If you ARE under the influence, brainwashed or otherwise non compos mentis, coerced, unaware of what you're consenting to, or under the legal age of consent, it's rape.
I really find the use of the word 'rape' here to be categorically offensive. Let's not water down what rape is, a violent crime, in the name of a little hyperbole on a Thursday morning.
Ideally, oaths should be freely taken, without manipulation or coercion of any kind, with considerable thought and trepidation, by adults.
I completely disagree, because you apply the artificial standard of majority to the idea. I think that minors can, and should, swear certain oaths within their religious communities, at appropriate times, for appropriate reasons. In fact, in many religions and cultures, around age 8 is where the first of those oaths are made.
One bit of personal significance for me with this subject is that I took an oath several years ago as a member of a high-demand religious group. I've since broken free of the group and left the religion/no longer worship the deity I oathed to, but feel very uncomfortable about the broken oath-- I would have told you that it was taken freely at the time, (but I also would have told you at the time that I wasn't in a cult), but I don't feel that way about it now. If you've any advice for me, I'd welcome it.You're really on your own here, because it sounds to me like you're
( ... )
I think that minors can, and should, swear certain oaths within their religious communities, at appropriate times, for appropriate reasons.
And yet a lot of those oaths, Catholic Confirmation for instance, are the ones most readily questioned as the child grows up and leaves their faith for another. The poster in the discussion that sparked this thread says that all oaths made as children are automatically void and automatically meaningless because a child cannot properly consent. I actually disagree with the "meaningless" part-- if it's part of your community, it's going to have meaning to your life on some level, IMO, even if you later attempt to reject it. (And it's usually people who are trying to rebel against or run away from oaths made as children who are the most ardent in saying they're all meaningless. Of course, if that were really the case for them, they wouldn't have to fight so very hard to have people believe that they are ZOMG NOT THAT AWFUL THING ANYMORE.)
a cult' as an excuse to void an oath, have some guilt about
( ... )
And yet a lot of those oaths, Catholic Confirmation for instance, are the ones most readily questioned as the child grows up and leaves their faith for another.
So? You're supposed to take confirmation ONLY if you understand and accept the terms of the contract you are making. Many kids are confirmed too young to make that choice, and many more are coerced by parents and family.
The poster in the discussion that sparked this thread says that all oaths made as children are automatically void and automatically meaningless because a child cannot properly consent.
And they are wrong. Simple as that. If the oath the child is swearing is appropriate for their age and understanding, within the religious setting, those oaths are just as valid as any other. People who say that age 18 makes all oaths valid or invalid have simply applied a very artificial standard to the process. Life does not magically begin at 18.
People who say that age 18 makes all oaths valid or invalid have simply applied a very artificial standard to the process. Life does not magically begin at 18.
But I didn't say that. I said it's *not ideal*. Something you yourself seem to be saying by noting that many kids are confirmed too young, or confirmed via coercion. The more conditions aren't ideal, the more grey areas you can end up with, and I was interested to see how other people drew and construed those grey areas. My only position on the age business is that even if an oath is made by a kid, it still means something. Valid or invalid, IMO, depends on the kid and the circumstances of the oath.
I think this kind of depends on the nature of the diety involved. Some dieties seem, to me, to have more modern understandings of commitment and the nature of binding people. Some dieties are still very old school and it can be just as hard to feel free of an oath as it used to be for an abused wife to be free of her marriage.
If the oath still bothers you I would suggest you see if you can get funeral rites preformed for you within that tradition, making you dead to the diety and ending any possible binding.
I don't think you are morally bound, if that is the question. Slavery, to people or gods, is not, to my mind, moral. All the same if the oath seems to be blocking you you might want to deal with it.
For me (and its a personal perspective), true oaths have consequences.
e.g. "I will do X, or.. I will do Y in penance".
I avoid the "I will do X, or die trying", and I generally won't make unconditional oaths.
If an oath is specified without consequences, then I consider that the consequences are whatever is a reasonable consequence based on the oath, why I made it, and why it was broken.
This almost always includes speaking to whoever I made the oath to, and explaining that i can no longer keep that oath, and why. I will also try and make reparations for any genuine harm that causes them.
But their behaviour forms part of this too - if something was expected of them, and they didn't live up to their side.. I'll still give the explanation, but they share some responsibility for the consequences.
What I wont, ever, do is make an oath with no intention to keep it, or ability to keep it.
Here's my point of view - Oaths are two party relationships; an oath is made to a person of entity as a contract, and ideally should involve some sort of return for service rendered. Even where there is no verbalized reward, an implied reward is always evident when making an oath; ie. I swear to do this thing for you in return for your good treatment and high regard.
