facade of faith, not actual faith.

This person was not denied the ability to say the words, and if she believes that forcing others to say them will create a culture of goodness then I question her judgment.

I see no catering to the 14%; if that were true, then no one would be allowed to say "so help me God." Since they are, in fact, allowed to say it, despite the constitutional restriction forbidding them to be required to say it, I think the catering is to the 86%.

Faith is not helped when offense is manufactured. No rights were trampled upon here, and no one was denied the freedoms that I, for one, am grateful for.

So if this is a poll, count me on the side of those disagreeing

Because I'm actually pretty busy here, I mostly forgot about it; when I did think of it, it was mostly with apprehension that I had crossed a family line.

Then I got this response:

Quote:

You know I suppose that I forwarded this message without really looking at it in this perspective, but now that you put it this way I think I have to agree with you. Noone was refused the right to say "So help me God" Thanks for letting me see this in that way.

Wow. Shame on me for not trusting my cousin's character and for underestimating our redneck heritage.

I'm afraid my next comment was rather weak, but I felt I had to say something to close it out. For sake of completeness, here's my last reply:

Quote:

Well that's no fun. You're supposed to get indignant, then I'm supposed to get indignant, and then we're supposed to yell at each other a lot.

Trust me, I've been in enough debates to know...

A bit more seriously, I'm impressed. Regardless of the topic, it is rare to find someone who will actually listen to an opposing viewpoint and then modify their own when needed. I'm not as good at it as I should be myself.

By the way: I do have the pictures from the palace, but they're too big to email. I'm putting them on a disk and will give that to you next time we have dinner.

Cainkane1 · 19th October 2009, 07:14 AM

Since not everyone on a stand believes in a God then why should they have to say "so help me god'. I agree with the attorney who said she could say so help me god if she wanted to. Also e-mail him back and tell him that statistically atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. Your not part of any problem.

Garrette · 19th October 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Since not everyone on a stand believes in a God then why should they have to say "so help me god'. I agree with the attorney who said she could say so help me god if she wanted to. Also e-mail him back and tell him that statistically atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. Your not part of any problem.

I agree with everything here, and I even thought of mentioning the atheist vs. christian prison statistics, but that is ultimately beyond the narrow focus of the original email and would only be looking for trouble.

grunion · 19th October 2009, 07:39 AM

Well stated, Garrette. Your diplomacy and clarity are to be admired.

Pure_Argent · 19th October 2009, 08:27 AM

What a lot of fundies can't seem to realize is that there is a difference between preventing religious expression and not actively promoting it. I'm glad that this person was smart enough to see the difference. It says a lot for him. And kudos to you, Garrette, for getting through to him much more diplomatically than I would have.

Starthinker · 19th October 2009, 09:47 AM

I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not.

Foster Zygote · 19th October 2009, 09:52 AM

That was an excellent response, Garrette.

Lothian · 19th October 2009, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not.

It reminds people that it is illegal to lie, so when they get caught having lied they get sent down.

marksman · 19th October 2009, 09:58 AM

The oath doesn't prevent people from lying in any physical sense. It simply is a manifestation of the acknowledgment of the witness that he or she can be found guilty of contempt or perjury if they are caught lying. The idea behind making it an oath is to highlight the solemnity of the proceeding -- to really impress upon the witness that they are not merely conversing casually -- that their words will have impact and legal consequence, not only to the people subject to the proceeding, but to themselves if they lie.

Sometimes, if the person has trouble saying the oath, or does so in a casual manner, the judge will intervene and ask the witness if he understands that he has to tell the truth, and that he can be fined or prosecuted for not telling the truth. The ultimate goal is get the person to acknowledge their acceptance of the legal responsibility to tell the truth in court.

Piscivore · 19th October 2009, 11:03 AM

Yes, well done Garette.

I liked the obligatory ad Populum in the spam: "NBC this morning had a poll on this question.. They had the highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of
their polls..." I've seen this in almost every one of these things, no matter what the topic of the alleged "poll" it always gets "the highest number of responses that they have ever had"- I.e> everybody else thinks this is important, you should too.

roger · 19th October 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not.

