Good post where you analyzed the cases relied upon by the majority. But, let's focus on the following portion of your post:
Secondly, I agree that people should be required to swear an oath (without any religious connotations). I believe that in theory, the oath is something that explicitly states in detail what duties and responsibilities a person is about to undertake and that the oath makes it clear that the person understands those responsibilities. The oath also serves to affirm that one intends to fulfill his obligation. However, all too often we observe public servants who take an oath and fail to honor the oath.
Why, in your opinion, should institutions require oaths even if the oaths are not linked to religious belief? What mechanisms make sure that parties to each an oath fulfill their obligations under the oath? Professor James Barney
Great question and when I wrote the post I had a feeling that I would need to return to explain that statement. An oath is defined as a “solemn declaration, accompanied by a swearing to God or a revered person or thing” which the person making the oath intends to be bound by. [1]
Every mechanism related to the fulfillment of the oath is a personal mechanism. People decide whether to fulfill the obligation or not. As the definition above stated, the oath is not limited to a swearing to a God. It can be a swearing to anything which a person reveres. For instance, one may swear to perform based on his sense of duty and or honor. It is in that context that I crafted the statement in support of taking oaths void of a religion based mechanism of compliance.
Yet, I do not see the taking of an oath as something that automatically guarantees that the person pledging with fulfill an obligation. We can evidence this fact simply by the existence of the perjury statutes (among other things). [2] I see the oath as more of a statement of understanding that both and the person taking the oath and the institution recognizes the need to manifest a sense of trustworthiness in both the process and the person who is undertaking certain responsibilities. Because of this, I believe that in theory, the oath is something that explicitly states in detail what duties and responsibilities a person is about to undertake and that the oath makes it clear that the person understands those responsibilities. The oath also serves to affirm that one intends to fulfill his obligation. However, all too often we observe public servants who take an oath and fail to honor the oath.
[1] Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 2009).
[2] § 837.02, Fla. Stat. (2016).