Address given as the 2024 Adams Society Lecture at First Parish Church, Brunswick, Maine. [This is a fuller version of the message I gave at Durham Friends Meeting on February 18, 2024, Swearing an Oath.
+++
I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today in this beautiful place, before this congregation – a body that has been so foundational to the life of this community for decades, even centuries. I thank you.
I want to talk with you today about a very common, ordinary problem, one we all face all the time. It’s such a common weed in our daily garden, it’s hard to know quite how to name it. How do we get people to tell the truth? How do we insure people will tell the truth? How do we assure ourselves that people are telling us the truth? Those are versions of the problem.
These days, we do seem to be having problems telling the truth to one another. Some of us more than others; some of us more often than others. That is what I want to talk about this today, perhaps in an odd sort of way, by talking about swearing oaths.
What do I mean we’re having trouble telling the truth?
Think of the phrases “fake news” and “alternative facts.” Think of the lies told over many years by large companies about tobacco and about climate change and about agricultural chemicals. Think about Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme or other well-publicized incidents of financial fraud. Have you heard these terms: fake personas, sock puppets, deepfakes? How about BOTs or AI-generated material? Or Disinformation? The popular TV show Survivor boldly advertises that “deception is the name of the game.” Deception is just a game! Everybody does it.
Or, my favorite, think about the phrase ‘you have your truth, I have mine.’
We have had, of late, a good deal of talk about the First Amendment, about its importance. It is vital to remember that the First Amendment gives us wide latitude to say whatever we want. But it does not at all require truth-telling. It permits lying.
This avalanche of disinformation, of misinformation, of lying, is polluting our lives, our personal lives and our civic lives. It makes us distrust what we hear, and distrust one another. It tears the fabric of society apart. I believe that; don’t you? So what can we do about it? How can we get people to tell the truth? That’s my question.
Looking back over the centuries, I can think of two broad approaches to getting people to tell the truth, or perhaps three.
The first is horrible. People have used torture to get people to tell the truth. That’s not just unpleasant; it’s unacceptable. People have put other people on a rack and stretched their bones and muscles to insist, to ensure that they are telling the truth. Ellen and I just visited a castle in Europe that had a room full of implements of torture. But this was not just in the dark ages. Think about waterboarding. We’ve seen torture used this way in our own times. But that’s not what we want, is it? It’s horrible and unacceptable. So that’s one approach, but let’s set that aside.
Here’s a second. Sometimes kids say, “cross your heart and hope to die?” when they ask someone to tell the truth. We don’t do that so much as grown-ups — or do we? We do ask people to swear oaths that they will tell the truth. Not just for kids: that’s much the same thing. So swearing an oath, that’s a second approach.
For example, there’s the oath a witness in a criminal trial is asked to recite: “I swear that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
Here’s another: the first oath I was ever asked to say (or to swear) was the Boy Scout Oath:“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” That oath doesn’t mention truth-telling explicitly, but it implies it.
Swearing an oath is another approach to getting people to tell the truth. Surely that’s better than torture.
Swearing. There’s a word. Question: How many of you like to swear? (Hands?)
“Truth” is an old Anglo-Saxon word, a five-letter word. So is “Swear.” “Oath” is a four-letter Anglo-Saxon word – one of those. So perhaps it is appropriate that we talk about “swearing an oath” in two quite different ways. It’s a two-faced word. It can mean, ‘he said a lot of bad words in frustration or anger, words that no one should say and certainly not in a bad, loud tone of voice.’
That’s one meaning. Some of you can bring to mind a routine that George Carlin did for many years beginning in 1972 called “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV.” And of course he proceeded to say all seven words quite a few times. No, I’m not going to say those seven words; you’ll have to find a video clip of the George Carlin routine. That’s one meaning of “swearing an oath,” saying a lot of bad words in anger or frustration. But that’s not what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about the second meaning, the oaths we swear at our best. I want to talk about occasions when someone on a solemn and important occasion assures us that they will tell the truth—or do the right things expected of them. For example, when a newly-elected President stands on the steps of the Capitol and says certain words with a hand on the Bible in front of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and tens of thousands of others.
