Bishop Norman defends taking of oath in court

Press, 30 December 1985, Page 7

Bishop Norman defends taking of oath in court

PA Wellington Taking the oath in court was not an act of “primitive mumbo-jumbo,” said Wellington’s Anglican leader, Bishop Sir Edward Norman.

Bishop Norman was responding to comments by the immediate past president of the Auckland District Law Society, Mr Donald Dugdale, that the oath should be abolished.

Mr Dugdale said the oath should be abolished, and described swearing on the Bible with an ungloved hand as a “magical ritual” adopted from pre-Christian practices. “I don’t think calling it primitive mumbo-jumbo really describes what is happening. It is just a solemn way of saying ‘I

want to tell the truth’,” Bishop Norman said. Describing Mr Dugdale’s attack on the oath as exaggeration, Bishop Norman said the report of what he had said failed to mention the oath of affirmation. An affirmation can be made in court by those who do not wish to make a religious oath. Also, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others who have conscientious scruples against taking an oath are allowed to make an affirmation in any manner they may declare to be binding on their consciences.

Oaths, according to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” have their origins in preChristian practices and it is not certain they were always considered religious

acts. However, Bishop Norman said those people who swore on the Bible did so because they believed in it and that they would not tell an untruth as a result.

One of the most celebrated cases of a person refusing to take an oath was that of the nineteenth century British member of Parliament, Charles Bradlaugh.

An atheist, Bradlaugh campaigned as a radical and was elected to Parliament in 1890. For more than five years, however, he was denied his seat because he asked to be allowed to affirm rather than to take the religious oath of Parliament.