| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: Politix | |||
| Judge sworn in with hand on dictionary | |||
| 2010-01-06 | |||
| A judge in New York state took the oath of office with his hand placed on a dictionary rather than a book of scripture because officials could find no Bible. The glitch, in a packed courtroom of the historic Ulster County Courthouse in Kingston, N.Y., provided "a light moment" in the swearing-in of Donald A. Williams as Ulster County judge, the Daily Freeman of Kingston reported Sunday.
The former district attorney, a Republican, officially became the county judge Friday. U.S. government officials are not required to swear in on a Bible, but most do so as a demonstration of the binding nature of the promise. The act also adds solemnity to the ceremony.
| |||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 dictionary vs bible? Obama: "words...just words" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-01-06 15:25 |
| #5 Williams said later he didn't mind using a dictionary instead of a Bible because the swearing-in Saturday was purely ceremonial. I think I see what the problem with government is. But in truth it is probably more appropriate, because law has become the de facto religion, and the hair-splitting that comes along with interpreting a religious text for certain religions seems to have an odd parallel here when it comes to words and their intent for legal "interpretations". |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-01-06 14:02 |
| #4 The dictionary thing seems a bit silly, though. On the other hand, the office manager/administrative assistant who didn't ensure that the bible was ready to hand, as it were, should be demoted. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-01-06 13:44 |
| #3 The original idea was two-fold: an oath on God's own book would naturally be more binding because God would take an interest if it weren't, and also that the Bible would reject a false oath (remember that this started before the Salem witch trials). For non-believers that's all moot, but there weren't many non-believers in those days, and precious few permitted to believe even slightly differently than the majority. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-01-06 13:39 |
| #2 It's all the same words anyway, just different order and frequencey, so it should be just fine to substitute a dictionary for a Bible. (However I am not sure I see a legal justification for using a Bible in the first place, at least not at the request of the government; I am fine with allowing the oath taker to use it if he chooses.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-01-06 11:27 |
| #1 seems appropriate for those who don't believe in God. It's all just a word game rather than a belief in a higher calling. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2010-01-06 05:49 |