Some people believe that it is binding. For example, when my parents were getting divorced my mother opined that my father wouldn't push it to a trial because if he did, then he'd have to swear an oath to God, and then he couldn't lie or he would go to hell forever. The idea here being that either way, the wrongdoer gets punished - either they tell the truth on the stand, or they lie, get away with it, but then get punished by God.

It was hard not to burst out laughing when my mother said that, it was so naive. She was very earnest. But, given that viewpoint, you can see how some people would think that by removing the oath you are letting people get away with lying scot free.

Akuta · 19th October 2009, 12:02 PM

I tell you, I started getting into the email and the breaks went on, the window rolled down and I said "WHaaaaaaaat?!" Then I read the last part of it with your response and your cousin's response back to you. Very nice interaction. I can only hope that I'd carry on that same level of diplomacy if in a similar situation. Goodonya.

Paul W · 21st October 2009, 05:14 AM

This whole discussion highlights one of the problems for an atheist in a society which is nominally theist.

A few years ago I was a defence witness in a case, and was called upon to swear on a Bible the same kind of oath which contained the phrase “ … so help me God”. My initial instinct was to omit the phrase and to ask to affirm instead. However, I decided that this could risk alienating the judge and jury, and thus cause a problem for the defendant who was a friend. I, therefore, chose to go along with the convention and swear the oath on a Bible.

Cowardice – or prudence? It’s easy to take the moral high ground when nothing is at stake, but when guilt or innocence is at stake, it’s not as clear.

Wauthan · 21st October 2009, 06:06 AM

Hopefully this will not be too off-topic, but I've always been curious about the words used in the oath. I'm from Sweden, and I fear that my familiarity of american courtroom etiquette is based almost entirely on TV-shows.

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?"

Doesn't that infer that if you fail to tell the truth then you can blame God for not providing the proper help? Also, how can a witness state the whole thruth and nothing but the truth? That infers that someone already has all the information available and will compare the oathtakers statement against it.

Granted, the phrase has a nice rythm, is easy to remember and I guess they need to say something to make it sound more important. Saying "don't lie or we'll throw you in jail if we find out!" is not quite as poetic.

marksman · 21st October 2009, 06:34 AM

No, it means that if you don't tell the truth, you'd understand if God then decided to smite you for violating one of the Ten Commandments. Which doesn't make it any less silly, but at least emphasizes that you understand that consequences will befall you if you lie while under oath.

Edit: It might be easier to break it out by phrase
I promise: I understand that I'm entering into an agreement with the court, so the State can charge me with perjury if I violate this oath.
to tell the truth: I won't lie
the whole truth: I won't leave out important matters (i.e., lie by omission)
and nothing but the truth: I won't add incorrect details to an otherwise true tale
so help me God (this part is optional): I believe that lying under oath is a sin, as well as (stated above) a violation of my promise to the court.

Dave Rogers · 21st October 2009, 06:45 AM

If I were to say, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Jabberwocky scooter McPherson redundancy", I'd consider myself bound by the declaration I'd made in the first fourteen words. The same is true of any other meaningless four-word phrase I might like to substitute for the last four. If someone wants me to say a few words of gibberish just to make them feel they can trust me, I don't have a big problem with that.

Dave

Wauthan · 21st October 2009, 06:55 AM

Thanks marksman. What you wrote is what I expected the explanation to be. Still, I can imagine that there was several different oaths in use before they settled on the current one since, as you mention, it still seems a bit strange.

Flo · 21st October 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Wauthan

Thanks marksman. What you wrote is what I expected the explanation to be. Still, I can imagine that there was several different oaths in use before they settled on the current one since, as you mention, it still seems a bit strange.

It's not much different in France and Switzerland:

"Je jure de parler sans haine et sans crainte, de dire toute la vérité, rien que la vérité" : I swear to speak without hatred or fear, to tell all the truth and only the truth

No mention of anything religious, though.

Ladewig · 21st October 2009, 07:35 AM

I have a related question about the bible.

Originally Posted by Matthew 5

34 “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.

Is that the same type of oath that we are talking about in this thread?

marksman · 21st October 2009, 09:10 AM

For that reason, many adherents of certain Christian sects will not take this oath. Rather, they omit "so help me God" and say "I affirm" rather than "I promise" or "I swear". Legally, the effect is the same.

