From Mr Andrew Melling JP
Sir, - Many magistrates agree that the time has come to replace
the religious oath (Letters, 1
November). The motion brought to the annual general meeting of
our Association in Cardiff attracted some media attention, even
talk of demonstrations, but did not go far enough.
My amendment to simplify the proposal was approved by a large
majority, and the wording finally put to the vote was "I promise to
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I
understand that if I don't I will be committing an offence for
which I will be punished and may be sent to prison."
Contributions to the debate included reference to multi-faith
groupings who wanted to keep the oath, and members who were active
church members who wanted to see it go.
In court last week, a Christian witness was asked by the legal
adviser (looking for the right book) whether he was Roman Catholic.
I have never understood that particular distinction in this
context, nor the benefit of having in every courtroom a library of
religious texts that are there not to be read or even opened.
The motion was defeated, but not by a large majority. If there
is another opportunity, perhaps it will be more favoured. Or
perhaps, since it is not magistrates who make the rules, it will be
picked up elsewhere.
ANDREW MELLING
39 Salisbury Road
Bexley, Kent DA5 3QE
From Canon John Goodchild
Sir, - You report(News, 1 November) that the steering committee
on women bishops says that the oath does not mean agreeing to obey
every episcopal instruction.
I would hope that those ignoring their bishop would have the
grace to give reverently a reasoned defence for the hope that is in
them (1 Peter 3.15-16) rather than simply cite "theological
conviction" like the Taliban.
JOHN GOODCHILD
39 St Michaels Road
Liverpool L17 7AN