Notice what’s happening when we ask someone to swear an oath. We’re acknowledging, aren’t we, that we really want someone to tell the truth or do the right thing. But we’re also recognizing that many people, perhaps most people, can’t be trusted to tell the truth or do the right thing much of the time. So we ask them to swear an oath to try to make sure that they are going to tell the truth or do the right thing.
Question: does that work?
This business of oath swearing is on my mind and on my heart because the business of swearing oaths has been much in the news. And that’s because oath swearing is in the U.S. Constitution – and in several places.
Our revered, federal Constitution is a relatively brief document. It covers a lot of ground, but it doesn’t contain very many specifics. It doesn’t, for example, say anything about how the House of Representatives conducts its business. Or about how the Senate conducts its business. Or about how the States conduct elections,. Given its brevity, it is surprising that the Constitution is quite specific and directive about oaths. Our Founders seemed to think that oath swearing was a good thing. Before any amendments, the original Constitution talks about swearing oaths four different times. It requires an oath of everyone who holds office in the government created by the Constitution. It even spells out the precise oath than a President taking office is required to swear.
Why is that? One reason comes in the form of a backstory. From the 16th century on, every officeholder in England had to swear a particular oath, the Oath of Supremacy. That started with Henry VIII’s break with the Roman Catholic Church. He insisted people swear the Oath of Supremacy, which asked a person to swear allegiance to the current king or queen. The oath acknowledged that this king or queen was the head of the one true church. That was Henry VIII when it was first written; people had to swear he was the head of the one church, and not the Pope.
In England, the Oath of Supremacy was used for more than 300 years — until the 19th century. For centuries it prevented Roman Catholics from being elected to Parliament. It prevented Jews or Quakers from entering various professions or from enrolling in universities.
In the new United States, we took a different turn. In writing our federal Constitution, the Founders wanted a very different kind of oath, one that swore allegiance to the Constitution, not to a person, a particular king or queen. And they wanted an oath that allowed religious freedom – that is, that did not require any particular religious belief.
So: Not that oath but this one. That’s one reason we have oaths in the Constitution. But this wasn’t something new. Oath swearing is a very old practice. People have been doing it for centuries. Consider the Hippocratic Oath, the one that Doctors take. It dates from maybe the 4th century BC.
You’re probably ahead of me here. Why do we think it is useful to have someone swear an oath? Why have people been doing it for centuries, for millennia? Put it this way: What possible difference can it make? How does oath swearing increase the likelihood of telling the truth? If someone won’t tell the truth, why won’t they lie in swearing the oath? Wouldn’t someone who lies be prepared to lie while taking the oath? Why does saying the words matter? Perhaps we should ask people to promise that they will only swear an oath if they will swear truthfully. Or perhaps we should ask them to give us assurance that if they promise to swear with integrity and then swear an oath… See the problem?
Think of what’s happening when you swear an oath. Three things, I think.
You are hearing yourself say the words. Maybe that doesn’t mean much, but maybe it does. It reminds you that you are promising to do the right things.
Second, you are also speaking in front of others, probably a crowd of people, some of them holding positions of importance. You know they will hear you say this oath. So maybe being in front of others puts you on your best behavior. Maybe, even for selfish reasons, you care what they think.
And third, of course, you are speaking out loud to God. Notice that in many oaths, and especially in older oaths, God is invoked. Maybe you put your hand on the Bible, or the Koran. An oath is given knowing that God is right there as a witness. The implication is that if I swear this oath and don’t do what I’m swearing I’ll do, there will be divine consequence. Maybe that means something to you. No doubt there was and is a religious backdrop to having people swear oaths.
Is that third one the most important reason? Does oath swearing make a difference only when people believe in God? What happens when people do not believe in God? Do oaths become useless? Maybe it made sense back when people really worried that God would strike them dead on the spot (maybe a lightning bolt?) if they had their fingers crossed when they swore an oath. But now some people think, ‘who is this God; this God will never catch me?’
Maybe this business of swearing oaths seems a little quaint, doesn’t it, a little old-fashioned.
I want you to notice that there’s an understanding of human nature bound up in our having this requirement to swear oaths in the Constitution. It’s an understanding that knows that people sometimes act selfishly or meanly. This conception of human nature realizes people sometimes just do what’s best for themselves and the hell with anyone else. But! At the same time it’s also an understanding that knows that people can act honestly and generously, with the welfare of others fully in mind. An oath is an effort to call people to their best selves. The oath is sworn to draw someone to that best self.
