by hubert 11 Replies latest jw friends
Or do they even?
Let's say, in a child custody case, or something of that nature.
Do they ask for the NWT?
If they use the standard Bible, because it's not the one they believe in, does that give them reason to lie in court? (in their own minds).
Hubert
I've known JWs who use other bibles as reference to the NWT (many elders, not laity do this), so its not that they consider "other" bibles not to be real bibles, only misleading (which is ironic).
They would swear on the bible lying around in the courthouse.
In Canada, you do not have to swear on the Bible (separation of church and state).
I have testified twice in criminal trials, and the judges asks if you will swear on the Bible. I then said that I am not a Xtian. S/he then asked if I 'solemnly swear that my testimony is the truth' , or something to that effect, and I answered 'Yes, I swear'.
talesin
People are no longer required to swear on a Bible (or a Koran) but can make what is called an affirmation.
A court officer will read out the oath and ask you to swear to tell the truth on the Bible or Koran. If you do not wish to swear on the Bible or Koran, tell the court officer when the Bible or Koran is handed to you and you may make an affirmation.
Quakers do no swear oaths on the Bible and a workmate who is an atheist was also told he did not have to.
I wonder is some JWs would refused to swear on any Bible.A court officer will read out the oath and ask you to swear to tell the truth on the Bible or Koran. If you do not wish to swear on the Bible or Koran, tell the court officer when the Bible or Koran is handed to you and you may make an affirmation.
Would it really matter in the long run. If it'll help their case, they'd lie and swear they only have to answer to Jah. Whatever will help them at the time.
shelley
In Canada, you do not have to swear on the Bible (separation of church and state).
In Canada we don't have separation of church and state. The Parliament is linked (somehow) to the Anglican Church of Canada, in an official capacity.
For reference;
***
w1951 2/1 pp. 95-96 Questions from Readers ***•
In the new legal booklet Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News it is stated that there is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath to testify to the truth. What about Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:33-37 and the disciple James’ words at James 5:12 telling Christians to "swear not at all"?—E. H., England.The scriptures at Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 do not refer to going under oath in a law court. These admonitions against swearing were against the practice of that time of using an oath on inappropriate occasions to make one’s speech emphatic so as to be more believed by the hearer and also to boast of one’s own reliability; so they swore by one’s beard, or by heaven, or by earth, and other things that really added no strength to what was said or averred.
But faithful servants of God are recorded as swearing on solemn occasions. Abraham lifted up his hand in swearing to a certain course. (Gen. 14:2-24) Did what he said on this occasion beyond yes and no "come of evil"? When the high priest said to Jesus before the Sanhedrin, "By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!" Jesus responded. (Matt. 26:63, 64, NW) Also the apostle Paul does not speak derogatorily of oaths taken on proper occasions, as in court, but says: "For men swear by the one greater, and their oath is the end of every dispute, as it is a legal guarantee to them. In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, stepped in with an oath, in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us." (Heb. 6:16-18, NW) Since God is always true and reliable, why did he act like men in court and give an oath in confirmation of what he had told Abraham? Certainly his oath did not "come of evil".
However, we leave it to each one’s conscience as to whether to swear in court or before a notary or elsewhere or merely to affirm. In the booklet Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News we give our position on the matter, so that any looking to us for advice may know we do not oppose such swearing in court.
*** w2003 1/15 p. 21 Questions From Readers ***
Questions
From ReadersIs
it Scripturally acceptable for a Christian to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth in court?Each individual must make a personal decision in this regard. (Galatians 6:5) However, there is no Biblical objection to taking an oath to tell the truth in court.
Oath taking has long been a widespread practice. In ancient times, for instance, the Greeks raised a hand toward heaven or touched an altar while taking an oath. When a Roman juror took an oath, he held a stone in his hand and swore: "If I knowingly deceive, while he saves the city and citadel, may [the god] Jupiter cast me away from all that is good, as I do this stone."—Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock and James Strong, Volume VII, page 260.
Such acts were indications of mankind’s inclination to recognize the existence of a divine power who is able to observe humans and to whom they are accountable. From ancient times, true worshipers of Jehovah realized that he knew what they said and did. (Proverbs 5:21; 15:3) They took oaths in the presence of God, as it were, or with him as a witness. For example, this was done by Boaz, David, Solomon, and Zedekiah. (Ruth 3:13; 2 Samuel 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23, 24; Jeremiah 38:16) Worshipers of the true God also allowed others to put them under oath. That was so in the case of Abraham and of Jesus Christ.—Genesis 21:22-24; Matthew 26:63, 64.
A person taking an oath before Jehovah sometimes made an accompanying gesture. Abram (Abraham) told the king of Sodom: "I do lift up my hand in an oath to Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth." (Genesis 14:22) An angel speaking to the prophet Daniel "proceeded to raise his right hand and his left hand to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite." (Daniel 12:7) Even God is referred to as symbolically raising his hand in an oath.—Deuteronomy 32:40; Isaiah 62:8.
There is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath. However, a Christian does not have to take an oath so as to back up every statement that he makes. Jesus said: "Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No." (Matthew 5:33-37) The disciple James made a similar point. When he said "stop swearing," he was warning against frivolous oath taking. (James 5:12) Neither Jesus nor James said that it is wrong to take an oath to tell the truth in court.
What, then, if a Christian in court is asked to swear that his testimony is truthful? He may feel that he can take such an oath. Otherwise, he may be permitted to give an affirmation that he is not lying.—Galatians 1:20.
When courtroom procedure involves either raising a hand or placing it on the Bible when swearing, a Christian may choose to comply. He may have in mind the Scriptural examples of accompanying an oath with a gesture. For a Christian, more important than making a certain gesture when taking an oath is that he remembers that he is swearing before God to tell the truth. Such an oath is a serious matter. If a Christian feels that he can and should answer a question put to him in such circumstances, then he should bear in mind that he is under oath to tell the truth, which, of course, is what a Christian wants to speak at all times.
Interesting point, t_c, and I wonder if the recent constitutional changes have rectified that? The only connection I can think of would be that the Queen is the head of the church ... hmm, maybe I`ll have to do a little research. Is your information based on historical research or current governmental structure?
Be that as it may, our laws are more and more geared towards secular principles vs. judeo-xtian ethics. Removal of prayer from the public school system happened decades ago in this province, laws against sodomy have been struck down, and gay marriage is soon to be legal right across the country. Any connection our laws have with the Anglican church is certainly rare these days.
tal
When Covington and Franz testified under oath in Scotland in 1954, they told the truth. They admitted under oath that unity was more important than truth, they admitted false teaching and false prophecy and saw no problem with the idea that it was better for witnesses to follow false teachings of President Knorr than to follow correct teachings independently. It must be unity AT ANY COST. Even at the cost of truth.
Ironic that these are the people who describe themselves as in the truth, they have to keep convincing themselves.
When I was a Witness I testified in a murder trial. I did not have to put my hand on any Bible. I did not "swear" but instead "affirmed" i was telling the truth.
