now the religionists insist that people
are more likely to tell the truth when "sworn," and that to take
away the oath is to destroy the foundation of testimony?

_Answer_. If the use of the oath is defended on the ground that
religious people need a stimulus to tell the truth, then I am
compelled to say that religious people have been so badly educated
that they mistake the nature of the crime.

They should be taught that to defeat justice by falsehood is the
real offence. Besides, fear is not the natural foundation of
virtue. Even with religious people fear cannot always last.
Ananias and Sapphira have been dead so long, and since their time
so many people have sworn falsely without affecting their health
that the fear of sudden divine vengeance no longer pales the cheek
of the perjurer. If the vengeance is not sudden, then, according
to the church, the criminal will have plenty of time to repent; so
that the oath no longer affects even the fearful. Would it not be
better for the church to teach that telling the falsehood is the
real crime, and that taking the oath neither adds to nor takes from
its enormity? Would it not be better to teach that he who does
wrong must suffer the consequences, whether God forgives him or not?

He who tries to injure another may or may not succeed, but he cannot
by any possibility fail to injure himself. Men should be taught
that there is no difference between truth-telling and truth-swearing.
Nothing is more vicious than the idea that any ceremony or form of
words--hand-lifting or book-kissing--can add, even in the slightest
degree, to the perpetual obligation every human being is under to
speak the truth.

The truth, plainly told, naturally commends itself to the intelligent.
Every fact is a genuine link in the infinite chain, and will agree
perfectly with every other fact. A fact asks to be inspected, asks
to be understood. It needs no oath, no ceremony, no supernatural
aid. It is independent of all the gods. A falsehood goes in
partnership with theology, and depends on the partner for success.

To show how little influence for good has been attributed to the
oath, it is only necessary to say that for centuries, in the
Christian world, no person was allowed to testify who had the
slightest pecuniary interest in the result of a suit.

The expectation of a farthing in this world was supposed to outweigh
the fear of God's wrath in the next. All the pangs, pains, and