just a thought

[asimplechord]

Only tangentially related to the election.

Brought on by Tom Brokaw's comment about how historical and profound it will be when Obama "puts his hand on the Bible" to be sworn in as the POTUS.

If citizens of the US have an unalienable right to practice whatever religion they choose (or to not practice, as the case may be), why are government oaths made on the Bible?

Wouldn't it make more sense to do it on... oh, I don't know, the Constitution, since that's what they're swearing to uphold?

Keith Ellison's (D - Minn.) decision to use the Koran at his swearing-in caused a furor, even though the copy he utilized was part of Thomas Jefferson's collection.

Out of curiosity, did Joe Lieberman use a Bible for his swearing-in?

Does our right to free expression of religion only apply to Judeo-Christian denominations?

Comments

[glendaglamazon.livejournal.com]

You don't have to swear on anything, and you don't even have to swear. It is written into the Constitution that you can affirm, just as you can in court. I believe the Senate is sworn in en masse, so they don't place their hands on anything, but Lieberman would, I assume, use a Torah (unless it would be too unwieldy?).

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

They don't have to. But the photo ops always show them with a hand resting on a black book and the commentators always talk about the Bible.

In the private swearings-in, they also have the option - that's when Ellison chose the Koran and earned criticism.

I'd be curious to know how many people do it without thinking about what a strange contradiction that is.

[a-carnal-mink.livejournal.com]

Except one isn't supposed to touch the Torah, so is the whole "hand on the [article]" completely literal, or would Jewish swearers-in have to make use of a Yad? ;)

[fleurdeliser.livejournal.com]

I've wondered that myself for a while. :|

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

I mean, I get that folks are allowed to choose. But you never hear that. It's always "swearing on the Bible" in court, in oath-taking, when it's discussed publicly.

If we need to swear on something, rather than just giving our word, what does that mean for our ability to keep other promises, ones not made on pieces of paper and ink?

[mrs-batman.livejournal.com]

When making the oaths you can choose any religious text or a copy of the constitution. I think it makes the most sense to let the person swearing the oath to choose what will make their oath mean the most to them, so that they are more likely to uphold it. Our right to religious freedom does not entitle us to force religious people to become less so. It's a personal choice, and as long as atheists have the right to choose a non-religious text and the religious have the right to choose what means the most to them, I don't think there's really an issue.

[ordinary-magic.livejournal.com]

Nope, Lieberman used something else. It wasn't a Torah or a Bible. Could have been a dictionary for all we know.

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

That makes sense to me. But there clearly *is* an issue somewhere when the first Muslim Representative chooses to use the Koran and gets headlines and criticism calling him unamerican.

[koshweasley.livejournal.com]

For me it doesn't matter what religion or book they put there hands on, but I think it would be more proper and meaningful if they put their hand on the Constitution. Just saying

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

Exactly! That's what they're promising to uphold, right?

[blushandrecover.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that America will only be super-friendly for Judeo-Christians for awhile, mostly only for Christians. I've always wondered what I'd swear on if I had to for some reason. One of the atheist/agnostic groups' leaders was interviewed on Colbert, and she said she could swear on anything or nothing-- that what she was touching didn't matter, she just refused for it to be a Bible.

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think you're right - just look at the furor in NC, when Dole accused her challenger of being "godless". The challenger whipped out her role in church functions as her defense, but what if she'd said, "No, I'm not christian, I'm wiccan" or atheist or agnostic? I sincerely doubt that the backlash would have been as negative as it was.

I'm an atheist, and make no apologies for it, so when my husband asks why I don't run for local office, I always tell him that it would be a waste of time and effort, because I'd never get elected after I answer honestly about faith.

I asked my sister, who was sworn in for her govt job and to the bar association, and she said that she was not forced to use anything. Which was good, since she's a godless heathen just like me.