Remix.run Logo
treetalker a day ago

In law school we were taught that swearing on the Bible (and/or belief in God or some higher power) had been thought necessary to give competent testimony because that belief ensured truthfulness (or made it more likely) on the premise that, even if a falsehood were not detected and punished in court, the higher power would surely punish it later or in the afterlife. (In other words, fear-based testimony.)

And we were taught that the need to swear or affirm truthfulness nowadays simply evinces the requisite understanding of the seriousness of testimony in court / under oath — and, by extension, that the testimony must therefore be truthful in order to duly perform the judicial function of arriving at an accurate understanding of past events and realities.

n4r9 a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah, it makes sense from the Christian perspective. But it falls flat when the person giving testimony doesn't believe in the afterlife. It's as if they think atheists are just being performative.