_Question_. I suppose that your attention has been called to the
excitement in England over the oath question, and you have probably
wondered that so much should have been made of so little?
_Answer_. Yes; I have read a few articles upon the subject,
including one by Cardinal Newman. It is wonderful that so many
people imagine that there is something miraculous in the oath.
They seem to regard it as a kind of verbal fetich, a charm, an "open
sesame" to be pronounced at the door of truth, a spell, a kind of
moral thumbscrew, by means of which falsehood itself is compelled
to turn informer.
The oath has outlived its brother, "the wager of battle." Both
were born of the idea that God would interfere for the right and
for the truth. Trial by fire and by water had the same origin.
It was once believed that the man in the wrong could not kill the
man in the right; but, experience having shown that he usually did,
the belief gradually fell into disrepute. So it was once thought
that a perjurer could not swallow a piece of sacramental bread;
but, the fear that made the swallowing difficult having passed
away, the appeal to the corsned was abolished. It was found that
a brazen or a desperate man could eat himself out of the greatest
difficulty with perfect ease, satisfying the law and his own hunger
at the same time.
The oath is a relic of barbarous theology, of the belief that a
personal God interferes in the affairs of men; that some God protects
innocence and guards the right. The experience of the world has
sadly demonstrated the folly of that belief. The testimony of a
witness ought to be believed, not because it is given under the
solemnities of an oath, but because it is reasonable. If unreasonable
it ought to be thrown aside. The question ought not to be, "Has
this been sworn to?" but, "Is this true?" The moment evidence is
tested by the standard of reason, the oath becomes a useless
ceremony. Let the man who gives false evidence be punished as the
lawmaking power may prescribe. He should be punished because he
commits a crime against society, and he should be punished in this
world. All honest men will tell the truth if they can; therefore,
oaths will have no effect upon them. Dishonest men will not tell
the truth unless the truth happens to suit their purpose; therefore,
oaths will have no effect upon them. We punish them, not for
swearing to a lie, but for telling it, and we can make the punishment
for telling the falsehood just as severe as we wish. If they are
to be punished in another world, the probability is that the
punishment there will be for having told the falsehood here. After
all, a lie is made no worse by an oath, and the truth is made no
better.
_Question_. You object then to the oath. Is your objection based
on any religious grounds, or on any prejudice against the ceremony
because of its religious origin; or what is your objection?
_Answer_. I care nothing about the origin of the ceremony. The
objection to the oath is this: It furnishes a falsehood with a
letter of credit. It supplies the wolf with sheep's clothing and
covers the hands of Jacob with hair. It blows out the light, and
in the darkness Leah is taken for Rachel. It puts upon each witness
a kind of theological gown. This gown hides the moral rags of the
depraved wretch as well as the virtues of the honest man. The oath
is a mask that falsehood puts on, and for a moment is mistaken for
truth. It gives to dishonesty the advantage of solemnity. The
tendency of the oath is to put all testimony on an equality. The
obscure rascal and the man of sterling character both "swear," and
jurors who attribute a miraculous quality to the oath, forget the
real difference in the men, and give about the same weight to the
evidence of each, because both were "sworn." A scoundrel is
delighted with the opportunity of going through a ceremony that
gives importance and dignity to his story, that clothes him for
the moment with respectability, loans him the appearance of
conscience, and gives the ring of true coin to the base metal. To
him the oath is a shield. He is in partnership, for a moment, with
God, and people who have no confidence in the witness credit the
firm.
_Question_. Of course you know the religionists insist that people
are more likely to tell the truth when "sworn," and that to take
away the oath is to destroy the foundation of testimony?
_Answer_. If the use of the oath is defended on the ground that
religious people need a stimulus to tell the truth, then I am
compelled to say that religious people have been so badly educated
that they mistake the nature of the crime.
They should be taught that to defeat justice by falsehood is the
real offence. Besides, fear is not the natural foundation of
virtue. Even with religious people fear cannot always last.
Ananias and Sapphira have been dead so long, and since their time
so many people have sworn falsely without affecting their health
that the fear of sudden divine vengeance no longer pales the cheek
of the perjurer. If the vengeance is not sudden, then, according
to the church, the criminal will have plenty of time to repent; so
that the oath no longer affects even the fearful. Would it not be
better for the church to teach that telling the falsehood is the
real crime, and that taking the oath neither adds to nor takes from
its enormity? Would it not be better to teach that he who does
wrong must suffer the consequences, whether God forgives him or not?
