Magistrates could ask the Government to end the ancient tradition of swearing on the Bible to tell the truth in court if a campaign by secularist groups succeeds.
The Magistrates’ Association, which represents 23,000 lay magistrates, has agreed to discuss a motion claiming that the oath should be abolished because some people do not take it seriously.
The Chief Executive of the Magistrates Association, Mr Chris Brace, has told Christian Voice that rather than being discussed at one of its policy committees, which was stated in the press, notably in the Daily Mail, the proposal is being made as a member’s motion at its Annual General Meeting. We understand the date for the 2103 AGM is Saturday 19th October, but the Association had not at the time of writing put the date on its website.
Mr Brace said: ‘A member wishes to debate this at the AGM and the Board of Trustees decided that this was a motion worthy of debate, without fear or favour.’
Ian Abrahams, 62, a Bristol magistrate who is proposing the motion for scrapping the oath, said: ‘More and more I see people shrug their shoulders or say “whatever” when asked to take it.’I’m suggesting we take holy books out of the process. Instead, people will have to show they understand they could be sent to prison if they don’t tell the truth.
‘I don’t intend my motion to make any comment on religion. It is certainly not anti-religious.’
Christian Voice has now discovered that far from not being anti-religious, Mr Abraham’s initiative is supported by the Lawyers Secular Society, which has strong links to the rabidly anti-Christian National Secular Society. Last month the LSS secretary, Charlie Klendjian, spoke at the Secular Europe Campaign. The Secular Europe Campaign is supported by the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins, and is both supported and promoted by the NSS.
Church leaders, even without this information, also saw the underlying agenda.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, said: ‘This could be the slippery slope towards the increasing secularisation of society. Where will it end – with the Coronation Oath?
‘The Bible is bound up with the constitution, institutions and history of this country. It is right for people to have a choice of oath, a religious or non-religious one.
‘But we are being urged, in the name of tolerance and secularisation, to restrict that choice.’
There is already an option for non-believers to take a secular oath, while those of other faiths can swear on their own holy texts. For example, Muslims may swear on the Koran or Jews on the Old Testament.
The Rev Arun Arora, director of communications for the Church of England, added: ‘Given that the last census showed almost 60 per cent of respondents self-identified as Christians and two thirds as people of faith, this proposal seems to ignore the statistical reality that we remain a faithful nation.
‘This kind of proposal seems driven more by blinkered campaigning agendas than abiding interests in justice and truth.’
Legal expert Lord Carlile said: ‘It would be unacceptable for the choice to take a religious oath to be removed.’
For hundreds of years Christian witnesses have been required to hold the Bible and state: ‘I swear by almighty God that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
Under Mr Abrahams’ proposal, the holy books would be removed and the oath would read: ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We have no plans to change the arrangements for swearing an oath or making an affirmation in court, which have worked well for many years and still do.’
Have your atheistic fun but bear this in mind:
2Thessalonians 1
7 ……………………..when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
Why would christains get upset about the posible removal of swearing on the bible when the bible tells us not to swear on anything. let your yes be yes and your no be no. I am a christain and I would not swear on the bible because it tells me not to.
Deut 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself …
If the Lord God Almighty can swear an oath, and if he mandates it in his law, then we may indeed do it.
In the light of the scriptural witness, we cannot say ‘the Bible forbids making an oath’, because it does not. Our Lord forbad swearing by the Temple, and the context of his teaching and that of the Apostle James appears to be about abuses.
Our Lord Jesus would not contradict the law and the prophets, so we cannot take his comments out of context and assume they forbid a Christian to take or make a solemn oath.
These matters are well addressed on Reformed.org.
And at Christian Courier.
All the scriptures on the subject are helpfully laid out at Open Bible.
An additional point, conceded by Christopher below, is that something of our Christian heritage is in danger of being taken away.
Personally I do not believe we should be swearing on the Bible at all. James 5:12 ” Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.”
The only time I have been called as a witness I elected not to swear on the Bible but to give the alternative affirmation “”I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” to which I added “So help me, God”. Sounds a bit like Perry Mason but in the circumstances it was the best I could do and the judge appeared to approve.
That said I do believe that the campaign to end the oath is just another weapon to secularise the nation by driving all reference to faith and belief underground. Perhaps the most dangerous weapon of all is the attempt to outlaw all religous instruction and belief in our schools thereby creating a new generation with no notion or awareness of biblical truth whatsoever.
However the power of the Gospel is overwhelming and whatever is thrown at us or taken away from us the words of Jesus still ring true “I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail”.
Just an afterthought: there’s an apparent anomaly in that we swear on oath in court but not in a registry office or civil wedding regarding marriage vows. Perhaps the potential for failure in the latter is too great neverthless people still seem happy to promise before God in a church building which amounts to the same thing as swearing on oath. Of course, though a registrar would not admit it publically, God is still present in the registry office.
[…] Magistrates could ask the Government to end the ancient tradition of swearing on the Bible to tell the truth in court if a campaign by secularist groups succeeds. The Magistrates’ Association, which represents 23,000 lay magistrates, intends to discuss allegations that some people do not take the oath seriously. The Association has a number of policy committees, which meet in November or December. The Courts Management Committee may be the one which would suggest to the Ministry of Justice that witnesses and defendants should pledge not to lie without mentioning God. Secularists behind ‘end oath’ campaign […]
Both my wife and I when giving evidence in court or doing jury service chose to affirm. As committed Christians we did not wish to ‘Swear by God’. IMO probably this isn’t an issue worth fighting.
The trouble is, Stephen, if you do not fight on issues like these and wait for the ‘big issue’, whatever it might be, you will find that the ground you are now fighting on has been eroded by the loss of those small issues. An army would never willingly concede the loss of a small village comforting itself that it held the big town. Any loss of our Christian heritage is a matter of sorrow, IMHO.
I hear what you’re saying Stephen but my reasoning remains as above. I am too busy fighting evolutionism which I see as a key issue underlying most of the others to spare any time for much else. Brotherly regards.
I don’t think it is very extraordinary or sinister that secularists back this move. As their whole aim is a secular society, you would expect them to.
Ian Abrahams seems to me to have a point. Many people must be asked to take the oath and assume they have to, while taking it lightly and insincerely in a way that benefits nobody.
The present situation is that a Christian oath is considered normal unless an affirmation is requested instead, and some lawyers advise that it looks bad to refuse to take the oath. Wouldn’t it be better to reverse it ,so that an affirmation was normal unless a religious person requested a religious oath to assure the court of his zeal ? The days are long gone when an irreligious criminal harboured a secret fear of hellfire if he broke the oath, so it has become rather pointless. Devout Christians are not usually the baddies anyway.
As I’ve commented elsewhere. Is not the primary question, ‘Why the need for witnesses to swear or affirm?’.
Surely it is to make the witness realise and acknowledge that if the truth is not told there is the risk of serious consequences: the Perjury Act 1911. It is not to declare or uphold their belief in God: true or false. If the latter with no apparent consequences. Which in the circumstances is anomalous.
The risk of imprisonment is closer in time than the day of God’s judgement! The Church of England’s Article XXXIX (It’s ok to swear in court.) would be rendered otiose.
Under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 an untruth in a written statement under the simple words, ‘I A.B. do solemnly and sincerely declare, that and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, …’ carries the risk of imprisonment under the Perjury Act 1911.
As a Christian my preferred wording as a witness would be as proposed at the Magistrates Association AGM, ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’.
I do not see this as undermining the Christian or any other faith. In a court the key objective is to get at relevant factual truth – not to promote or proclaim a faith.
[…] Secularists behind ‘end oath’ campaign […]