If you fulfilled your end of the bargain and the other party to the oath abused their position, my view would be that the oath holder has broken their part of that bond and you are free. On the other hand, this is not a blanket release - if the other parties held up their end of the bargain, you are bound until yours is fulfilled.
In short, and oath is a contract, and if either party breaks the deal then the contract is over, and the party who broke the deal pays the fee or faces the wyrd woven by their actions.
Comments 85
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I really find the use of the word 'rape' here to be categorically offensive. Let's not water down what rape is, a violent crime, in the name of a little hyperbole on a Thursday morning.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I completely disagree, because you apply the artificial standard of majority to the idea. I think that minors can, and should, swear certain oaths within their religious communities, at appropriate times, for appropriate reasons. In fact, in many religions and cultures, around age 8 is where the first of those oaths are made.
One bit of personal significance for me with this subject is that I took an oath several years ago as a member of a high-demand religious group. I've since broken free of the group and left the religion/no longer worship the deity I oathed to, but feel very uncomfortable about the broken oath-- I would have told you that it was taken freely at the time, (but I also would have told you at the time that I wasn't in a cult), but I don't feel that way about it now. If you've any advice for me, I'd welcome it.You're really on your own here, because it sounds to me like you're ( ... )
Reply
And yet a lot of those oaths, Catholic Confirmation for instance, are the ones most readily questioned as the child grows up and leaves their faith for another. The poster in the discussion that sparked this thread says that all oaths made as children are automatically void and automatically meaningless because a child cannot properly consent. I actually disagree with the "meaningless" part-- if it's part of your community, it's going to have meaning to your life on some level, IMO, even if you later attempt to reject it. (And it's usually people who are trying to rebel against or run away from oaths made as children who are the most ardent in saying they're all meaningless. Of course, if that were really the case for them, they wouldn't have to fight so very hard to have people believe that they are ZOMG NOT THAT AWFUL THING ANYMORE.)
a cult' as an excuse to void an oath, have some guilt about ( ... )
Reply
So? You're supposed to take confirmation ONLY if you understand and accept the terms of the contract you are making. Many kids are confirmed too young to make that choice, and many more are coerced by parents and family.
The poster in the discussion that sparked this thread says that all oaths made as children are automatically void and automatically meaningless because a child cannot properly consent.
And they are wrong. Simple as that. If the oath the child is swearing is appropriate for their age and understanding, within the religious setting, those oaths are just as valid as any other. People who say that age 18 makes all oaths valid or invalid have simply applied a very artificial standard to the process. Life does not magically begin at 18.
Reply
But I didn't say that. I said it's *not ideal*. Something you yourself seem to be saying by noting that many kids are confirmed too young, or confirmed via coercion. The more conditions aren't ideal, the more grey areas you can end up with, and I was interested to see how other people drew and construed those grey areas. My only position on the age business is that even if an oath is made by a kid, it still means something. Valid or invalid, IMO, depends on the kid and the circumstances of the oath.
Reply
If the oath still bothers you I would suggest you see if you can get funeral rites preformed for you within that tradition, making you dead to the diety and ending any possible binding.
I don't think you are morally bound, if that is the question. Slavery, to people or gods, is not, to my mind, moral. All the same if the oath seems to be blocking you you might want to deal with it.
Reply
e.g. "I will do X, or.. I will do Y in penance".
I avoid the "I will do X, or die trying", and I generally won't make unconditional oaths.
If an oath is specified without consequences, then I consider that the consequences are whatever is a reasonable consequence based on the oath, why I made it, and why it was broken.
This almost always includes speaking to whoever I made the oath to, and explaining that i can no longer keep that oath, and why. I will also try and make reparations for any genuine harm that causes them.
But their behaviour forms part of this too - if something was expected of them, and they didn't live up to their side.. I'll still give the explanation, but they share some responsibility for the consequences.
What I wont, ever, do is make an oath with no intention to keep it, or ability to keep it.
Reply
Oaths are two party relationships; an oath is made to a person of entity as a contract, and ideally should involve some sort of return for service rendered. Even where there is no verbalized reward, an implied reward is always evident when making an oath; ie. I swear to do this thing for you in return for your good treatment and high regard.
If you fulfilled your end of the bargain and the other party to the oath abused their position, my view would be that the oath holder has broken their part of that bond and you are free. On the other hand, this is not a blanket release - if the other parties held up their end of the bargain, you are bound until yours is fulfilled.
In short, and oath is a contract, and if either party breaks the deal then the contract is over, and the party who broke the deal pays the fee or faces the wyrd woven by their actions.
Reply
Leave a comment