Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckD
Fixed it fer ya.   |
I think, Chuck, that you're referring to the "(or affirm)" phrase? (At least I don't see any other change).
But, the "or affirm" part is actually part of the oath and is an "alternate" to "swear". This is from Wikipedia: "
An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath."
I heard recently, that the "affirm" part was added to the President's oath due to the objections of members of the Quaker religion. Again, from Wikipedia, there's this: "
Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Jesus' prohibition in the Sermon on the Mount. The relevant part is:
But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
-Matthew 5:34-5:37"
So, we again see how our Constitutional ideal tries to respect an individual's rights, while still obtaining allegiance. I acknowledge that in most cases, the "affirm" alternate is simply dropped. But, if an individual such as the President, a state or federal official or a member of the armed forces requested it, the oath would be: "
...do solemnly affirm that...".
- Jack