And, legally still, ‘I solemnly and sincerely declare that the evidence I shall give…’ has the same force and effect as ‘I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give…’
Is that right? I knew that the whole idea of swearing and oath-making in law took a major hit (in England and Wales, at least) when the Quakers refused to cooperate. I knew that it is possible to affirm the truth of statements in court, but I don't think I knew the exact form of alternative words used.
Maybe this is a difference without any real significance - but it feels like an oath is something like a metaphorical bank loan taken against my house. I'm telling the truth, by God, and he can strike me down if I am telling the word of a lie.
But if one refuses to believe that this weight added to a promise to speak truth has any real meaning then I can't see it is really adding anything.
I promised some things to my wife many years ago. A bunch of people were there, so I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it.
I signed a bit of paper for the state in order to have my relationship recognised.
But the living embodiment of that promise is in daily living. I could have promised on a relative's grave (what a horrible phrase that is) or a stack of bibles or a long stream of gobbledegook which suggested that the deity was my friend and approved of my betrothal.
But I think ultimately any of those things have limited meaning.
@RooK and @Doc Tor please make sure to aim carefully at which churches to nuke from orbit. Indeed, this point in the thread seems as good a place as any to chip in with a piece of my own news.
Back in March last year, I shared my despair at churches being sold out to capitalism and the struggle to organise church on any other basis.
In particular, I bemoaned the arrival of a church plant seeking to buy its way straight into the property market here, and our difficulty in finding new premises to rent having been served notice of eviction due to gentrification of the premises we were in. Our lease expired yesterday.
I am happy to say that this week we signed a lease on the building we've been trying to negotiate for over a year, at a budget that was within 7 euros of our target; 7 euros less. We just got the keys this morning.
We need to do some work on it for fire regulations and stuff, and will be nomads until that's done, this is not the end, the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning, etc., but I feel a certain sense of vindication and very encouraged.
And since this is Hell, I can tell you that I heard today that the buying-its-way-in church plant real estate project has fallen through. I'm trying hard to be sad about that.
Don't knock that passage. Mrs Eutychus did a great sermon on it that helped encourage me we would end up in the right place (her insight: they had actually been trying to get to Ephesus, and eventually did, just via Europe).
No, I think it’s a great passage. I like to think that the Holy Spirit took the form of a jobsworth border/visa official of some kind who threw their plans into disarray, and they were delayed and frustrated until the dream showed them the way forward.
I think that we agree that if you sign a contract, you are legally bound by it in the general case regardless of whether or not you have read it (or understand it - which is why lawyers even exist). However, there are exceptions such as when courts may decide that a person was incapable of entering into such a contract for whatever circumstantial reason. I think Eutychus' hypothetical fucks exist in that sort of logical penumbra.
Yes, but the person still though they were making a promise. It’s just the fact that the person wasn’t able to (for example by being, you know, drunk). I seriously don’t understand why this is controversial.
Legend has it that in the early days of the Salvation Army, William Booth would lead drunks through a prayer of conversion while they were still drunk, then hold them to it when they were sober. Presumably @kmann would argue that the main thing is that they've prayed the prayer, so gotcha.
Or you could, you know, read my posts instead of conjuring shit up from thin air.
"Making a promise" is not the same thing as entering into an agreement which entails a promise. One is active, one is passive.
Except, it’s not passive at all. You actively enter into the agreement either by signing it or by public declaration. There’s nothing ‘passive’ about it, legally speaking. People may not care about it or they may not think through the consequences but the law doesn’t really care what you *actually* thought you were doing when you actively entered into the agreement and thus promised to honour its terms. So yes, entering into a contract is a promise and an active one. Of course the person making the promise may be legally unable to – being drunk, underage, etc. But that doesn’t mean that entering into a contract is not a promise. It is.
entering into a contract is a promise and an active one. Of course the person making the promise may be legally unable to – being drunk, underage, etc. But that doesn’t mean that entering into a contract is not a promise. It is.
You sound like you might have a, um, promising career selling time-share apartments.
Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age, and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.
So some people sign things that they are not able to sign, for various reasons. So I’ll concede that a promise can only be given by those who are able to give it. Just like entering into a contract can only be done by those who are able to do so. So no contradiction there.
A promise, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified” or “a legally binding declaration that gives the person to whom it is made a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act.” When you sign a contract, being able to do so, you are providing a legally binding declaration and your partner in that contract – a spouse, the government, your bank, etc. – is given “a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act.” So yes, entering into a contract, verbally or by writing, both of which entails your ability to do so, is a promise. When you sign a contract, and are legally able to do so, the presumption is that you have actually read it and that you agree to it. You can’t say “but I didn’t promise anything!” Yes, you did, the second you signed.
You are still wrong. Inability to "give a promise", as you put it, is not the only grounds on which a contract can be voided.
