I swear
Brian Tiemann's excellent blog ("... a confusing mixture of Apple punditry and political bile.") is a daily stop for me (and it should be for you as well). Part of what makes Brian enjoyable to read is that he has the rare pundit's skill to make you stop and think (or in my case, stop and spend 30 minutes composing a blog post) whether you agree or disagree with him. I usually end up with the former, but Brian's post on religion and morality the other day just begs for me to breakout of my blogging slump with a heartfelt response!
We've all pretty much consensually determined that a secular society is better than a religious one, right? (I'm being mildly facetious here; bear with me.)
I shall bear with you, but such a disclaimer is indeed needed since aside from a few very blue towns and cities, it seems to be the general opinion of most Americans that some sort of religious faith (however it is defined) is a necessary part of living a good and well-balanced life.
It's reached the point where we've banished all mention of God from public offices and schools
Which is why practically every political speech, post-game quote from a victorious athlete, and expression of gratitude from someone rescued from a disaster is generally a heartfelt thanks to the forces or Darwin and Reason, right?
..we avoid telling strangers "Merry Christmas" lest we "offend" them with our amiable well-wishing
As a side note, I actually used to just enjoy the "spirit of the season" and didn't get at all offended by people wishing me (a Jew) "Merry Christmas" -- until a few malcontents on the Right turned this expression of joy into a political bumper sticker statement!
...and we all wring our hands and act scandalized when the President says "God bless America" at the end of a speech.
You mean like every president, Democrat or Republican, (even Bill Clinton!) has done for every speech for the past century?
It all but logically follows, because life is in fact pretty damn good in this day and age, that the less religion there is in public society, the better off we all are. Right? And the irreligious find plenty of reasoning herein for feeling more and more comfortable having left faith behind on the sidewalk many years ago.
Well, here's something I can't help but wonder:
The entire concept of justice and due process as we know it is founded on some pretty shaky principles: namely, that we can take a person at his word, as long as he has sworn an oath. We don't care what book a person places his hand on to swear—we just care that he has sworn.
Well, what is an oath to the nonreligious?
Uh, a legally and ethically binding agreement to tell the truth?
What's stopping a person from lying to a court if he thinks he can avoid charges of perjury?
What's to stop a person from stealing? I mean, every day, the average person literally has dozens of opportunities to take another person's property, with absolutely no risk of being caught.
The whole point of an oath was that it bound a person to the truth by virtue of punishment by a higher power if he lied. It took the onus of proving a witness' credibility off the human jurists. A person on the stand, after putting his hand on the Bible, would feel genuinely, honestly uncomfortable lying—not to say that he'd be actually incapable of doing so, because he believed that the oath meant what it said, and that he'd commit himself to hellfire if he lied. And as a result, a trial could be assured to be more truthful, with less effort on the part of the judge and jury to determine who was lying, than would otherwise be the case.
The word "testify" comes from the same Latin root as "testicles" -- this is not a coincidence; in ancient times, men (it was a male-only time in history) swore an oath on something of great value that everyone understood...their balls! A higher power was not needed to elicit the truth from someone. In fact, in those days, an oath upon one's own honor (assuming you were a "person of quality") was considered the highest possible guarantor of truthful testimony. Of course, you could swear an oath upon God (or the gods) just as well, and that was considered binding, and as history marched on, swearing upon God was considered a good way to get truth from lower-class people who were not considered by society to have the ability to swear on their personal honor. Let us also not ignore the fact that oaths and testimony aside, for hundreds of years it was considered most reliable to dispense with oral testimony and rather determine truth in court via a trial by ordeal. For a long time, that was a legal benchmark. Is the notion that truth can only be guaranteed by God via a physical ordeal any less reliable then the idea that truth can only be guaranteed by swearing on a Bible?
Well, what are we doing nowadays? This country is still plenty religious, but how do the aggressively secular countries deal with this issue? Do they still go through the motions of swearing people to the truth in court, even when they know it's a meaningless gesture that doesn't faze a would-be perjurer in the least? In other words, when the only punishment one fears is the one that can be doled out by a human organ—and an easygoing, rehabilitation-oriented one at that—what incentive is there to tell the truth if one thinks he can get away with a lie?
How about the ethical and moral belief that it is wrong to lie? Fear of damnation or punishment is not the force which drives most people -- even most Christians for that matter -- to do what is right. This is a much bigger issue then telling the truth in court. Throughout life there are tens of thousands of opportunities to do right, or do wrong. To help someone, or ignore someone's pain. To help yourself to a little bit off the top, or to say to yourself "this is wrong and I will not do it." Those who make what we would consider the morally right choices usually do so because, frankly, virtue is its own reward....because it's the right thing to do -- not because they are afraid of punishment.
By the way, if you are curious courts do still swear non-believers to tell the truth, but yeah, it is not nearly as theatrical or well, Biblical, as the traditional method. But it is just as legally binding.
...But there's got to be a reason why we think it's worthwhile to bother swearing people to oaths. As society becomes less and less overtly religious, there are bound to be consequences of some kind in how the rule of law is perceived; because when people only fear the punishment of fallible and gullible humans, and no longer feel their lives governed by something higher and omnipresent, who wouldn't do more of the illicit stuff that only God could see?
If people only obey the law or do what is right because they fear punishment if they do wrong, then society is already finished, and not even God could save it.
Of course, there are evil people in our world and those people may only be deterred by punishment, and society must protect itself from those kind of people. However, morality and religion have no meaning to such folk, and no matter how "secular" society becomes, it will not make a difference here.
Ironically, the very people who would most believe in the oath they are swearing in court are the very people who have the ethical beliefs such that they would tell the truth even in the absence of such an oath.
