In two days, P-E Obama will be taking the oath of office and will be using Lincoln's Bible in the swearing-in process. Under the circumstances, this seems an appropriate time to republish the following article, which first appeared on December 1, 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
“Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, has decided to take the oath of office with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book, rather than the customary Bible.”
Can someone explain to me why the Christian bible is “customary” or why it has ever been used as the basis for an “oath”? First of all, its use in American courts of law and, more importantly, the swearing-in of government officials has always seemed antithetical to the First Amendment’s emphasis on separation of church and state. Requiring those swearing to uphold the Constitution by using a religious symbol obviously violates the basic principles of the very document they are swearing to uphold, and is therefore so illogical as to defy reason.
Secondly, how does the placing of one hand on a book while raising the other in a “may I leave the room?” gesture guarantee that the owner of said hands will speak the truth? What is the basis of this superstition? What dreadful catastrophe is expected to befall a lying oath-taker? And exactly what does “so help me god” mean? “So help me look sincere, god”? “So help me get away with this, god?” Or what?
And what about those among us who think that neither the Christian bible nor the Koran nor any other so-called “holy writ” is more binding than any other collection of folk tales?. Why not use the works of Shakespeare or Homer or Mother Goose to swear on? Or the swearer's favorite anthology of myths, allegories and fables? How can reasonable people believe that placing a hand on any book is a guarantee of truthfulness on the part of the oath-taker? Rather than swearing on a bible to uphold the constitution, why not get right to the point and just swear on the Constitution itself?
I know that in days of yore (about two years before I was born) a man placed his right hand on his testicles to swear an oath (hence "testify", "testament", "testimony", etc.). Now that makes sense; every man in the world holds his balls sacred above all else. Why not revive this gesture and use it for the swearing-in of politicians? I bet Big Dick Cheney would have behaved differently if he thought his balls were on the line. And, in the interest of equality, those so inclined could hold each other's nuts. That would sure spice up the ceremony!
In my considered opinion, swearing on any book is just silly, but doing so on a symbol of a religious sect in a secular governmental event should be downright unconstitutional. And I swear (on my copy of Alice in Wonderland) that the first thumper who insists the United States is a Christian country will be corrected, castigated, thrown to the lions, chewed up and spit out in tiny little pious pieces.
So don’t start with me.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
The part where the minister is being sworn in as a witness in court and wants to use his own bible which really isnt a bible but a copy of Moby Dick.
The swearing in on a Bible is purely traditional for inaugurations and not legislatively required, however P-E Obama has openly declared that he is a practising Christian and therefore it should neither surprise nor offend his supporters that he would choose to exercise this particular religious practice on the occasion of making the second most solemn promise of his life. (The first being his marriage vows.) And choosing the Lincoln Bible has gotta be a gorgeous piece of satisfying symbolism.
To assume that the first amendment means religious activities, views and opinions should be kept out of Government institutions altogether, is as flawed as forgetting there are some important words in the second amendment that discuss a well regulated Militia prior to the bit that that says the right to buy an AK47 without a waiting period or background check should not be infringed.
and my scholarly constitutional views are based on intensive research, many fantasy years as a constitutional attorney and having watched every episode of west wing over and over again, so don't start with ME! ;)
Love the bit about testicles. Of course the females being sworn in could be seen as being at a slight disadvantage, but having no balls of their own to adjust all day they'll be getting much more work done than their male counterparts, so their comparable efficiency will place them on the road to promotion that much quicker...
For Presidents in particular I think you should swear on the Constitution. It's appropriate for the ceremony and it'd better be meaningful to you, although I'm certain Bush would have happily desecrated it in public just as he did from behind the scenes.
Coming from a state that has several governors who have found it difficult to uphold their oath of office being sworn in on a Bible, I wonder but doubt if using the Constitution of Illinois would have made a difference.
I think Obama's choice to use the Lincoln Bible is symbolically significant and a smart political move, reminding the nation of the President who started the process that made it possible for him to rise to that office.