19th October 2009, 07:09 AM	#1
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	A Pleasant Surprise From A Spam Email I'm in Baghdad now and have been a while. A couple of months ago I discovered that a cousin I have not seen in decades is here as a civilian contractor on the same complex. Our schedules don't match up, and we don't have tons in common, but we've managed two dinners together plus a miniature tour of the palaces here. Since we hooked up, he has forwarded to me two religious emails of the type that is both heart-string-tugging and Christianly-indignant. I grew up in a religious family, most of which is still religious. My cousin's branch of the family is very religious. Also red-necky. I can say that because I'm a redneck, too. I ignored the first email and deleted it because it was more sugary nothingness than anything to raise the bile. But this morning I got the second one. Here's the text as it came to me: Quote: Subject: ... so help me God. EMAILING F AGREE OR DELETE If You Choose To Delete You Are Part Of The Problem Me? I'm Passing It On. It seems to get worse daily. This is by a daughter of a murdered couple in Raytown , MO , who had a Bible and Bookstore on 63rd street . Just one more example: When I had to testify at the murder trial of my parents a week ago, I was asked to raise my right hand. The bailiff started out "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" I stood there and waited but she said nothing. She said "Do you?" I was so stunned I blurted out "What happened to "so help me God'?" She came back with "Do you?" I replied yes, but I was perplexed. Then the judge said . "You can say that if you want to." I stopped, raised my right hand, and finished with "So help me God!" I told my son and daughter that when it came time for them to testify, they should do the same. It's no wonder we have so many problems in this country. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have told them that taking God out of the courtroom is only going to result in more criminals and murderers. I don't know what can be done about it, but it's time for us to step up and DO something. NBC this morning had a poll on this question.. They had the highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the percentage was the same as this: 86% to keep the words, 14% against. That is a pretty 'commanding' public response. I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn.. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why is the world catering to this 14%? If you agree, pass this on, if not, simply delete.... In God We TrustOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me I nearly deleted it with no comment. After all, I am in large part a coward and have not felt need to advertise that I am now atheist. I've always answered honestly when asked about my beliefs, but have never initiated those conversations with some in my family. Why should I risk alienating my cousin? But I couldn't help it. This was my response in a Reply To All message, carefully worded to avoid discussing Christianity itself or my lack of belief in it: Quote: I can't say I agree with this at all. The words are not required because state-mandated faith is not required, and if it were, it would result only in the facade of faith, not actual faith. This person was not denied the ability to say the words, and if she believes that forcing others to say them will create a culture of goodness then I question her judgment. I see no catering to the 14%; if that were true, then no one would be allowed to say "so help me God." Since they are, in fact, allowed to say it, despite the constitutional restriction forbidding them to be required to say it, I think the catering is to the 86%. Faith is not helped when offense is manufactured. No rights were trampled upon here, and no one was denied the freedoms that I, for one, am grateful for. So if this is a poll, count me on the side of those disagreeing Because I'm actually pretty busy here, I mostly forgot about it; when I did think of it, it was mostly with apprehension that I had crossed a family line. Then I got this response: Quote: You know I suppose that I forwarded this message without really looking at it in this perspective, but now that you put it this way I think I have to agree with you. Noone was refused the right to say "So help me God" Thanks for letting me see this in that way. Wow. Shame on me for not trusting my cousin's character and for underestimating our redneck heritage. I'm afraid my next comment was rather weak, but I felt I had to say something to close it out. For sake of completeness, here's my last reply: Quote: Well that's no fun. You're supposed to get indignant, then I'm supposed to get indignant, and then we're supposed to yell at each other a lot. Trust me, I've been in enough debates to know... A bit more seriously, I'm impressed. Regardless of the topic, it is rare to find someone who will actually listen to an opposing viewpoint and then modify their own when needed. I'm not as good at it as I should be myself. By the way: I do have the pictures from the palace, but they're too big to email. I'm putting them on a disk and will give that to you next time we have dinner.
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	__________________ My kids still love me. Last edited by Garrette; 19th October 2009 at 07:10 AM.

