This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/19/logical-problems-with-oaths-of-allegiance
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Logical problems with oaths of allegiance Logical problems with oaths of allegiance | |
| (about 9 hours later) | |
| For over 350 years Quakers in Britain and elsewhere have refused to take oaths (I do hereby swear to go on mocking gesture politics, 19 December), because they imply a double truth standard (Matthew 5:37). Quakers will not swear oaths in court (or elsewhere) but will “affirm”, which is legally binding but not religious. It would be ironic if the imposition of an oath intended to support British values had the (presumably unintended) effect of removing Quakers from any form of public service, especially since the particular British values mentioned (toleration, freedom and equality) happen also to be central Quaker values. Quakers established in law the right to affirm as long ago as 1695, and it would fit far better with the values that communities secretary Sajid Javid wishes to uphold if he had set aside the archaic language of “oath-taking” and instead used the much less loaded and more inclusive term “affirmation” to convey his opinion.Roger WilsonBillingshurst, West Sussex | For over 350 years Quakers in Britain and elsewhere have refused to take oaths (I do hereby swear to go on mocking gesture politics, 19 December), because they imply a double truth standard (Matthew 5:37). Quakers will not swear oaths in court (or elsewhere) but will “affirm”, which is legally binding but not religious. It would be ironic if the imposition of an oath intended to support British values had the (presumably unintended) effect of removing Quakers from any form of public service, especially since the particular British values mentioned (toleration, freedom and equality) happen also to be central Quaker values. Quakers established in law the right to affirm as long ago as 1695, and it would fit far better with the values that communities secretary Sajid Javid wishes to uphold if he had set aside the archaic language of “oath-taking” and instead used the much less loaded and more inclusive term “affirmation” to convey his opinion.Roger WilsonBillingshurst, West Sussex |
| • Under the Papist Act of 1722, following a panic about alleged Jacobite conspiracies, Britons owning land were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the House of Hanover. Recalling the occasion subsequently, Arthur Onslow, Speaker of the Commons, noted “It was a strange as well as ridiculous sight to see people crowding to give a testimony of their allegiance to the government, and cursing it for giving them the trouble of so doing … I am satisfied more real disaffection to the King and his family arose from it than anything which happened in that time.” | • Under the Papist Act of 1722, following a panic about alleged Jacobite conspiracies, Britons owning land were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the House of Hanover. Recalling the occasion subsequently, Arthur Onslow, Speaker of the Commons, noted “It was a strange as well as ridiculous sight to see people crowding to give a testimony of their allegiance to the government, and cursing it for giving them the trouble of so doing … I am satisfied more real disaffection to the King and his family arose from it than anything which happened in that time.” |
| No similar exercise has ever been attempted subsequently. Sajid Javid, take note.Julian HarberMytholmroyd, West Yorkshire | No similar exercise has ever been attempted subsequently. Sajid Javid, take note.Julian HarberMytholmroyd, West Yorkshire |
| • A well-known logic puzzle posits an island that contains two tribes: one always tells the truth, the other always lies. How does one tell them apart? Asking someone to take an oath to tell the truth will not do the job; the person will always accede to the request. I fear a British values oath would face a similar problem. Many states in the US introduced loyalty oaths for public employees during the McCarthy era. Their troubled constitutional history should dissuade our government from any attempt to introduce similar legislation.Donald McIntyreChester | • A well-known logic puzzle posits an island that contains two tribes: one always tells the truth, the other always lies. How does one tell them apart? Asking someone to take an oath to tell the truth will not do the job; the person will always accede to the request. I fear a British values oath would face a similar problem. Many states in the US introduced loyalty oaths for public employees during the McCarthy era. Their troubled constitutional history should dissuade our government from any attempt to introduce similar legislation.Donald McIntyreChester |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |