I went to Anglesey over the weekend, for a bit of paddling that got a little more interesting than I like it to be.
Comments are off in your next journal entry, so I'll have to comment here.
Actually religious types (of the general American Catholic/Protestant type) should be opposed to oaths. One of the multitudinous commands of Christianity that is often ignored is the prohibition against taking oaths. People aren't much willing to actually listen to Jesus while swearing on His book, I suppose. In case there was any confusion when He said it, the brother of Jesus repeated it.
In fact, I believe the option of affirming was set up specifically because people of some religious faiths in early American history still acknowledged this. Believe it or not affirmations were provided as an option for religious people, as opposed to irreligious.
I've heard Christians try to justify oaths in court by saying that if the government makes you you have to, but that doesn't fly since the Old and New Testaments clearly teach that you obey the government in everything EXCEPT when they require you to disobey God, and of course it holds even less weight since the government provides the option of "affirming" instead of swearing. I think a lot of people are unaware of that option.
