Swearing on the Volume of Sacred Law

tomrue 24 December 2006

The Origin Of An American Tradition

The present flap being created by at least one member of Congress (See letter to constituents from Rep. Virgil Goode, published, among other places in the Minneapolis StarTribune, December 20, 2006, where Rep. Goode falsely implies that Rep. Ellis is an immigrant); and numerous media outlets over the religious preference of Minnesota Representative-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, shows an ignorance of American history and the tradition from which the nation's first President drew the practice of swearing on a volume of sacred law.

Since 1789 when George Washington first took his oath of office as President of the nited States on a Bible which he borrowed from a Masonic lodge in lower Manhattan, it has remained customary in the U.S. for public officials who are sworn into office to do so with their right hand on the volume of law which is sacred to their faith and to conclude with the phrase, "So help me God."

In the address which followed the oath of office, Washington referred in reverential tones three times to God, but only in language that would appeal to Americans regardless of their religious persuasion. Without one mention of the main character of the New Testament, Washington referred instead to "that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect;" later to "the Great Author of every public and private good;" and at the close of his remarks to "the benign Parent of the Human Race..." (Washington's First Inaugural Address, City of New York, given Thursday, April 30, 1789. In Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the U.S.(1989) on the web at bartleby.com). Of the three allusions that Washington made to Deity his first inaugural address, it should be noted that the third ("benign Parent") is uniquely Judeo-Christian and foreign to Islam, as indicated in the Koran (Surah 5:18): "[Both] the Jews and the Christians say, 'We are sons of Allah and His beloved'. Say: why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are but men of the men He has created."

It is well known that Washington was an active member of the Masonic fraternity. Not only was a Masonic Bible used in the swearing-in ceremony, but the book was held and the oath administered by another well-known Freemason, Robert Livingston, who later served as both governor of New York and Grand Master of Masons in the same jurisdiction.

In 1793, himself acting as the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Virginia, Washington laid the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol in a Masonic ceremony A detailed contemporary news account of the cornerstone-laying appeared in the Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, September 23, 1793; on the web at masonicworld.com, also in "Facts for Speakers, about George Washington, Master Mason, Short Talk Bulletin, Masonic Service Association. which included numerous allusions to the history of the children of Abraham. One of the landmarks of Freemasonry was and remains a belief an Supreme Being. Specifics beyond that are not spelled out. Men of all faiths and religions were welcome within Freemasonry's ranks in Washington's day, as they still are to this day. Consistent with ideas flourishing during the Age of Enlightenment, which heavily influenced the framers of the American nation, it was following the Masonic tradition of religious liberty that the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against the establishment of a particular state religion arose.

Upon initiation to membership and during the advancement to each of its degrees, as well as when being sworn in to elected offices in the fraternity, Masons have always taken their oaths on the sacred book of their religions, much like Washington chose to do when he assumed the Presidency. In a Masonic lodge, an initiate may elect to swear on the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, or any sacred scripture. Masonic practices are relevant to the current discussion of Rep. Ellis' inauguration because the custom of using a Bible dates back to the birth of the republic, as described here.

It remains the practice in Masonic lodges today for new leaders to take their oath on the Holy Book of their own particular religion. In Washington's case, as suited his religious persuasion (Episcopalian"The Religious Affiliation of President George Washington," on the web at adherents.com), he naturally chose the Christian Bible. What if Washington had been a Muslim, though this may be impossible for some to imagine. Certainly the Constitution contains no prohibition against non-Christians from holding office. In fact, quite the contrary. Should they be compelled to swear on the same volume of sacred law that Washington chose for himself simply because he did so?

As a matter of law, in 1790 Congress adopted the Treaty of Tripoli which explicitly assured the Islamic nations with whom the treaty was made was not (and therefore is not today) "a Christian nation" in any meaning of the phrase.

"ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..."Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797, (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797 with Message of May 26, 1797. Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. Proclaimed June 10, 1797. Original in the possession of Yale University Library, full text on the website of the Avalon Project of Yale Law Library at yale.edu

Of course there are other precedents. Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, for example, swore his oath of office on a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and Book of Mormon in 1997. Why would we want anyone to swear on a book in which she or he does not believe?

Recent objections to an American from Minnesota elected to Congress who happens to be of the Islamic faith taking his oath of office on the book of scripture by which he governs his life have no basis in U.S. history, culture, or law, but only in fear and prejudice.

In Washington's own words, from a letter that he wrote in 1790 to the Jewish community in Rhode Island, the United States of America is, at least according to its founders' ideals...
"a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance - but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship: - deeming every one, of whatever nation, tongue or language equal..."George Washington's correspondence with civic, fraternal and religious groups, letterbook 38, series 2, April 16, 1789 to August 17, 1790: text of speech and letter to Moses Seixas, Hebrew Congregation, Newport, Rhode Island on May 6, 1789, and published in several newspapers that year, on the web at American Treasures of the Library of Congress.

Now that he has been elected, Rep. Ellis has reportedly expressed a desire to be sworn in next month with his hand on the holy Koran.ABC News First Muslim in Congress Wants Quran for Swearing-in Ceremony: Controversy Sparked Over Traditional Role of Bible, December 23, 2006. This is not only his right, but by American tradition it is his civil duty to promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution with the help of Allah. So help him God.

Swearing on the Volume of Sacred Law

Search form