19th October 2009, 07:14 AM	#2
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	Since not everyone on a stand believes in a God then why should they have to say "so help me god'. I agree with the attorney who said she could say so help me god if she wanted to. Also e-mail him back and tell him that statistically atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. Your not part of any problem.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

19th October 2009, 07:17 AM	#3
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Since not everyone on a stand believes in a God then why should they have to say "so help me god'. I agree with the attorney who said she could say so help me god if she wanted to. Also e-mail him back and tell him that statistically atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. Your not part of any problem. I agree with everything here, and I even thought of mentioning the atheist vs. christian prison statistics, but that is ultimately beyond the narrow focus of the original email and would only be looking for trouble.
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	__________________ My kids still love me.

19th October 2009, 07:39 AM	#4
grunion Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The ice planet Posts: 2,541	Well stated, Garrette. Your diplomacy and clarity are to be admired.
	__________________ Curious about Sylvia Browne?

19th October 2009, 08:27 AM	#5
Pure_Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 3,819	What a lot of fundies can't seem to realize is that there is a difference between preventing religious expression and not actively promoting it. I'm glad that this person was smart enough to see the difference. It says a lot for him. And kudos to you, Garrette, for getting through to him much more diplomatically than I would have.
	__________________ "What is a man? Just a miserable little pile of secrets!" - Dracula, Castlevania "The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

19th October 2009, 09:47 AM	#6
Starthinker Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 3,834	I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not.
	__________________ Naked People Running on Treadmills \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ • Does the blue line only run on Saturday? He who doubts victory has already lost the battle.

19th October 2009, 09:52 AM	#7
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Posts: 7,840	That was an excellent response, Garrette.
	__________________ A cheetah coat fills up with steam She's such a scream

19th October 2009, 09:55 AM	#8
Lothian (edited for breach of rule 10) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A small, blue-green world in one of the less fashionable sectors of the galaxy Posts: 7,033	Originally Posted by Starthinker I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not. It reminds people that it is illegal to lie, so when they get caught having lied they get sent down.
	__________________ "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne JREF Forum Campaign Group

19th October 2009, 09:58 AM	#9
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 2,860	The oath doesn't prevent people from lying in any physical sense. It simply is a manifestation of the acknowledgment of the witness that he or she can be found guilty of contempt or perjury if they are caught lying. The idea behind making it an oath is to highlight the solemnity of the proceeding -- to really impress upon the witness that they are not merely conversing casually -- that their words will have impact and legal consequence, not only to the people subject to the proceeding, but to themselves if they lie. Sometimes, if the person has trouble saying the oath, or does so in a casual manner, the judge will intervene and ask the witness if he understands that he has to tell the truth, and that he can be fined or prosecuted for not telling the truth. The ultimate goal is get the person to acknowledge their acceptance of the legal responsibility to tell the truth in court.

19th October 2009, 11:03 AM	#10
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Yubaba's Bathhouse Posts: 19,129	Yes, well done Garette. I liked the obligatory ad Populum in the spam: "NBC this morning had a poll on this question.. They had the highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls..." I've seen this in almost every one of these things, no matter what the topic of the alleged "poll" it always gets "the highest number of responses that they have ever had"- I.e> everybody else thinks this is important, you should too.
	__________________ A brave man once requested me to answer questions that are key- "is it to be or not to be?"- and I replied "oh why ask me?" Does it get tiring to be correct about everything? - Francesca R ...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp. - CFLarsen

19th October 2009, 11:20 AM	#11
roger Philosopher Join Date: May 2002 Location: Golden CO, USA Posts: 7,875	Originally Posted by Starthinker I never understood how an oath like that is supposed to prevent people from lying, and it hasn't. Whether they swear to their god or not. Some people believe that it is binding. For example, when my parents were getting divorced my mother opined that my father wouldn't push it to a trial because if he did, then he'd have to swear an oath to God, and then he couldn't lie or he would go to hell forever. The idea here being that either way, the wrongdoer gets punished - either they tell the truth on the stand, or they lie, get away with it, but then get punished by God. It was hard not to burst out laughing when my mother said that, it was so naive. She was very earnest. But, given that viewpoint, you can see how some people would think that by removing the oath you are letting people get away with lying scot free.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