Brian Tiemann's excellent blog ("... a confusing mixture of Apple punditry and political bile.") is a daily stop for me (and it should be for you as well). Part of what makes Brian enjoyable to read is that he has the rare pundit's skill to make you stop and think (or in my case, stop and spend 30 minutes composing a blog post) whether you agree or disagree with him. I usually end up with the former, but Brian's post on religion and morality the other day just begs for me to breakout of my blogging slump with a heartfelt response!
We've all pretty much consensually determined that a secular society is better than a religious one, right? (I'm being mildly facetious here; bear with me.)
I shall bear with you, but such a disclaimer is indeed needed since aside from a few very blue towns and cities, it seems to be the general opinion of most Americans that some sort of religious faith (however it is defined) is a necessary part of living a good and well-balanced life.
It's reached the point where we've banished all mention of God from public offices and schools
Which is why practically every political speech, post-game quote from a victorious athlete, and expression of gratitude from someone rescued from a disaster is generally a heartfelt thanks to the forces or Darwin and Reason, right?
..we avoid telling strangers "Merry Christmas" lest we "offend" them with our amiable well-wishing
As a side note, I actually used to just enjoy the "spirit of the season" and didn't get at all offended by people wishing me (a Jew) "Merry Christmas" -- until a few malcontents on the Right turned this expression of joy into a political bumper sticker statement!
...and we all wring our hands and act scandalized when the President says "God bless America" at the end of a speech.
You mean like every president, Democrat or Republican, (even Bill Clinton!) has done for every speech for the past century?
It all but logically follows, because life is in fact pretty damn good in this day and age, that the less religion there is in public society, the better off we all are. Right? And the irreligious find plenty of reasoning herein for feeling more and more comfortable having left faith behind on the sidewalk many years ago.
Well, here's something I can't help but wonder:
The entire concept of justice and due process as we know it is founded on some pretty shaky principles: namely, that we can take a person at his word, as long as he has sworn an oath. We don't care what book a person places his hand on to swear—we just care that he has sworn.
Well, what is an oath to the nonreligious?
Uh, a legally and ethically binding agreement to tell the truth?
What's stopping a person from lying to a court if he thinks he can avoid charges of perjury?
What's to stop a person from stealing? I mean, every day, the average person literally has dozens of opportunities to take another person's property, with absolutely no risk of being caught.
The whole point of an oath was that it bound a person to the truth by virtue of punishment by a higher power if he lied. It took the onus of proving a witness' credibility off the human jurists. A person on the stand, after putting his hand on the Bible, would feel genuinely, honestly uncomfortable lying—not to say that he'd be actually incapable of doing so, because he believed that the oath meant what it said, and that he'd commit himself to hellfire if he lied. And as a result, a trial could be assured to be more truthful, with less effort on the part of the judge and jury to determine who was lying, than would otherwise be the case.
The word "testify" comes from the same Latin root as "testicles" -- this is not a coincidence; in ancient times, men (it was a male-only time in history) swore an oath on something of great value that everyone understood...their balls! A higher power was not needed to elicit the truth from someone. In fact, in those days, an oath upon one's own honor (assuming you were a "person of quality") was considered the highest possible guarantor of truthful testimony. Of course, you could swear an oath upon God (or the gods) just as well, and that was considered binding, and as history marched on, swearing upon God was considered a good way to get truth from lower-class people who were not considered by society to have the ability to swear on their personal honor. Let us also not ignore the fact that oaths and testimony aside, for hundreds of years it was considered most reliable to dispense with oral testimony and rather determine truth in court via a trial by ordeal. For a long time, that was a legal benchmark. Is the notion that truth can only be guaranteed by God via a physical ordeal any less reliable then the idea that truth can only be guaranteed by swearing on a Bible?
Well, what are we doing nowadays? This country is still plenty religious, but how do the aggressively secular countries deal with this issue? Do they still go through the motions of swearing people to the truth in court, even when they know it's a meaningless gesture that doesn't faze a would-be perjurer in the least? In other words, when the only punishment one fears is the one that can be doled out by a human organ—and an easygoing, rehabilitation-oriented one at that—what incentive is there to tell the truth if one thinks he can get away with a lie?
How about the ethical and moral belief that it is wrong to lie? Fear of damnation or punishment is not the force which drives most people -- even most Christians for that matter -- to do what is right. This is a much bigger issue then telling the truth in court. Throughout life there are tens of thousands of opportunities to do right, or do wrong. To help someone, or ignore someone's pain. To help yourself to a little bit off the top, or to say to yourself "this is wrong and I will not do it." Those who make what we would consider the morally right choices usually do so because, frankly, virtue is its own reward....because it's the right thing to do -- not because they are afraid of punishment.
By the way, if you are curious courts do still swear non-believers to tell the truth, but yeah, it is not nearly as theatrical or well, Biblical, as the traditional method. But it is just as legally binding.
...But there's got to be a reason why we think it's worthwhile to bother swearing people to oaths. As society becomes less and less overtly religious, there are bound to be consequences of some kind in how the rule of law is perceived; because when people only fear the punishment of fallible and gullible humans, and no longer feel their lives governed by something higher and omnipresent, who wouldn't do more of the illicit stuff that only God could see?
If people only obey the law or do what is right because they fear punishment if they do wrong, then society is already finished, and not even God could save it.
Of course, there are evil people in our world and those people may only be deterred by punishment, and society must protect itself from those kind of people. However, morality and religion have no meaning to such folk, and no matter how "secular" society becomes, it will not make a difference here.
Ironically, the very people who would most believe in the oath they are swearing in court are the very people who have the ethical beliefs such that they would tell the truth even in the absence of such an oath.
posted by Mike at
9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home