Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73658)	8/29/2003 4:58:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"BTW, you never answered my question about whether you would support witnesses all swearing on the Bible. Or perhaps you thought it a rhetorical question." Yes. I did think it was a rhetorical question. But just in case there is doubt, I will give it a shot. It kind of goes back to what I said before about giving the non-believers an edge. If they are forced to swear on something that they do not have any belief in, in the first place then they have virtually sworn to nothing. On the other hand if it is a believer who is convinced they would be bound in fire for eternity if they violated such an oath, then it may make a difference in their testimony. If it were say, a Muslim, then the person does believe in the authority of the God referenced in the Bible but they do not believe in swearing on a book, even the Qur'an, so it may actually give them a push to the reverse. That is, that they have already been forced to forsake what they believe in from the start, so why would the veracity of their testimony mean anything. In fact, they may think that telling the truth while swearing that it is because of a vow to the Christian God that they have sinned. I realize how silly that seems but I think some people would take it that way. Bottom line is that I don't think it would help to have "ALL" people swear on a Bible.