He who tries to injure another may or may not succeed, but he cannot
by any possibility fail to injure himself. Men should be taught
that there is no difference between truth-telling and truth-swearing.
Nothing is more vicious than the idea that any ceremony or form of
words--hand-lifting or book-kissing--can add, even in the slightest
degree, to the perpetual obligation every human being is under to
speak the truth.
The truth, plainly told, naturally commends itself to the intelligent.
Every fact is a genuine link in the infinite chain, and will agree
perfectly with every other fact. A fact asks to be inspected, asks
to be understood. It needs no oath, no ceremony, no supernatural
aid. It is independent of all the gods. A falsehood goes in
partnership with theology, and depends on the partner for success.
To show how little influence for good has been attributed to the
oath, it is only necessary to say that for centuries, in the
Christian world, no person was allowed to testify who had the
slightest pecuniary interest in the result of a suit.
The expectation of a farthing in this world was supposed to outweigh
the fear of God's wrath in the next. All the pangs, pains, and
penalties of perdition were considered as nothing when compared
with pounds, shillings and pence in this world.
_Question_. You know that in nearly all deliberative bodies--in
parliaments and congresses--an oath or an affirmation is required
to support what is called the Constitution; and that all officers
are required to swear or affirm that they will discharge their
duties; do these oaths and affirmations, in your judgment, do any
good?
_Answer_. Men have sought to make nations and institutions immortal
by oaths. Subjects have sworn to obey kings, and kings have sworn
to protect subjects, and yet the subjects have sometimes beheaded
a king; and the king has often plundered the subjects. The oaths
enabled them to deceive each other. Every absurdity in religion,
and all tyrannical institutions, have been patched, buttressed,
and reinforced by oaths; and yet the history of the world shows
the utter futility of putting in the coffin of an oath the political
and religious aspirations of the race.
Revolutions and reformations care little for "So help me God."
Oaths have riveted shackles and sanctified abuses. People swear
to support a constitution, and they will keep the oath as long as
the constitution supports them. In 1776 the colonists cared nothing
for the fact that they had sworn to support the British crown.
All the oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States did
not prevent the Civil War. We have at last learned that States
may be kept together for a little time, by force; permanently only
by mutual interests. We have found that the Delilah of superstition
cannot bind with oaths the secular Samson.
Why should a member of Parliament or of Congress swear to maintain
the Constitution? If he is a dishonest man, the oath will have no
effect; if he is an honest patriot, it will have no effect. In
both cases it is equally useless. If a member fails to support
the Constitution the probability is that his constituents will
treat him as he does the Constitution. In this country, after all
the members of Congress have sworn or affirmed to defend the
Constitution, each political party charges the other with a deliberate
endeavor to destroy that "sacred instrument." Possibly the political
oath was invented to prevent the free and natural development of
a nation. Kings and nobles and priests wished to retain the property
they had filched and clutched, and for that purpose they compelled
the real owners to swear that they would support and defend the
law under color of which the theft and robbery had been accomplished.
So, in the church, creeds have been protected by oaths. Priests
and laymen solemnly swore that they would, under no circumstances,
resort to reason; that they would overcome facts by faith, and
strike down demonstrations with the "sword of the spirit." Professors
of the theological seminary at Andover, Massachusetts, swear to
defend certain dogmas and to attack others. They swear sacredly
to keep and guard the ignorance they have. With them, philosophy
leads to perjury, and reason is the road to crime. While theological
professors are not likely to make an intellectual discovery, still
it is unwise, by taking an oath, to render that certain which is
only improbable.
If all witnesses sworn to tell the truth, did so, if all members
of Parliament and of Congress, in taking the oath, became intelligent,
patriotic, and honest, I should be in favor of retaining the
ceremony; but we find that men who have taken the same oath advocate
opposite ideas, and entertain different opinions, as to the meaning
of constitutions and laws. The oath adds nothing to their
intelligence; does not even tend to increase their patriotism, and
certainly does not make the dishonest honest.
_Question_. Are not persons allowed to testify in the United States
whether they believe in future rewards and punishments or not?
