Commentary on the “Oath” and Concessions to Ceremonial Biblicalism
Back in mid 2001, Alabama Republican Jeff
Sessions noticed that Bush judiciary nominees were being sworn in during their
Senate confirmation hearings by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy without the usual
ending inquiry, “so help you God?” Since
the omission was clearly not testing well against his theocratic agenda,
Sessions immediately launched an inquisition over the matter (source).
As it turns out, there is no required oath of
affirmation to “God” for either nominees or witnesses who appear before
Congress. Consequently, Sessions
had no standing to challenge the omission in the
first place. The tradition of making oath
to “God” can be
traced back to first inauguration of George Washington, who allegedly took it upon himself
to punctuate the constitutionally required presidential oath to “preserve,
protect, and defend the constitution …” with the salutation “so help me
God.”
Since then, other President's
elect have followed suit and uttered exactly the
same words with hand placed on a copy of the Judeo-Christian bible (source).
Washington’s service to his religious politics eventually became the classic concession to
ceremonial biblicalism among those
in nation’s historical ledger. It is rightfully classified as such
because it snowballed into a tradition that stands in stark contrast to the spirit
and intent of
Constitution, which prescribes a clear separation between matters of state
versus those of religion and religious faith.
It also stands as a prime example of how insidiously
compromising a seemingly benign little statement, rendered at just the wrong moment, can ultimately
be to
our constitutionally guaranteed protections against religious test.
Now, theocrats like Jeff Sessions expect every citizen and public official
to affirm the same words, thus seeking to eradicate whatever vestiges of religious neutrality still remain in the
ceremonial processes of government.
In spite of the Sixth
Article, was Washington within his rights to step outside the bounds of
constitutionally specified protocol and punctuate the inaugural oath with
such words?
In view of the First Amendment's free exercise and free speech clauses, it
might be construed that he was. Even though
he was an elected public servant, he was not prohibited from expressing his sentiments about any number of things including matters of religion.
The real question boils down to the time and place that those rights are
exercised. There is a fundamental constitutional issue involved with using a
government mandated
verbal oath as a vehicle to express
personal religious sentiments or loyalties.
The profound trouble with Washington’s rhetorical twiddling is that it is
now invoked
as historical justification to force every citizen beyond his time to
affirm “God” in conclusion to their own formal oaths before the state.
Therein resides the resulting confusion and compromise about
matters of “free exercise.” Making
affirmation to “God” a binding requirement of formal testimony, or ascension
to public office, versus permitting such things as
an un-coerced and thus freely chosen option under appropriate circumstances, intends undeniable damage to the
solvency of the First Amendment's "religious establishment" and “free exercise” clauses on the highest level.
It also stands in stark defiance of the Sixth Article, which mandates
“no religious test”.
Did Washington himself really intend his embellishment to become an indelible obligation during all public oath taking thereafter? Historical certainty about the matter escapes the grasp this writer. In view of the mystery, however, one might speculate about how different things could have been if he had possessed the pluralistic integrity to declare "so help my god" or alternatively, "so help my Sacred Honor as a United States Citizen" instead.
In any case, it is known that the first inauguration preceded the adoption of the Constitution and ratification of the Bill of Rights by a small but tangible span in time. In fact, Washington's signature on the Constitution is rendered as both President and representative of Vermont. In other words, the Constitution was not officially in effect at the time of the first inauguration, so he was likely neither well accustomed to all the details of the new body of law, nor legally bound to them. Nevertheless, he was so bound at the time of his second inauguration. In parallel, it is also notable that during the first inauguration, the bible was dragged into the ceremonial mix only at the very last moment (source) and not by congressional decree. In view of this, the whole incident might rightfully be classified as the classical first act of coercive exploitation performed by the clergy in contravention of the new body of law.
Given
all this, the critical question becomes,
did Washington, on the occasion of his second inauguration, overstep the boundaries
of reasonable license by not limiting himself to the constitutionally prescribed wording of the
presidential oath? The answer to that question may dance on a razors edge,
but still, Washington's embellishment was indisputably a direct act of exploiting a constitutionally required ceremony
in order to make a religious statement. Inadvertent
or not, he violated constitutional protocol and wasted not a second doing
it. Had he saved his god-talk for speech making sometime after the
prescribed oath was concluded, then there would be little grounds for dispute. Unfortunately,
he did not. Other Presidents like
Abraham Lincoln, for notable example, were not disposed to employ Washington's additional words
during their inaugural oath taking (source).
