Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site deepthot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!deepthot!julian
From: julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Compelled Oaths: An Open Letter
Message-ID: <220@deepthot.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 12:26:11 EST
Article-I.D.: deepthot.220
Posted: Wed Mar 14 12:26:11 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 07:43:42 EST
References: <256@teldata.UUCP>
Organization: UWO CS, London Canada
Lines: 10

I guess we are better off in Canada in respect of oaths.  Canadian law
permits an affirmation in place of swearing on a holy book (it also
allows for swearing on holy books other than the bible for those to
whom that would be meaningful.  Quite liberal really, and not tied
to specific relious beliefs.
  This provision is much used, I assume, by Mennonites and Quakers.
I've used it myself, with some niggling question as to whether even
making an affirmation in the terms prescribed was suggestive of
adopting a double standard for 'truth telling'.
		Julian Davies