_Answer_. In this country, in most of the States, witnesses are
allowed to testify whether they believe in perdition and paradise
or not. In some States they are allowed to testify even if they
deny the existence of God. We have found that religious belief
does not compel people to tell the truth, and than an utter denial
of every Christian creed does not even tend to make them dishonest.
You see, a religious belief does not affect the senses. Justice
should not shut any door that leads to truth. No one will pretend
that, because you do not believe in hell, your sight is impaired,
or your hearing dulled, or your memory rendered less retentive.
A witness in a court is called upon to tell what he has seen, what
he has heard, what he remembers, not what he believes about gods
and devils and hells and heavens. A witness substantiates not a
faith, but a fact. In order to ascertain whether a witness will
tell the truth, you might with equal propriety examine him as to
his ideas about music, painting or architecture, as theology. A
man may have no ear for music, and yet remember what he hears. He
may care nothing about painting, and yet is able to tell what he
sees. So he may deny every creed, and yet be able to tell the
facts as he remembers them.
Thomas Jefferson was wise enough so to frame the Constitution of
Virginia that no person could be deprived of any civil right on
account of his religious or irreligious belief. Through the
influence of men like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, it was provided
in the Federal Constitution that officers elected under its authority
could swear or affirm. This was the natural result of the separation
of church and state.
_Question_. I see that your Presidents and Governors issue their
proclamations calling on the people to assemble in their churches
and offer thanks to God. How does this happen in a Government
where church and state are not united?
_Answer_. Jefferson, when President, refused to issue what is
known as the "Thanksgiving Proclamation," on the ground that the
Federal Government had no right to interfere in religious matters;
that the people owed no religious duties to the Government; that
the Government derived its powers, not from priests or gods, but
from the people, and was responsible alone to the source of its
power. The truth is, the framers of our Constitution intended that
the Government should be secular in the broadest and best sense;
and yet there are thousands and thousands of religious people in
this country who are greatly scandalized because there is no
recognition of God in the Federal Constitution; and for several
years a great many ministers have been endeavoring to have the
Constitution amended so as to recognize the existence of God and
the divinity of Christ. A man by the name of Pollock was once
superintendent of the mint of Philadelphia. He was almost insane
about having God in the Constitution. Failing in that, he got the
inscription on our money, "In God we Trust." As our silver dollar
is now, in fact, worth only eighty-five cents, it is claimed that
the inscription means that we trust in God for the other fifteen
cents.
There is a constant effort on the part of many Christians to have
their religion in some way recognized by law. Proclamations are
now issued calling upon the people to give thanks, and directing
attention to the fact that, while God has scourged or neglected
other nations, he has been remarkably attentive to the wants and
wishes of the United States. Governors of States issue these
documents written in a tone of pious insincerity. The year may or
may not have been prosperous, yet the degree of thankfulness called
for is always precisely the same.
A few years ago the Governor of Iowa issued an exceedingly rhetorical
proclamation, in which the people were requested to thank God for
the unparalleled blessings he had showered upon them. A private
citizen, fearing that the Lord might be misled by official
correspondence, issued his proclamation, in which he recounted with
great particularity the hardships of the preceding year. He insisted
that the weather had been of the poorest quality; that the spring
came late, and the frost early; that the people were in debt; that
the farms were mortgaged; that the merchants were bankrupt; and
that everything was in the worst possible condition. He concluded
by sincerely hoping that the Lord would pay no attention to the
proclamation of the Governor, but would, if he had any doubt on
the subject, come down and examine the State for himself.
These proclamations have always appeared to me absurdly egotistical.
Why should God treat us any better than he does the rest of his
children? Why should he send pestilence and famine to China, and
health and plenty to us? Why give us corn, and Egypt cholera?
All these proclamations grow out of egotism and selfishness, of
ignorance and superstition, and are based upon the idea that God
is a capricious monster; that he loves flattery; that he can be
coaxed and cajoled.
The conclusion of the whole matter with me is this: For truth in
courts we must depend upon the trained intelligence of judges, the
right of cross-examination, the honesty and common sense of jurors,
and upon an enlightened public opinion. As for members of Congress,
we will trust to the wisdom and patriotism, not only of the members,
but of their constituents. In religion we will give to all the
luxury of absolute liberty.
The alchemist did not succeed in finding any stone the touch of
which transmuted baser things to gold; and priests have not invented
yet an oath with power to force from falsehood's desperate lips
the pearl of truth.
--_Secular Review_, London, England, 1884.