Do oaths mean anything anymore?

[shockedcanadian]

To politicians? Cops? Judges?

I speak for most of the West. There is such a division around the globe and people are betraying their oath to appease their ideology, party or cult. Fewer and fewer are holding them to account

 

[Oddball]

no

 

[GLASNOST]

Do oaths mean anything anymore?​

No, particularly those made at the altar.

 

[Doc7505]

To politicians? Cops? Judges?

I speak for most of the West. There is such s=a division around the globe and people are betraying their oath to appease their ideology, party or cult. Fewer and fewer are holding them to account

~~~~~~
Obviously not a Democrat Neo-Marxist Party thing.
Just observe the number of Democrats that have violated their oaths of office. Beginning with the president.

 

[DGS49]

I personally believe that a person's word should be utterly truthful. If I hear "I swear," offered spontaneously, I instantly think that what is said is possibly not credible. Truthful people don't use that expression to give them more cred. In my own case, if I am stating an opinion, or an intention, or a belief - even about my own future actions - I clearly state them as such

A contract is a solemn promise, which is why it is signed (even electronically). Therefore, defaulting on a loan or another contract is proof of a dearth of character. Oral contracts should also be binding, even without written evidence.

On the other hand, when a person or people create a fictitious "person," which is to say, a corporation, limited-liability company, and similar entities, anyone dealing with that entity must be aware that ITS promises and commitments are NOT THE SAME as the commitments of the individual owning or signing for the entity. This phenomenon is known in law as "the corporate veil."

The subject cannot be left without mention of the most solemn promise that one can make in this life, a marriage vow. While it is purportedly permanent and lasting until the couple is divided by death, it is intrinsically personal, and the possibility exists that the "person" that one marries is not truly the person that comes out some years later, in which case is the vow breakable?

Certainly not without much trepidation.

 

[GLASNOST]

I personally believe that a person's word should be utterly truthful. .....

I agree with you but in the 77 years of my life I suspect that we are the only ones who do agree.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think they mean as much as they ever did. We just see the results of breaking them or see the bribes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I personally believe that a person's word should be utterly truthful. If I hear "I swear," offered spontaneously, I instantly think that what is said is possibly not credible. Truthful people don't use that expression to give them more cred. In my own case, if I am stating an opinion, or an intention, or a belief - even about my own future actions - I clearly state them as such

A contract is a solemn promise, which is why it is signed (even electronically). Therefore, defaulting on a loan or another contract is proof of a dearth of character. Oral contracts should also be binding, even without written evidence.

On the other hand, when a person or people create a fictitious "person," which is to say, a corporation, limited-liability company, and similar entities, anyone dealing with that entity must be aware that ITS promises and commitments are NOT THE SAME as the commitments of the individual owning or signing for the entity. This phenomenon is known in law as "the corporate veil."

The subject cannot be left without mention of the most solemn promise that one can make in this life, a marriage vow. While it is purportedly permanent and lasting until the couple is divided by death, it is intrinsically personal, and the possibility exists that the "person" that one marries is not truly the person that comes out some years later, in which case is the vow breakable?

Certainly not without much trepidation.

I grew up in a time and place that for most people we knew, a handshake was as binding as the most meticulously drafted contract. The only reason most people even bothered putting something in writing was to protect both parties and their families should one of the parties die or whatever.

I often wish for those times and places again.

 

[fncceo]

To politicians? Cops? Judges?

I speak for most of the West. There is such a division around the globe and people are betraying their oath to appease their ideology, party or cult. Fewer and fewer are holding them to account

Not sure they ever did.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... most people we knew, a handshake was as binding as the most meticulously drafted contract.

True,

I often wish for those times and places again.

It's too late now.

 

[rampart]

~~~~~~
Obviously not a Democrat Neo-Marxist Party thing.
Just observe the number of Democrats that have violated their oaths of office. Beginning with the president.

"thou shalt not use the name of the lord thy god in vain."?

although trump claims never to have taken an oath of office (the colorado case) he certainly swore vows to ivana and to the other one.

i do not know of any specific charges of biden breaking any oath of office ,

if the "administrative state" is unconstitutional, that would be a surprise to the founders who put it in place.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I have taken few oaths in my time.

The most notable of which, I adhered to, but the oath taker did not.

 

[john doe 101]

~~~~~~
Obviously not a Democrat Neo-Marxist Party thing.
Just observe the number of Democrats that have violated their oaths of office. Beginning with the president.

What's a neo-marxist?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A contract is a solemn promise, which is why it is signed (even electronically). Therefore, defaulting on a loan or another contract is proof of a dearth of character. Oral contracts should also be binding, even without written evidence.

I am trying to do some research now on why insurance companies are allowed to enter into a contract either 1) with the intention of breaching the contract or 2) with permission to breach the contract if circumstances change to where doing so would benefit them even if at the expense of the other party or parties to said contract.

If anyone knows why they have this loophole that is not available to most other parties to a contract, please post the information here, TIA.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I think they mean as much as they ever did. We just see the results of breaking them or see the bribes.

There are no real repercussions though for breaking them, not that I'm seeing.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Did they ever mean anything in the first place?

God bless you always!!!

Holly