THE NATURE OF AN OATH
Si,—With reference to the note in the Spectator of May 13th, in which it is pointed out that Members of Parliament are required to take an oath of allegiance to the King,, may one ask to whom do the Members of the Communist Party owe allegiance ? Should a Communist be returned to Parliament and take such an oath, does he or she in any way regard it as binding or is the oath taken with tongue in cheek ?
Personally I believe that to a vast number an oath is not considered binding at all, the moment it is found not to suit the taker's purpose. A considerable number of the clergy, if not all, take an oath to observe the 39 Articles of Religion, and then promptly show their contempt for the same by flatly disobeying certain of them_ I would ask what on earth is the use of people being asked to take and taking oaths which they have not the slightest intention of observing. It simply seems to bring the whole matter of taking an oath into contempt.—Yours truly,
Previous page
