Oh Oak Leaves, how I love you so. Another interesting article in issue 53 was Exploring Oaths
by Rev. James 'Seamus' Dillard (this is as he is credited in the issue) outlines the historical and etymological differences between vow and oath, two words that we often use interchangeably. He then argues that the ADF really ought to rewrite current literature to utilize the term vow in the place of oath. The reasoning being that it is improperly used as of now.
Strictly speaking an oath is usually taken before witness, sworn to a higher power, and most crucially when speaking of the differences between it and a vow - a self-curse is appended to it. By self curse I mean a curse literally placed upon yourself as a guarantee against perjury or oath breaking. That is, when one swears an oath there is a portion at the end wherein one basically says, if I should fail regarding task X then terrible fate Y will occur. The most immediate example of this that springs to mind is when one swears on a bible in court or when I swore my enlistment oath in the military, both end with the declaration - so help me god.
Wikipedia does a better job of explaining how those four words can be a self-curse than I can so I'll quote the article here: "The essence of the phrase is a request to divine agency to render assistance (help) by being a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question, and by implication invoking divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their duty in this regard."
Clearly there is no such curse implied by the Oaths in Our Druidry, at least not that I've come across and according to Rev. James Dillard's article there isn't. Therefore, he argues, it behooves the ADF to re-evaluate what is meant by the First Oath, the subsequent oaths in Our Druidry and presumably those preceding other events or achievements within the organization, always assuming they lack the self-curse of a 'true' oath.
As an organization that lists scholarship and excellence as high priorities, indeed founding principles, it is a fair argument for Rev. Dillard to make. Having thought it over I can understand Rev. Dillard's point and find myself eagerly agreeing with it.
Words are powerful, the right word can polish a poem to perfection or render it doggerel with a keystroke. It is one thing to use oath and vow as synonyms when ignorant of their unique aspects but knowing the differences, how would we justify continuing to abuse the word oath? Or the neglect of the word vow?
I'm not certain how something like this is addressed and revised within ADF, presumably such errors and oversights have cropped up in the past and can likely be guaranteed to crop up in future (so long as ADF remains dedicated to scholarship revisions are inevitable) therefore I would hazard that a system is in place. It will be interesting to see how this challenge is addressed and what actions are taken in future.
by Rev. James 'Seamus' Dillard (this is as he is credited in the issue) outlines the historical and etymological differences between vow and oath, two words that we often use interchangeably. He then argues that the ADF really ought to rewrite current literature to utilize the term vow in the place of oath. The reasoning being that it is improperly used as of now.
Strictly speaking an oath is usually taken before witness, sworn to a higher power, and most crucially when speaking of the differences between it and a vow - a self-curse is appended to it. By self curse I mean a curse literally placed upon yourself as a guarantee against perjury or oath breaking. That is, when one swears an oath there is a portion at the end wherein one basically says, if I should fail regarding task X then terrible fate Y will occur. The most immediate example of this that springs to mind is when one swears on a bible in court or when I swore my enlistment oath in the military, both end with the declaration - so help me god.
Wikipedia does a better job of explaining how those four words can be a self-curse than I can so I'll quote the article here: "The essence of the phrase is a request to divine agency to render assistance (help) by being a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question, and by implication invoking divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their duty in this regard."
Clearly there is no such curse implied by the Oaths in Our Druidry, at least not that I've come across and according to Rev. James Dillard's article there isn't. Therefore, he argues, it behooves the ADF to re-evaluate what is meant by the First Oath, the subsequent oaths in Our Druidry and presumably those preceding other events or achievements within the organization, always assuming they lack the self-curse of a 'true' oath.
As an organization that lists scholarship and excellence as high priorities, indeed founding principles, it is a fair argument for Rev. Dillard to make. Having thought it over I can understand Rev. Dillard's point and find myself eagerly agreeing with it.
Words are powerful, the right word can polish a poem to perfection or render it doggerel with a keystroke. It is one thing to use oath and vow as synonyms when ignorant of their unique aspects but knowing the differences, how would we justify continuing to abuse the word oath? Or the neglect of the word vow?
I'm not certain how something like this is addressed and revised within ADF, presumably such errors and oversights have cropped up in the past and can likely be guaranteed to crop up in future (so long as ADF remains dedicated to scholarship revisions are inevitable) therefore I would hazard that a system is in place. It will be interesting to see how this challenge is addressed and what actions are taken in future.