As you will see from what I quoted above, unconscionability may also be established in the event of a lack of "bargaining power", "lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process", and "deliberate misrepresentation of fact". There are plenty of precedents establishing this.
The point is that there are various degrees of consent involved in a contract and not all of them have the same legal force. Case law recognises that the degree of presumption varies and is not absolutely binding.
I think it's quite clear that there is more presumption involved in saying "yes" to an offer on the table than in making an active and explicit promise.
Can I point out the massive irony here in the way the Catholic church abusively grants annulments to allow Catholic (usually) men to get remarried in church?
A lady of my acquaintance had been married for over thirty years and had five children when her husband decided to trade her in for a younger model. He applied for and got an annulment so he could marry the other woman. She didn’t seem particularly bitter about it, saying that a very nice priest had explained to her that she (!) wasn’t mature when she got married so there was something or other defective about the validity of the marriage.
@kmann , I would be intrigued to know whether you think this couple made binding promises to each other, and if so, how they could be overturned on a question of intent.
@kmann and others, whatever the theory of the thing, there are degrees as to how morally obligatory the terms of a contract are, whether or not, when and why it is or is not wicked to break a contract if you think you can get away with it. And that is even before one starts at looking at the implications of mutuality.
By anyone's book, being unfaithful to a faithful spouse is bad - and that's it.
Whatever the law of the thing, breaking the terms of a verbose contract imposed unilaterally on a take-it-or-leave it basis, by someone selling something over the internet may be unlawful, but is hardly immoral, and particularly not if you are required to say you agree to the terms before you are allowed access to find out what they are, or sometimes, even, what the item is or what it's supposed to be able to do.
If a person insists it's their right to be able to sell you a pig in a poke, then I suspect most people would feel that if they can get their own back on the seller, doing so becomes a virtuous act.
This is despite the posts that seem to imply that some shipmates don't see any difference between these.
Update: the couple-to-be completed their part of the paperwork to send to the bishop several weeks ago, and the local clergy keep promising to send it off "any day now". In other words, they are foot-dragging. I wish I could get Jesus in to give them a lecture.
Update: the couple-to-be completed their part of the paperwork to send to the bishop several weeks ago, and the local clergy keep promising to send it off "any day now". In other words, they are foot-dragging. I wish I could get Jesus in to give them a lecture.
Obvious solution: get one of the couple to call the bishop's office to enquire about the progress of the paperwork. When they're told it hasn't been received express incredulity, quote date it was given to local clergy and then give copies to the bishop without going through the local people.
First, they'll get a decision sooner; second, the bishop will be made aware that the local people are either incompetent or are deciding to censor/ judge the matter for themselves.
V. pleased to hear this, and v. sorry about all they were unnecessarily put through. I’m sure I speak for many in saying please pass on our best wishes to the couple for a great wedding day and very many good years together.
Phew! Good result, but what a waste of time and emotional energy to get to it. Yes, I too (as a remarried divorced person, and with a gay best man) wish them all happiness.
When I was a very young sprog, and a Roman Catholic in the northeastern US, I was an acolyte at a wedding. Even to my very young eyes it was an odd occasion, as the only guests in the large church were the bride's family and the groom's family. Thus it was what we used to call a "shotgun wedding".
When the time came to exchange vows, the bride said, "No" to the "Do you take this man..." Pandemonium ensued. The priest (later exposed as one of the more predatory paedophiles in the Archdiocese of Boston) took the bridal party and the parents into the Sacristy for a short while. They emerged and the bride then said, "Yes".
Years later, when in a RC seminary, I took a Canon Law course and realised that the priest should have stopped the ceremony then and there. I often wonder what happened to that couple and whether I should have been called as a witness at an annulment investigation.
When I was a very young sprog, and a Roman Catholic in the northeastern US, I was an acolyte at a wedding. Even to my very young eyes it was an odd occasion, as the only guests in the large church were the bride's family and the groom's family. Thus it was what we used to call a "shotgun wedding".
When the time came to exchange vows, the bride said, "No" to the "Do you take this man..." Pandemonium ensued. The priest (later exposed as one of the more predatory paedophiles in the Archdiocese of Boston) took the bridal party and the parents into the Sacristy for a short while. They emerged and the bride then said, "Yes".
Years later, when in a RC seminary, I took a Canon Law course and realised that the priest should have stopped the ceremony then and there. I often wonder what happened to that couple and whether I should have been called as a witness at an annulment investigation.
In he UK at least it is your duty to report it to the registrar. There are no second chances as your word is taken as your word
I ended up avoiding having to discuss Brexit at this wedding as I had to divert to a family emergency, but I did get a full report.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
At least ten times during the address.
