Can you be held in contempt of court for refusing to swear or "affirm" on the bible?
461106
I've been an attorney since 1993 and most of my practice is litigation.  The only time I have ever seen a witness swear on a Bible is on TV.
904027
You dont need a lawyer to tell you what the Constitution says anymore than you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says.\n\nRead it for yourself. The wording is quite clear.
478681
No, they can't force you to however, it may impair your credibility so you can instead make an affirmation. \n\nI do not "believe in god" either, I also will not swear an oath to any state or government either. Many legal documents require a notary seal, I refuse their oath so, instead i make only a documented affirmation, it works and is completely legal.(saves on notary fees to boot)
1060903
No.\n\nHOWEVER, the closest that a case can be made for a pope's actions contradicting infalibility would be Pope Honorius I in the 7th century AD.  He was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). It takes a careful reading of history to understand why this case does not contradict the doctrine of infallibility., of which there is too little space here to get into.  Simply read...\nhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm\nThis is an important issue to understand when dealing with Orthodox Christians because it can shows up in the polemics.
885476
The bible is only symbolic. You can swear an oath on anything, the point is not what you are swearing ON but rather WHAT you are swearing. You could swear and oath on Winnie the Pooh and if you lied on the stand it would still be perjury.
458261
No. All non-Christians have the right to request and use a non-Christian or non-religious oath, or in some courts they will be required to "affirm" that their testimony is the truth.  Even Christians may do that -- some Quakers, for instance, believe that asking god to back up your testimony is a form of cheating (and if you think about it, they have a point), so they use the affirmation oath instead.
268068
Nope,it's one of those passages that I disagree with.What you quoted was one of many unethical verses in the bible.I don't believe or follow everything I read.
697681
Jesus never said those words.\n\nThis is a quote from Jeremiah, in a prayer to God (Jeremiah 18:21-22).  This was in a section where God was warning His nation of Israel of a pending destruction because of their rebellion, but also telling them that if they would repent, he would stay his hand.\n\nThe author misattributed the quote to Jesus and took it out of context to make it sound like Jesus was saying something contrary to what he said.  I seriously doubt the Yahoo Answer Police are biblically literate enough to recognize these problems with his question, however.\n\nMy guess is that they determined it violated the Content & Usage guidelines which say, you may not post content "to exploit, solicit, or harm minors," or "that is violent, racist, incendiary, or otherwise objectionable."
251317
Hmmm. Interesting points raised. \n\nThe Bible's inclusion in the swearing-in ceremony (for both elected officials and witnesses) is strictly symbolic and can be omitted, or replaced with a holy text (and appropriate references) of the person's choosing. The few non-Christian swearings I have heard replaced "so help me God" (or similar) to "by all that I hold dear" (or similar).\n\nChristmas is an interesting observation, as it (at least in the Kansas Judiciary) is the only religious holiday to be an actual paid holiday. The others, if you are wondering, are New Years, Presidents, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Columbus, and Veterans days, and Thanksgiving Weekend (Thursday and Friday). Christmas, at least in my mind, is observed solely because of the overwhelming potential for a "sick-out": if it wasn't given off, people would take it off anyway, and those scheduled to work would call in sick.\n\nAs for the Bible (and other holy texts) being misued by the government; it is a thin line they tread in using it. It is the default for swearing ceremonies precisely because Christianity is the most common religion in the US, and it was understood that a practicioner of Christianity would be remiss to swear to a falsehood. A good percentage of witness swearings now omit the reference to God (Christian or otherwise), and do not use the Bible. \n\nBut the best point in this (rather argumentative) question comes in the final lines. It is a question that I would answer yes for a good number of our legislators; sadly, I must include one (if not both) of my esteemed Senators in their number. It is the reason we must be vigilant when choosing our representation to Congress.
709041
Well as far as the Bible I read it and I take it literally.  If I don't understand it I read the Strong's concordance. Whether it be in Hebrew or the Arabic translation, I read the translation and then understand it better. As far as the judging part I think we all do it one time of or another. It's wrong and we shouldn't do it, as we know. Being intolerable, again we all are one time or another, even unbelievers.  The ones who don't believe do think and criticize us a lot when we do human things, like judge, intolerance, gossip, or any other sin they can catch us in because it makes them feel better and possibly superior.  If we were perfect, we would be Jesus!
777307
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I'll give it a shot. \nJames 2:10-11 tells us that "if we shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, we are guilty of all" and thus we become a trangressor of the law. The bible teaches if we would not have injustice done to us, than we should not commit injustice. But we're imperfect sinners, we make mistakes from time to time like everyone else, however we try hard to become more perfect through Christ, to follow His example of perfect righteousness!
811462
I would have to also say that even with a God it would still be offensive.  There is a lot of hatered in the Bible that is justified only because God says it is ok. If authority comes from the people and I am a person, I take its authority over me and judge it as evil.
647855
This is just one of many ideas that people can misuse.\n\nI believe that Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the land unless and until those laws contradict God's laws.  Currently there aren't any civil laws that fall under that category for me.  It's one of those hypotheticals.  This is the first case I've heard of that used that idea as a defense.\n\nI don't know enough about both sides to speak to whether he was justified or not.  The courts unfortunately, because they are so overloaded, often send children back into homes that are really still unfit.\n\nStill, based on what they showed on the segment I saw, he didn't seem justified to me.
521011
The Bible says that for a time God winked at the silliness of mankind until they got out of hand with brutality and so on..., MEANING he didn't wink as in approval, he pretty much just let man do his own thing.\n\nI cant recall where the scripture is other than the New Testament and I assume it was the Apostle Paul.\n\nHOWEVER If your read the Genesis you'll find there was an understanding that there were certain things considered sinful. This suggest it was passed down from father to son and family to family by word of mouth.\n\nThe WRITTEN LAW.., came as a hard copy (so to speak) something more tangible. Men can argue over what's legal and illegal all they want UNTIL there is a written code for all to see.., hence God passed to Moses the Law which gaged sin without a doubt and the fines and penalties and remedies for violating these laws. Violation of those laws is a sin.\n\nPlease leave $5 in the bucket on your way out. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.
582830
Actually, some jurisdictions understand this very conumdrum and do not require that you swear on the bible. They will hold up another book, a book of the law and justice, to sit in its place.\n\nBy saying "so help me God," the State or federal court is not saying you must believe in God. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution acts as a wall between church and State. It states that the government shall not cater to one religion only with funds or assistance. It keeps the government from becoming entangled with any religion. Therefore, by saying "so help me God," this is simply a time-honored statement made in antiquity by the courts. Many people are unsure of why "oyez oyez" (actually means "hear ye hear ye!") must be shouted out when a court comes to session. Simply, you shouldn't look too much into it. The government knows its distance with religion.
61842
The following is what is said before a person gives testimony:\n\nDo you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God or under the pains and penalties of perjury?\n\nIt allows for those who do not want to swear (they can affirm), and ensures that the person swearing or affirming is aware of the penalties for lying.
13097
Do not ask God to be a witness to any lie that you swear to be true.  Do not say anthing that would show disrepect for God's name or God.