Words from the Becket Fund,
a leading Religion Clauses public interest firm that is usually seen as coming from the Right, though they represent a wide range of litigants:
"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Andrea Stone, USA Today, Dec. 1, 2006.
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:
I wonder (pure speculation and nothing more) if this was partly because of the fact that Prof. Volokh absolutely skewered any potential argument that would be based on the law or Constitution.
Is it too simple to say that his point is : Americans are always seen as swearing on bibles throughout culture, so your choosing of something other than the usual is an attack on the culture?
I say throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. If it works for you and doesn't encroach on me, go for it. That is my own American opinion.
"He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."
He repeats the word "allow" numerous times in his column. Who allows or disallows what an adult can do, other than the government?
But in the end it doesn't matter whether he was making a legal or prudential point: Eugene's counterargument, while it used the Constitution, was more than just legal. The Religion Clauses are not only a constitutional command; they also reflect the history of religious freedom in America.
And the historical stuff that Eugene went through shows, all by itself, even without any Constitutional text, why the Bible isn't foundational for oaths, why Quakers and atheists shouldn't have to swear on anything, and more generally why anyone should be able to swear on anything that he personally believes makes his oath binding.
This could be said of any number of changes of customs and traditions. Sometimes they ought to be retained for tradition sake; sometimes it has become time to retire them. (Finding examples of both kinds is left as an exercise for the reader.) Nothing wrong with noting the change, nor with noting the change with mixed emotions.
Not if you view the greatest dangers to American civilization as coming from within (not that I am defending Prager's over-the-top position, which also seems to rely on a a lot of bad history).
If you want to argue, for example, "gay marriage is a bigger threat than al-Qaeda," be my guest. But it's irrelevant, because the people who believe such a proposition don't simultaneously argue that gay marriage should be permitted by law!
"If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11."
Which is actually correct because the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 was a moment of great unity. His argument is flawed on a number of levels, no need to misrepresent what he was actually saying. Further, it does not appear that he made any arguments as to the right of Ellison to choose the Koran as a legal matter.
This line of discussion was prompted by the statement that Prager said on his radio show that he didn't think the law "should" prohibit swearing on the Koran.
Again, Prager wrote it was more dangerous to American unity and American values. That's not the same thing as safety and security. It wouldn't be crazy to believe that the issues concerning unity and values should be resolved without government coercion, while the issues of safety and security require the use of force and government coercion.
Becket intervened in a lawsuit in my county that I covered, and while I am an atheist who holds considerable animus for the way I was treated by conservative Christians while I was growing up in the South; and while Becket's founder's personal religious beliefs sound (at a cursory level) like those of a conservative Christian, the fund would properly be described as 'coming from the American concern for equality under the law.'
Becket defends Muslims, Santeria and Orthodox Jews, and does a pretty good job for all of them.
IMO, Prager's statements on this subject are something that undermine American civilization, although not to a great extent, yet should not be legally prohibited.
The advocacy of Communism is something that undermines American civilation more deeply than anything else I can think of, and yet it also should not be legally prohibited.
Sure, let the Muslim take his oath using the Koran and swearing upon Allah. After all, we should trust that, since Muslims are fatalistic "Allah's will be done" and accept Allah choosing to strike people dead. --I don't really mean that, I'm just being hyperbolic.
I'm not running for office, but if I were swearing an oath, it would violate my conscience to swear upon the KJV. It is an incomplete Bible written by a government committee. I'm not going to swear to perform my office according to my conscience and binding myself to God 80% of the time. I'm not going to swear as a witness in a court to tell 80% of the truth. I'll bring my own COMPLETE Bible that isn't missing any books. If that results in contempt of court charges, so be it. I would expect the Becket Fund to come to my aid, too.
Re Quakers and atheists, being unwilling to swear an oath leads to other people not trusting them. One can pledge one's own word but that is not nearly the same level of gravity as the "I swear...so help me God" oath. The Quakers absolutize one Scripture, just as the Holiness people do in the Gospel of Mark and handle snakes as a result. I don't have to respect that mistreatment of Scripture.