19th October 2009, 12:02 PM	#12
Akuta New Blood Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 8	I tell you, I started getting into the email and the breaks went on, the window rolled down and I said "WHaaaaaaaat?!" Then I read the last part of it with your response and your cousin's response back to you. Very nice interaction. I can only hope that I'd carry on that same level of diplomacy if in a similar situation. Goodonya.
Akuta New Blood Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 8

21st October 2009, 05:14 AM	#13
Paul W Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 113	This whole discussion highlights one of the problems for an atheist in a society which is nominally theist. A few years ago I was a defence witness in a case, and was called upon to swear on a Bible the same kind of oath which contained the phrase “ … so help me God”. My initial instinct was to omit the phrase and to ask to affirm instead. However, I decided that this could risk alienating the judge and jury, and thus cause a problem for the defendant who was a friend. I, therefore, chose to go along with the convention and swear the oath on a Bible. Cowardice – or prudence? It’s easy to take the moral high ground when nothing is at stake, but when guilt or innocence is at stake, it’s not as clear.
Paul W Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 113	Last edited by Paul W; 21st October 2009 at 05:15 AM. Reason: Clarity

21st October 2009, 06:06 AM	#14
Wauthan Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 151	Hopefully this will not be too off-topic, but I've always been curious about the words used in the oath. I'm from Sweden, and I fear that my familiarity of american courtroom etiquette is based almost entirely on TV-shows. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?" Doesn't that infer that if you fail to tell the truth then you can blame God for not providing the proper help? Also, how can a witness state the whole thruth and nothing but the truth? That infers that someone already has all the information available and will compare the oathtakers statement against it. Granted, the phrase has a nice rythm, is easy to remember and I guess they need to say something to make it sound more important. Saying "don't lie or we'll throw you in jail if we find out!" is not quite as poetic.
Wauthan Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 151

21st October 2009, 06:34 AM	#15
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 2,860	No, it means that if you don't tell the truth, you'd understand if God then decided to smite you for violating one of the Ten Commandments. Which doesn't make it any less silly, but at least emphasizes that you understand that consequences will befall you if you lie while under oath. Edit: It might be easier to break it out by phrase I promise: I understand that I'm entering into an agreement with the court, so the State can charge me with perjury if I violate this oath. to tell the truth: I won't lie the whole truth: I won't leave out important matters (i.e., lie by omission) and nothing but the truth: I won't add incorrect details to an otherwise true tale so help me God (this part is optional): I believe that lying under oath is a sin, as well as (stated above) a violation of my promise to the court.
	Last edited by marksman; 21st October 2009 at 06:38 AM.

21st October 2009, 06:45 AM	#16
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	If I were to say, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Jabberwocky scooter McPherson redundancy", I'd consider myself bound by the declaration I'd made in the first fourteen words. The same is true of any other meaningless four-word phrase I might like to substitute for the last four. If someone wants me to say a few words of gibberish just to make them feel they can trust me, I don't have a big problem with that. Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

21st October 2009, 06:55 AM	#17
Wauthan Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 151	Thanks marksman. What you wrote is what I expected the explanation to be. Still, I can imagine that there was several different oaths in use before they settled on the current one since, as you mention, it still seems a bit strange.
Wauthan Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 151

21st October 2009, 07:29 AM	#18
Flo Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Massongy, France Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by Wauthan Thanks marksman. What you wrote is what I expected the explanation to be. Still, I can imagine that there was several different oaths in use before they settled on the current one since, as you mention, it still seems a bit strange. It's not much different in France and Switzerland: "Je jure de parler sans haine et sans crainte, de dire toute la vérité, rien que la vérité" : I swear to speak without hatred or fear, to tell all the truth and only the truth No mention of anything religious, though.
	__________________ "Let me explain the order of things for you. There's the aristocracy, the upper class, middle class, working class, dumb animals, waiters, creeping things, head lice, people who eat packet soup, and then you." (Chef)

21st October 2009, 07:35 AM	#19
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,961	I have a related question about the bible. Originally Posted by Matthew 5 34 “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil. Is that the same type of oath that we are talking about in this thread?
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

21st October 2009, 09:10 AM	#20
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 2,860	For that reason, many adherents of certain Christian sects will not take this oath. Rather, they omit "so help me God" and say "I affirm" rather than "I promise" or "I swear". Legally, the effect is the same.