John Lofton/Oaths

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

I do not recall Locke's  views on this matter.  But we do accept affirmation; 
and I think the  word "infidel," is to contemporary American sensibility,  
offensive.  Typically, its used to denigrate someone else's religious  belief as 
irreligious because the belief is incompatible with the  denigrator's 
religion. If Jim's last point is that tolerance dictates, or at  least suggests, that 
we accept the book or artifact claimed by the witness to be  an appropriate 
object of oath taking, then he and I agree.
 
        Alternatively, we might  simply say to a witness, your testimony is 
subject to the laws of perjury, and  you're legally required to tell the truth 
whether you swear an oath or not.  There's probably not much divergence 
between those motivated to tell the truth  by a fear of legal consequences as by a 
fear of religious consequences. I might  be wrong about this last point, but 
I'm not sure there could be an empirical  test establishing such a divergence.,
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050729/a1237ede/attachment.html