This understanding of human nature – that people can be selfish, but they can also be called to their best selves stands in contrast to a different view of human nature, one that I think is very common and very tempting to all of us. This second view says people are always selfish, always in it only for their own benefit. Let’s call that the cynical view of human nature.
Of course cynicism can affect any of us. I know there are days I can slip into thinking ‘everyone is just in it for himself.’ ‘Of course all politicians are corrupt.’ Always, always. That’s not my best self, however. With the cynical view, I give up on expecting that others have their best selves. I begin thinking I am the only one with a best self.
The Founder’s view of human nature, the view that supports oath swearing, is far from cynical. This business of oath swearing is a reminder that the Founders of our nation believed that people could stoop to selfish, corrupt behavior but also believed (and this is important) that people could be called to their best selves.
Swearing an oath is one way to do that. It says: when we elect someone, someone we know has the capacity to act honestly and generously, let’s ask them to swear an oath that they will promise to act out of their best selves. It nudges them in the right direction. That’s the case for swearing oaths. But it only makes sense if you do not believe in the cynical view of human nature.
For a moment here I want to say something as a Quaker. I’m a Quaker, a “convinced” Quaker – meaning I wasn’t born a Quaker. I went to a Presbyterian Church when I was a kid, and I became a Quaker as a young adult. Today I’m a member of Durham Friends Meeting, not very far from here.
Most Quakers believe that God is always right at hand, paying attention to all that we do. Most Quakers believe God is ready to speak to us in the present if we will just still ourselves and listen. That’s why we gather in silence for worship. Because of this, Quakers are reluctant to believe that any particular place, any day, any practice, any words are special to God because they are all special.
Quakers from our earliest days have refused to swear oaths. We have often gotten in trouble for it. In the 17th century, many Quakers went to jail simply because they would not swear an oath that was asked of them. Some were tortured because they wouldn’t swear the Oath of Supremacy.
Why won’t Quakers swear oaths? Well, because of what it says in Matthew 5:37: “37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
Or James 5:12: “12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.”
And because of these two verses in the Bible, and especially because of how Friends understand what God is saying through them, Quakers have a testimony against swearing oaths. Here’s how one group of Quakers express the point:
“Friends regard the custom of taking oaths as not only contrary to the teachings of Jesus but as implying the existence of a double standard of truth. Thus, on all occasions when special statements are required, it is recommended that Friends take the opportunity to make simple affirmations, thus emphasizing that their statements are only a part of their usual integrity of speech.” [Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, Faith and Practice, 1955, 1972, p. 20]
To swear an oath to tell the truth, Friends have believed for hundreds of years, is to imply that you might not be telling the truth when you do not swear an oath. That’s the ‘double standard.’ Friends believe we should always be telling the truth and telling it straightforwardly. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Instead, we make simple affirmations when expected to ’swear an oath’, and we remind people that we endeavor always to speak the truth.
So let me sum up. What can we do to get people to tell the truth? Torture is a possibility, but certainly isn’t the answer. Maybe oaths help but they seem a little quaint. . I’m skeptical of oath swearing. This Quaker won’t swear one. But perhaps they do some good. When lying is in fashion (as today) swearing an oath seems called for; but when lying is in fashion, oath swearing won’t be sufficient. That’s our predicament
Still, there is some things we can all do and whole-heartedly. This is, I believe, the third approach. We can tell the truth. We can just do it. We can make that commitment and stick to it. Regularly, consistently.
We can tell other people we expect them to tell the truth. We can take it seriously, very seriously, when people don’t tell the truth.
We can tell people that we’ll stop listening to them if we find they don’t tell the truth. We can call out people who tell lies or spread misinformation.
We can believe that people have the capacity to do the right thing and tell the truth. That means we reject the cynical view of human nature. Instead, we can whole-heartedly believe that people can be called to do the right thing. We all have the capacity to step up to telling the truth.
Swearing an oath may help. But you don’t have to swear. You just have to do it – to tell the truth.
Or, as it says in the Bible, Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
River View Friend 