Oaths and Affirmations

In Victorian legislation, section 21 of the Evidence Act 2008 requires sworn evidence to be given after an oath or affirmation. The difference between oaths and affirmations is that oaths are sworn to god, whereas affirmations are promises to the court.

This is faulty.

If I make an affirmation, that brings religion into the courtroom, by effectively telling the judge and jury that I'm not religious.

So what's the reason for needing to tell everyone whether I believe in the kind of god who cares about oaths? Does it add anything to the seriousness of the promise? Nope...

Either way, I'd be in major trouble if I broke the promise (and got caught).

So, if I make an oath, that means that:

• gods who care about oaths will be pissed and I'll be in trouble;
• gods who don't care about that kind if thing won't care; and
• the court will be pissed and I'll be in trouble.

So, if I make an affirmation, that means that:

• gods who care about bearing false witness will be pissed and I'll be in trouble;
• gods who don't care about that kind if thing won't care; and
• the court will be pissed and I'll be in trouble.

Doesn't sound like there's really any benefit to me to maintain the existing oath option. If you're really pious, then just make an affirmation and still don't lie.