[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: oaths of loyalty vs. oths of fealty
Poster: "Ed Hopkins" <Ed.Hopkins@MCI.Com>
> Your view on swearing vs. promising is not universally held.
> Some, myself included, feel that punctuating some committments
> with a sworn oath only suggests that other promises are somehow
> less binding. If one is a person of their word, how would
> swearing a might oath make a promise more binding?
> If one is committed to truthfulness and honesty, then why is it
> necessary to swear an oath? Swearing an oath suggests that other
> words not so sworn are less truthful.
Whenever I hear about oath of fealty and loyalty, I think about
the Pledge of Allegience to the Flag. When I was in grade school,
it was customary to require all students to *recite* it (as opposed
to "swear" or even "take" the pledge), in such a way, and at such
an age, as to make it completely meaningless. And this was widely,
and passionately, regarded as a Good Thing. But that was twenty
years ago, in Pennsylania; I hope things are different here and
now, but I don't have any school-age children, so I don't know.
ante omnia autem | But above all things,
fratres mei | my brethren,
nolite iurare | swear not,
neque per caelum | neither by heaven,
neque per terram | neither by the earth,
neque aliud quodcumque iuramentum | neither by any other oath:
sit autem vestrum est est | but let your yea be yea;
non non | and your nay, nay;
uti non sub iudicio decidatis | lest ye fall into condemnation.
-- James 5:12
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org