Affirmation in law wrote:In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious minorities hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before God.
Till the mid-19th century, the only way to swear allegiance, at such events as naturalisation, being elected to Parliament, etc, was to swear an Oath. And the Oath was often worded in such a way as to exclude members of all faiths other than the Church of England. Thus, for instance, the Oath at the time included words such as "upon the true faith of a Christian", which effectively barred anybody who was a non-Christian from being an MP, for instance. A special exemption, and the start of having a non-religious affirmation, was in place for Quakers since the Glorious Revolution.
After a campaign to change the wording of the Oath,
Lionel De Rothschild became the first practising Jew to become an MP.
But that still left atheists and people who felt that their faith did not allow them to speak God's name out of Parliament.
Charles Bradlaugh campaigned to be allowed to affirm rather than take the Oath when taking his seat as an MP in Parliament. The
Oaths Act 1888 finally allowed affirmation in almost all circumstances that required an Oath.
Also, see
this thread about a member's observation on citizenship ceremonies.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.