Whatever Washington's commitment to the new Constitution really was, he obviously stood with his First Amendment right of free speech. Okay, but what president hasn't? The problem is that personal acts of free speech, appropriate or otherwise, are no more then that. They are simple acts of free speech irrespective of the status of the person who spoke or penned them. Not even the rhetorical indulgences of the Nation's first president are license to plant the same words on the tongue of anyone else. Admissible or not, Washington's embellishment of the presidential oath is no justification to conscript anyone thereafter to employ or to acknowledge such a salutation. To believe otherwise is to take sides with some kind of theocratic feudalism, not constitutional law. The notion that any citizen, public official or not, should have their religious allegiance and sacred sense of honor dictated to them by the religious supplications of another, flies in the face of all legitimate pretense to religious liberty or of religious neutrality in government proceedings.
In spite these
self evident problems,
the theocrats evidently hold that Washington’s original indulgence was an indelible
act of
historical precedent, which is now officially part of the “religious heritage” of the
Nation. Therefore, it is something that everyone giving formal testimony or seeking public office should be
compelled to endorse in spite of the extreme contravention of constitutional law
involved. It is called coercion. The inquisition undertaken by Senator Sessions is
undeniable evidence of the insidious damage done by those who endeavor to make Washington's
religious indulgence a permanent fixture in every
ceremony of State that requires formal oath taking. Indeed, Washington's error of indulgence is exactly the sort of
thing that encourages the theocrats to embrace a notion of religious freedom
amounting to open license not only to affirm "God" themselves,
but also to use the authority of state to force everyone else to affirm
"God" or face being driven out of eligibility for public office.
Washington was an
extraordinary individual who played a pivotal role in securing our independence
from British rule and in standing up the Nation.
Such was his stature as a national icon that in times past he was ascribed the status of a demigod. Yet, like many of his contemporaries, Washington was a slave
owner who also stood solidly in league with the dogmatically male favored
cultural standards of his time. Today, no one having even remote political sensibility would suggest that
our nation's cultural values about human freedom, equality, and civil justice
should as a habit of tradition, remain bound to those afore mentioned cultural
defects. As
legendary a warrior and gifted politician as Washington was, he was only one among
the many who
participated in the great deeds and accomplishments of the early American
Revolution. In regard for them, the formulation of
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must stand as the crowning
foundational achievement of Nation Building and Law Giving. In detail, it
is also essential to note that irrespective of what religious inclinations
they individually embraced, the principle framers of the Constitution and the body of
legislators who ratified it, respected the more reliable evidence
of history and left all mention of "God", or any
other deity, completely out of the binding code of supreme law contained within (Jefferson).
In his farewell address,
Washington stated, “with only minor shades of difference we are all of
the same religion” (source).
Of course, that was his stated opinion, but the historical
details make it rather unlikely that his words reflected either the status or
the sentiments of all
the Nation's occupants at the time (example).
Now, more then two hundred years later they clearly do not accurately
characterize the state of the nation and its people. Given this, the essential imperative
of neutrality toward matters of deity and other religious things, has
become even more compelling in its importance.
With these crucial observations in mind, consider the
fundamental intent underlying a formal oath of obligation, either to tell the
truth under conditions of civil or congressional inquiry, and/or to faithfully carry out the
obligations of a public office. Returning
to the dispute on the Senate floor, Sessions’ was quoted
as declaring,
"When
a nominee says, 'so help me God,' whether a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an
adherent to another faith, he knows that he is morally bound to tell the truth.
… To remove this moral obligation from the oath would undermine the critical
truth-finding process in every hearing in Congress and every courtroom in
America." (Source)
What is particularly notable about Sessions’ assertions is that they involve a rather complex and inherently unreliable set of assumptions. He assumes that in the absence of a connection to “God”, any obligation to tell the truth or otherwise faithfully carry out a sworn duty is non-existent. That is, without the fact of a sworn promise to “God”, there is no inherent moral or ethical motive to honor the conditions of the oath. Sessions evidently wants us to believe that the mere act of taking oath to “God” imparts an element of validation to one's word that otherwise would not exist.