Theological convictions are one thing, abusing a position (in, lest it be forgotten, what counts as a civil ceremony in law in the UK) to drive home one's personal theology in the teeth of disagreement with the subtlety of a pile-driver is another. Do these people have no social intelligence at all?
I refer the hon. gent to my comments in the Israel Folau thread about the Body of Christ apparently having many more arseholes than it would appear to need.
I’m both sorry and angry about that. IMO wedding sermons should be about love, grace and living well together. ISTM that either the preacher had no emotional intelligence and imagined that performance would convince people, or they were simply virtue signalling.
I ended up avoiding having to discuss Brexit at this wedding as I had to divert to a family emergency, but I did get a full report.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
At least ten times during the address.
Theological convictions are one thing, abusing a position (in, lest it be forgotten, what counts as a civil ceremony in law in the UK) to drive home one's personal theology in the teeth of disagreement with the subtlety of a pile-driver is another. Do these people have no social intelligence at all?
Perhaps it's just as well I didn't make it.
That's horrific. What a way to ruin somebody's wedding.
I wouldn't be surprised if the couple go church-shopping after this, especially after such a horrific sermon. I don't remember a word of the one at ours as I was fuming at the church's running of the entire thing, culminating in there being nowhere for Mr Dragon and I to sit together.
It was somewhat the straw that broke the camel's back after a feeling of not being all that welcome at the church we attended every week, despite being the only young adults there, and we weren't in any hurry to go back on a Sunday morning before we ended up moving away.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
I agree, depending on the bride and groom of course; it would hardly do to ruin their day further.
But I'm really losing patience with bigots. Transphobic and homophobic attacks and murders; this isn't a game and these people need to be given no quarter.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
I agree, depending on the bride and groom of course; it would hardly do to ruin their day further.
But I'm really losing patience with bigots. Transphobic and homophobic attacks and murders; this isn't a game and these people need to be given no quarter.
If you head over to purgatory a bunch of folk will quite happily tell you you just like being outraged.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
Word has it that the curate got her own back in a closing prayer "thank you God that marriage is for EVERYONE".
But to be honest, I'm not really sure that this form of retaliation was the right approach either.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
I agree, depending on the bride and groom of course; it would hardly do to ruin their day further.
But I'm really losing patience with bigots. Transphobic and homophobic attacks and murders; this isn't a game and these people need to be given no quarter.
If you head over to purgatory a bunch of folk will quite happily tell you you just like being outraged.
Wow, those are some really bad comprehension skills you're waving around in your report.
Comments
Is that right? I knew that the whole idea of swearing and oath-making in law took a major hit (in England and Wales, at least) when the Quakers refused to cooperate. I knew that it is possible to affirm the truth of statements in court, but I don't think I knew the exact form of alternative words used.
Maybe this is a difference without any real significance - but it feels like an oath is something like a metaphorical bank loan taken against my house. I'm telling the truth, by God, and he can strike me down if I am telling the word of a lie.
But if one refuses to believe that this weight added to a promise to speak truth has any real meaning then I can't see it is really adding anything.
I promised some things to my wife many years ago. A bunch of people were there, so I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it.
I signed a bit of paper for the state in order to have my relationship recognised.
But the living embodiment of that promise is in daily living. I could have promised on a relative's grave (what a horrible phrase that is) or a stack of bibles or a long stream of gobbledegook which suggested that the deity was my friend and approved of my betrothal.
But I think ultimately any of those things have limited meaning.
A supportive relative gave the priest in charge a right dressing down.
It seems the archdeacon did the right thing and also came down like a ton of bricks on the clergy.
Their application is now in the hands of the bishop and there seems to be some degree of confidence that the bishop will do the right thing.
No further details on the blast radius of a marriage blessing as yet.
It's the only way to be sure.
Teehee.
That image aligns very well with my own thoughts about church.
Back in March last year, I shared my despair at churches being sold out to capitalism and the struggle to organise church on any other basis.
In particular, I bemoaned the arrival of a church plant seeking to buy its way straight into the property market here, and our difficulty in finding new premises to rent having been served notice of eviction due to gentrification of the premises we were in. Our lease expired yesterday.
I am happy to say that this week we signed a lease on the building we've been trying to negotiate for over a year, at a budget that was within 7 euros of our target; 7 euros less. We just got the keys this morning.
We need to do some work on it for fire regulations and stuff, and will be nomads until that's done, this is not the end, the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning, etc., but I feel a certain sense of vindication and very encouraged.
And since this is Hell, I can tell you that I heard today that the buying-its-way-in church plant real estate project has fallen through. I'm trying hard to be sad about that.
Or you could, you know, read my posts instead of conjuring shit up from thin air.
