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