Swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" dates back to English Common Law. Interestingly enough, there were no penalties for perjury until the 1600s; prior to that time, it was believed that the fear of God’s wrath was enough to keep witnesses honest.An interesting factoid that gives us a sense of how deeply religious people actually were back in the day. And of how much we've progressed.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
The History of Perjury
According to Mental Floss magazine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
According to the Luminarium - The Life of Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)
:
In April, 1534, [Thomas] More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded alongside Bishop Fisher on July 6, 1535.
"...yet for the oath that was offered him, his conscience so moved [More], that he could not without hazarding his soul take it."
Excellent add, Ray. And in GWash's Farewell Address, in noting the "private and public felicity" of religion and morality, he asks
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ?
Progressed?
"...a sense of how deeply religious people actually were back in the day."
I'm sure that back in the day, as in these days, there were deeply religious people who frowned on the lie. But, I'm equally sure that there were/are deeply religious people who would not be so eager to rush to judgment. For some entertaining insight into how they did it in the really early days I'd recommend Jesus Wars; How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years by John Philip Jenkins.
Then there's the donation of Constantine thingy.
For some clarification maybe the words of Clement of Alexandria can iron things out; "For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."(1)
The web page that I cite below is one of many compilations with respect to lying for the faith that I discovered a year or two ago while investigating the issue. I have independently verified many of the quotes, certainly any that I use here, and looked for context and my conclusion is that many deeply religious, and I'm sure secular, people are fine with lies that they feel are justified by the ends.
1) http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm
For the record, I found this sight randomly by Google and only trust the quotes that can be independently verified - and the ones that I've tested have been good - and I have not investigated the meaning or message of anything beyond the quotes and do not endorse the sight. Other sights can be found Googling "lying for religion."
Litigating Christianity's truth claims is not really relevant to the purposes of this blog. In fact, it's completely contrary to its purpose. This is not a theology blog.
However, for the record, an excerpt from a review of the Jenkins book below.
Jenkins is undoubtedly a scholarly historian and a marvelous writer. Whether he understands Christian doctrine correctly is another question. For example, he wrongly associates kenotic Christology—the idea that in the Incarnation the Son of God gave up his omniscience—with adoptionism. He also seems to contrast Chalcedonian orthodoxy with popular devotion that "unabashedly worships God lying in a manger." In fact, only a Chalcedonian Christian can worship God as also a real human baby lying in a manger. The Chalcedonian doctrine is that the eternal Son of God, the Logos, equal with the Father, was born, suffered, and died in and through his assumed humanity. "God died" is not an expression of Monophysitism, as Jenkins implies, but a thoroughly Chalcedonian one.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/22.51.html?start=2
I like Jenkins, but if one is going to attempt theology, one needs to get it right.
As for the "liars for Jesus" website, all I can say is I've had my fill of internet polemicists. I recommend something more thoughtful such as
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right
TVD - "Litigating Christianity's truth claims is not really relevant to the purposes of this blog. In fact, it's completely contrary to its purpose. This is not a theology blog."
I was, of course, commenting on your assertion that "deeply religious people" somehow have a lock on appreciating the truth based on an accurate rendering of fact. I didn't realize that it would be confused with attempting theology.
I was, of course, commenting on your assertion that "deeply religious people" somehow have a lock on appreciating the truth based on an accurate rendering of fact.
I would not assert that. There are many deeply religious people--and religions--that are quite nuts.
Further, JRB, as you know I'm a "natural lawyer," I'd be the first to say that theological [or philosophical] error confuses and obscures the truths written on the human heart.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343715/pope-francis-and-return-natural-law-samuel-gregg
Note, however, how Francis underscores that the truth to which he refers is written into the very nature of all human beings. That’s a clear reference to natural law. It harkens back to St. Paul’s insistence that the gentiles can know the difference between moral good and moral evil by virtue of the fact that such knowledge is inscribed upon human reason itself.
In short, one need not be a Catholic or a Christian to know what’s eternally right and eternally wrong in the realm of morality. Through reason, we can know those truths that go beyond the scientific and the measurable.
Post a Comment