Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible:
Just thought I'd note that apropos my response to Dennis Prager.
Prager wrote that "for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament," and I realize that a Justice isn't an elected official. Nonetheless, Justices and elected officials are bound by the same oath-or-affirmation provision of the Constitution, and all federal officeholders are equally protected by the Religious Test Clause.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Words from the Becket Fund,
- John Quincy Adams' Oath of Office:
- Dennis Prager and I on the Paula Zahn Show (CNN) Tonight:
- Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible:
- What the Koran Says Vs. What an Individual Muslim Is Likely To Do:
- Multiculturalism, Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison, and Me:
According to any of the relevant authorities I have seen, a book is not required. And I think the propriety of alternative books would depend in part on whether the book was actually sacred to the person such that an oath sworn while touching it would have special meaning to the person, not just on whether the book expressed the person's beliefs.
Substituting the holy book of one's own religion is an utterly unremarkable variation of the ceremony, and no one would say a word about it if any religion other than Islam were at issue. But it is Islam, so we get all these silly hypotheticals like "what if it was a copy of Mein Kampf?" and "what if it was a book called How to Lie?" Enough already.
As a practical matter, how does one take an oath on the Torah, given that you're not supposed to touch it? That must have been logistically challenging.
(Sarcasm of course... I don't really think this would happen or care if it does.)
How about swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution on a copy of the Constitution?
this country was founded on god, not the constitution.
It is fairly obvious that the oath is secular and that the ceremony itself is secular in nature (absent the presence of a religious text that plays a relatively small role.) The role of the bible is largely symbolic. It merely demonstrates that the swearer recognizes a higher power.
I'm not a history buff, but my guess is this tradition has been carried on since the days of England and religious based colonies. Over time, the meaning behind the precense of the bible has slowly been lost and it has just become incorporated into the ceremony without much of a religious element. Now adays, to remove the bible and replace it with something else is tinkering with an age old tradition. I think that is why people object.
In fact, I spoke to a friend of mine (athiest) who was recently sworn in to a local office. He swore on a historic bible and had no objections to doing it. When I asked him if he thought twice about it immediately said "Absolutely not". When I asked him to elaborate he said that he took the oath on that bible because it represented a rich history to him. He said when he took the oath he thought of the other officials that had done the same thing over the last one hundred years. He said he viewed it as a common link with officeholders in the past and his co-holders in the present.
You're so wrong.
That's right, I knew I forgot the rule. I've become such a Jewish scrub since my bar mitzvah.
I also find utterly bizarre a Jew who thinks that unless Jews basically treat the Christian Bible as superior and politically authoritative, they are undermining CIVILIZATION. Let's be honest here: it's one thing to respect Christianity, as a Jew. But basically demanding that Jews recognize the Bible as THE American religious book, and assuming that Christianity is the culmination of one coherent whole between Judaism and Christianity is not a Jewish position. It is the Christian position. Only someone who is in fact a Christian actually thinks that way, and Prager is definitely giving me doubts about whether or not he's converted.
For the record, if a Muslim individual wants to swear on the Koran, it's fine by me. I just expect him to hold to it. Thats all.
Why hold him to a higher standard than a non-muslim officeholder? :)
On a more serious note, my state's constitution (from 1851) provides:
I think that this - as others have pointed out - is the basis that most people swear on the bible - because swearing on a bible underscores the seriousness of the oath. But of course this doesn't really apply to non-believers, who should swear in whatever manner is most binding upon their conscience.
I recall my late ex father in law pointing out that in Italy, the saints were taken at a very personal level. One example being a medieval story of a fellow whose word was challenged, and he offered to swear by St. Peter. Another objected it was a trick -- he knows that St. Peter is a kindly old fisherman and would forgive him the lie. Instead let him swear by St. (whoever), who was martyred by the romans at age 8. (A snuffed 8 year old would presumably have a hotter temper and less restraint). So he swears by the other saint and is of course immediately struck dead for his perjury.
And I just read my Torah, and there is a passage in it about Dennis Prager being a complete idiot. A real idiot.
Would you mind providing a source for this contention? Since you contend that the Quran instructs Muslims that it is acceptable to lie to non-believers, I assume you can provide some textual basis to back this allegation.
As I read Art. VI an OATH is required, just not a "religious test."
An "oath or affirmation" is required, not an oath exclusively. It's stated in the alternative.
OK, so it's oath or affirmation. They had to keep the Quakers happy. It created quite a controversy at the time, as I recall, since the requirement applied to all executive and judicial officials of the states, as well as of the federal government.
I remember being "sworn in" as a grunt GS-13 attorney/advisor at Interior, and quipping to the personnel officer who did it that I did have reservations about whether the Constitutional Convention had exceeded its authority...
True; who said it was? And further showing the idiocy of Prager, by the way, is that the Catholics' and Orthodox Old Testament differs from the Protestant Old Testament -- so Prager would have Catholics swearing on a Bible that is, to them, incomplete. (The Protestant Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible (except the Protestants, like the Catholics, rearranged it), while the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament includes non-canonical Hebrew books, such as Judith, Tobit, and extra books of Macabees.)
Thanks to professors Volokh and Bainbridge for responding to the column (and to professor Volokh for doing so on National Review, where conservatives will see it).
The question now is whether Prager will have the integrity to admit his mistake.
Whoops, wrong Goldberg.
It struck me that there was some confusion in the comments above. Perhaps not.
Sorry to inconvenience you.
My apologies to Toby who had raised the same point (though ascribing the practice to Anglo-Saxons, not Romans) in the "Multiculturalism..." entry's comments some seven hours earlier.
When the time came, during the thrid week of the trial, there was a substitute court clerk. He was an orthodox Jew. He walked over to me with the King James Bible. I rased my eyebrows. He did not offer it to me, and asked me if I "sw[ore] or affirm[ed]." I did, and avoided the problem. I never saw the guy again during the trial or around the court house.
In any event, I avoided having to face my crisis of conscience.
http://thinkprogress.com
Those pictures you see of Congresspeople with their hands on the Bible? Those are posed photos they take afterwards, just for show.
Not correct. See Article VI, which is the only reference in the Constitution to religion or belief.
I am interested in Archon's friend, the atheist taking local office. Elective office? I thought we were all agreed atheists cannot even be elected dogcatcher in this country. Is he in the closet? Is there an office lower than dogcatcher we atheists can aspire to? Fence viewer?
CJ, at the other end of the country, in Hawaii, swearing is done without books. I don't know why. I have considered, since moving to Hawaii, that having a population that is 16% Buddhist -- and that 16% some of the most respected and succeessful -- keeps the frothing at the mouth Christians in check. It certainly is a different atmosphere here from my home state of Tennessee, as just demonstrated in the senatorial election.
The governor of Hawaii, by the way, is Jewish. I don't recall whether she swore on anything in her first inaugural.