Thought for the Day - 18/12/01
Last week it was being suggested that
problems of ethnic division in society might be solved by an oath of
allegiance on the part of immigrants. Yesterday, however,
the problems with such an oath were highlighted in a
different context in the debate over the loyalty of Sinn Fein
MP’s.
Now more than ever, the demand for an
oath to prove commitment has its problems. In fact, in recent years
there have been plenty of MP’s eager to abandon the monarchy yet
quite prepared to take the parliamentary oath of allegiance. For
what can such economy with truth matter if you have no allegiance to
a higher principle than earthly power, before which you commit
yourself to truth.
The power of the state enforces,
upholds and is itself bound by its laws, but those laws are set in a
context which recognises that the whole edifice crumbles if
there’s no commitment to truth on the part of those involved.
Which is why we invoke Almighty God, the fount of truth, the source
of our value systems, and hence our legal systems, and hence any
legitimacy of monarchy or state beyond the simple power of military
muscle.
In a law court, for those who find
any suggestion of divinity objectionable there are other forms of
affirmation. But it’s not just atheists who object to taking
oaths. Quakers, object to swearing oaths on the basis that it’s
our duty to speak truth all the time. The trouble with oaths is that
those who accept their premises are more likely to be telling the
truth anyway, and those who don’t accept them have no fear of
telling lies.
At the time of Muhammad, many swore
allegiance in the name of God, but the Qur’an warned the Prophet
that such oaths of fealty are only too easily voiced by hypocrites.
Qur’an says “They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths that
if you command them they will go forth. Say: "Do not swear;
honourable obedience is sufficient." Believers are to be
recognised by their actions. It is behaviour, not an oath, that
shows who is to be trusted.
|