A long time ago – about 4 years ago – I started doing posts on the Indiana Constitution. A few of you mentioned liking that, so I thought I might continue on with that “series.” So, we’re up to Article 1, section 7:
Section 7. No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, in consequence of his opinions on matters of religion.
My understanding is that, back in the 19th century, it wasn’t uncommon for judges to allow challenges to witnesses based on their non-belief in the hereafter; on the grounds that, if they swore to tell the truth but didn’t believe in divine retribution, then the oath wasn’t effective and the witness couldn’t be relied upon to tell the truth.
I did a quick search of the report of the debates from the Indiana Constitutional convention of 1851 and couldn’t find relevant discussion; but presumably someone came to the conclusion that, even with the oath, god-fearing witnesses weren’t necessarily reliable and, without the oath, atheists and Unitarians might find the truth from time to time.
Article 1, Section 8 goes along with 7 and states:
The mode of administering an oath or affirmation, shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon, the conscience of the person, to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered.
The point of the exercise, obviously, is to impress upon the person swearing or affirming the importance of telling the truth and generally wake them up to the fact, Hey! This is important.
Leave a Reply