just wondering

[jmc_bks]

Okay, one commentator last night said something about Obama being sworn in with his hand on a bible. Why? I mean, what if he weren’t christian? Well, probably he wouldn’t have been elected in the first place since as a whole America is very provincial and insular, and believing in something other than the Big Three is a sign of being Different or Foreign or Other. Look at the brouhaha in NC with Dole and Hagan, Dole losing in a landslide after calling her rival godless and being rebuffed by Hagan's response about her religious faith.  You can be sure that if Hagan had come out and said, No, I'm not christian, I'm Wiccan that she would not have won that election.  But assuming that he jumped that hurdle, what do you get sworn in on if you think the bible is a piece of fiction?

Comments

[jen-errik.livejournal.com]

I googled it, and it said that there's no actual requirement that a Bible be used:

"There are a number of examples though that show such a "swearing in" is not required. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, chose not to use a Bible when he took the oath after President William McKinley's 1901 assassination. Franklin Pierce refused a Bible and affirmed but did not swear on a Bible in 1853."

Marianne McA

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Oh, the force of habit. While it may not be required, the absence would surely be noticed by someone in today's 24/7 news cycle. IMO, not using/having a bible to be sworn in with on Inauguration Day today would garner massive comment and criticism, and probably result in a significant drop in popularity/competence polls.

[meljeanbrook.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the religion. IIRC, Ellison (a Muslim) used the Qur'an when he was sworn in to the House of Representatives.

I didn't realize that they didn't *have* to use anything at all, as Marianne quoted above. I'd prefer that, I think. The whole, crazy, separation of church and state thing. :-D

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I knew that Ellison used the Qu'ran...and recall that he was widely reviled as being unamerican for doing so, despite the theoretical separation of church and state.

I'd prefer that nothing be used also, or maybe just swear on the Constitution, since that is what our elected reps are supposed to be upholding. But that could be viewed as me imposing my personal philosophy (leaning toward secular humanism) on others, I suppose.

[jen-errik.livejournal.com]

Can't see how it's imposing your personal philosophy if it's what was originally intended.

The equivalent question here is what you do when someone is elected who doesn't accept the validity of the state.
Given that they have a democratic mandate, should they be allowed to take their seats even if they refuse to take any oath of allegiance?

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

My first thought when pondering your question was whether one could be elected to any office if one did not accept the validity of the state.

[jen-errik.livejournal.com]

You could change the order in which things were done: that instead of having to take an oath after being elected, you had to take it before standing for office - but that effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't accept the state.
At the moment it works, practically speaking, because while they're not allowed to take their seats, they say they wouldn't take them even if the oath was changed or abolished. They're paid, and get the same allowances as other MPs.

But it's more an ad hoc solution than a thought through philosophy of government.

Marianne McA