As a long standing wisdom, most people throughout the cultures of
the world evidently do tend to believe, as a general rule, that honesty and fidelity to
matters of truth and sworn obligation, do ultimately foster the most equitable
consequences overall. In parallel, qualities like trustworthiness, honesty, credibility,
integrity, and loyalty, even in
the face of personal adversity, are rather universally among the
essential things that make up the character of an honorable person. However, it is debatable that such
things depend on a belief in “God”, or some other deity for their existence.
Alternatively, it seems more likely that they are fostered and sustained in the light of
human experience by the common need and inclination to do the right thing in a world where
undesirable social or
legal repercussions are a common consequence for significant breaches of promise
or trust.
In fact, the fundamental
purpose of getting people on record as having taken formal oath, is to make
them liable if their testimony is later discovered to be perjured
or if they otherwise violate the sworn obligations of their office.
What if telling the truth or abiding by the constitutional
requirements of public office would have adverse consequences for either the
oath taker’s personal existence or their political causes?
In such case, it would seem quite likely that their commitment to honoring
the oath would weigh heavily against the actual likelihood of incurring civil or
criminal penalty or otherwise being subject to impeachment for committing
a breach. If they calculate that
some damaging truth known only to them and their co-conspirators is unlikely
to be uncovered, or that any penalty for breach of office is
likely unenforceable, then there is an inherent temptation to deviate from the
oath on the side of personal agenda and/or political cause. Therefore, the less accessible the critical facts of the
matter or the less enforceable the objective penalties are perceived to be, then
the more vulnerable the oath is to being dishonored. In such case, no vow to “God” or any other deity, or any
proclamation of religious faith is likely to make the least bit of difference.
These self evident problems notwithstanding, Sessions would have us believe that standards of
“moral obligation” regarding deity, truth, and honor are
identical for all people. What
if it were that a person’s sense of "moral obligation" was to
compromise the truth if they felt it would protect the status of their religious
faith or the solvency of their political causes? Alternatively, what if a
person simply doesn’t believe in any deity, or does not hold “God” to be a
valid surrogate for the deity or deities they actually do
believe in? In either case,
the assertion that a forced oath to “God” will somehow magically guarantee
faithful commitment, amounts to sheer theocratic hogwash. Everyone
should remember the well-worn saying about
“swearing on a stack of bibles.”
The latter part of
this commentary has dwelt on the dark side of the issues, but the dark side is a
tangible aspect of civil and political life. One need only reach back as far as the Clinton-Lewinsky
scandal or the case of former Congressman Trafficant for tangible examples of
its presence. As further evidence, one might judge the performance of
presidents, past and present, relative to their wielding of
executive orders or support of legislation that contravenes their oath to
“God” to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (Second
Article). Indeed, Jeff Sessions might be well advised to reevaluate his own sense of "moral obligation" before his oath to “God” to support the
Constitution, versus the Sixth
Article, which mandates “no religious test.”, and the First Amendment
which mandates "no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
The real tangible underlying reason for Sessions’ insistence
is
strictly theocratic. That is, force the affairs of state to be inescapably bound to the
root deity of biblical religion and thus implicitly to biblical religion's claimed authority over the affairs of both the individual and the state. This is
in direct defiance of our Constitutional right of protection from government
being used to conscript us to religion, or to its idols or dogmas (commentary).
The nature of
the contravention becomes even more evident
when considering the situation for someone who's knowledgeable convictions about the
import of the Sixth Article and First Amendment prohibit them from sanctioning
any oath to "God' as
an obligatory element in any government proceeding. In such case, should they be prohibited from giving
sworn testimony or otherwise be bared from taking public office?
True justice demands that any legitimate standards for judicial
confirmation should have nothing to do with the nominee's willingness to submit
to affirming "God". Rather, the primary issue should be the credibility of
their record in rendering fair and impartial judgment consistent with the
tenets of the Constitution (article).
"So help you God"? Again, as a matter
of government proceedings in oath taking, regardless of what statutes exist to
the contrary, no one has the constitutional right to
inquire of another in such a manner!