The name is absent

offense. They were people who, as a group, took an oath of solidarity with the
accused. Again, it was their oath that resulted in the decision. The oath was the
proof. As ideas about “truth” continued to develop, the oath was no longer the
proof but was admitted as evidence in the case. The testimonies of those
involved became the proof, and all who testified had to take an oath.⁸

Silving shows that in all European societies, the oaths have religious
weight, even though not all oath takers have the same religious beliefs or believe
in God at all. Naturally, there have been questions as to the validity or credibility
of their testimonies if they do not believe that God plays a role in whether they tell
the truth or not. But the practice of oathing has remained even though many
have argued that it is not necessary for all to believe in the same God. They
assert that most people believe in some higher being that responds to moral
decisions and behaviors and that their testimonies are subject to such power. As
such, oath taking has an influence on individuals. Still others argue that the
oaths create a “pestilence of perjury.”⁹

Debates linger as oaths continue to be taken, but it is important to
question the role of oathing in a society that does not believe in God. Although
Silving provides an important dimension of oathing by focusing on the religious
and spiritual nature of oathing, the analysis fails to treat the complexities of
oathing by explaining the inner activities and meaning of the practice. For
example, what aspects of oathing served to hold individuals morally responsible
even if the oath taker was atheist? What did oathing really mean to participants?
⁸ Silving, “The Oath: I,” 1329-1390.

⁹ Silving, “The Oath: I,” 1359. The problem and belief is that the practice can create a plague of lying under
oath.

63

<<   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   >>

More intriguing information