And I missed this:
Except, it’s not passive at all. You actively enter into the agreement either by signing it or by public declaration. There’s nothing ‘passive’ about it, legally speaking. People may not care about it or they may not think through the consequences but the law doesn’t really care what you *actually* thought you were doing when you actively entered into the agreement and thus promised to honour its terms. So yes, entering into a contract is a promise and an active one. Of course the person making the promise may be legally unable to – being drunk, underage, etc. But that doesn’t mean that entering into a contract is not a promise. It is.
You sound like you might have a, um, promising career selling time-share apartments.
You may also like to read up on the doctrine of unconscionability:
A promise, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified” or “a legally binding declaration that gives the person to whom it is made a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act.” When you sign a contract, being able to do so, you are providing a legally binding declaration and your partner in that contract – a spouse, the government, your bank, etc. – is given “a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act.” So yes, entering into a contract, verbally or by writing, both of which entails your ability to do so, is a promise. When you sign a contract, and are legally able to do so, the presumption is that you have actually read it and that you agree to it. You can’t say “but I didn’t promise anything!” Yes, you did, the second you signed.
As you will see from what I quoted above, unconscionability may also be established in the event of a lack of "bargaining power", "lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process", and "deliberate misrepresentation of fact". There are plenty of precedents establishing this.
The point is that there are various degrees of consent involved in a contract and not all of them have the same legal force. Case law recognises that the degree of presumption varies and is not absolutely binding.
I think it's quite clear that there is more presumption involved in saying "yes" to an offer on the table than in making an active and explicit promise.
This reminds me of some audience-participation lines for the film "Rocky Horror Picture Show":
"It's a floor wax."
"It's a dessert topping."
"It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!"
A lady of my acquaintance had been married for over thirty years and had five children when her husband decided to trade her in for a younger model. He applied for and got an annulment so he could marry the other woman. She didn’t seem particularly bitter about it, saying that a very nice priest had explained to her that she (!) wasn’t mature when she got married so there was something or other defective about the validity of the marriage.
@kmann , I would be intrigued to know whether you think this couple made binding promises to each other, and if so, how they could be overturned on a question of intent.
By anyone's book, being unfaithful to a faithful spouse is bad - and that's it.
Whatever the law of the thing, breaking the terms of a verbose contract imposed unilaterally on a take-it-or-leave it basis, by someone selling something over the internet may be unlawful, but is hardly immoral, and particularly not if you are required to say you agree to the terms before you are allowed access to find out what they are, or sometimes, even, what the item is or what it's supposed to be able to do.
If a person insists it's their right to be able to sell you a pig in a poke, then I suspect most people would feel that if they can get their own back on the seller, doing so becomes a virtuous act.
This is despite the posts that seem to imply that some shipmates don't see any difference between these.
Probably not possible, it very likely has to be done in a specific way.
If it was me, I'd set a reasonable timescale and if it hasn't happened get back in touch with the archdeacon.
But then if I was the archdeacon, I'd be all over this anyway, so there would be no opportunity for any foot dragging.
Obvious solution: get one of the couple to call the bishop's office to enquire about the progress of the paperwork. When they're told it hasn't been received express incredulity, quote date it was given to local clergy and then give copies to the bishop without going through the local people.
First, they'll get a decision sooner; second, the bishop will be made aware that the local people are either incompetent or are deciding to censor/ judge the matter for themselves.
This. I only hope it (the wedding, obviously) is worth the extra heartache.
Excellent. Wish them all joy.
When the time came to exchange vows, the bride said, "No" to the "Do you take this man..." Pandemonium ensued. The priest (later exposed as one of the more predatory paedophiles in the Archdiocese of Boston) took the bridal party and the parents into the Sacristy for a short while. They emerged and the bride then said, "Yes".
Years later, when in a RC seminary, I took a Canon Law course and realised that the priest should have stopped the ceremony then and there. I often wonder what happened to that couple and whether I should have been called as a witness at an annulment investigation.
The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").
At least ten times during the address.
Theological convictions are one thing, abusing a position (in, lest it be forgotten, what counts as a civil ceremony in law in the UK) to drive home one's personal theology in the teeth of disagreement with the subtlety of a pile-driver is another. Do these people have no social intelligence at all?
Perhaps it's just as well I didn't make it.
(Sorry too about the family emergency.)
That's horrific. What a way to ruin somebody's wedding.
It was somewhat the straw that broke the camel's back after a feeling of not being all that welcome at the church we attended every week, despite being the only young adults there, and we weren't in any hurry to go back on a Sunday morning before we ended up moving away.
That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
I agree, depending on the bride and groom of course; it would hardly do to ruin their day further.
But I'm really losing patience with bigots. Transphobic and homophobic attacks and murders; this isn't a game and these people need to be given no quarter.
If you head over to purgatory a bunch of folk will quite happily tell you you just like being outraged.
But to be honest, I'm not really sure that this form of retaliation was the right approach either.
Wow, those are some really bad comprehension skills you're waving around in your report.