Talk:Affirmation (law)

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Quakers Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Mid-importance).

for the record

This article was started as a replacement for the relevant sections in the Affirmation article permanent link. See also the discussion there.
--NSH001 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Constitution

With a view to improving the citation of this article, I took a look at the wiki articles linked from this section. From a quick skim through, it appears that this section is slightly inaccurate. It states that the The final draft of the 1787 Constitution of the United States makes four references to an "oath or affirmation". I counted all the references in the 1787 constitution, and there are only three. The fourth is in Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights, not the 1787 final draft.

I'm not an expert on the US constitution (far from it!), and I would prefer to have a secondary source to cite this info to before making changes. Any suggestions?
--NSH001 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the affirmation of Pierce would appear to be contradictory to the information supplied on the wiki pages for Pierce as well as John Quincy Adams. This section states that Pierce is the only president to affirm, yet the Pierce and Adams pages indicate that Adams did so prior to Pierce. I have no idea which is correct but clearly one is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.103.89.177 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

opinions

And isn't it the expression of an opinion to speculate about the motives of taking this affirmation, whatever it is? And isn't it an ~~even more treacherous~~ expression of the same opinion to link to this article from the discussion of religious objection to an oath? Because we have to presume that there are people who won't take an oath no matter what name we give it; and yet they are not duly represented here. --VKokielov (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hall, I understand now that this article is personal to you, and I'm sorry I called you a lawyer. But please understand what I mean. Somehow it comes more prominently across that an affirmation is an oath by another name, than anything else we say in the article. We can't dilute that circumstance -- it wouldn't be fair to anyone who sees beyond the names of things. (And I know you do, but want to obey the rules; we can find a way to obey the rules and tell the truth at the same time.) --VKokielov (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you don't understand what I mean, here it is. Tolstoy, in my opinion one of the most original scholars of Christianity -- we may debate that; never mind -- says that Christ forbade not oaths in words but oaths in deeds, just as he forbade not slander but judgments and courts. Oaths in words were already, in effect, forbidden in the Old Testament: "you will not take the Lord's name in vain." Christ said: that is what they told you; in fact there is no reason to swear at all. There is no reason to bind yourself, there is no reason to make promises to do anything. If you make a promise to do a thing, and then discover it is against the will of God, you must break that promise. An affirmation, as is written here, is the same promise, a loophole to crawl through. --VKokielov (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure whether you're having a discussion with someone, or talking to yourself. Second, it's absolutely clear that Quakers had religious objections to swearing oaths... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(AnonMoos, I'm sure VK is addressing me). VK, I removed your material because it wasn't sourced, and was merely expressing your own opinion. The material in the lead which you removed (and which was restored by AnonMoos) is fine, as it is simply summarising the body of the article (see WP:LEDE). You are welcome to insert material from Tolstoy provided it is relevant and properly cited. --NSH001 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Link Broken

The link to Matthew 5:34-37 goes to an expired url. I do not know where to properly direct this. 65.217.137.4 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]