Category: Worldviews
So Mr. Ellison of Minnesota wants to be sworn in to the office of the United States Congress by placing his hand on the Koran, rather than the Bible. Despite at least one man's attempt to argue against it, it is a necessary consequence of living in a pluralistic nation with a pluralistic government. The U.S. is not a Christian nation. Yes, it was founded by men who had a Christians worldview, but that worldview left the building before Elvis did. We are a secular-humanist nation with multitudes of Christian citizens. Our government has legalized the mass murder of unborn children, forbidden Christian education from government controlled schools, and when tragedy struck on September 11th, 2001, our president's response was to hold a polytheistic worship service. A nation concerned about honoring Christ would never endorse any of these things (not to mention the unlikely event that followers of Christ would freely choose a Muslim to be their magistrate). Our lawmakers do not seek to derive their ethical standards for passing statutes from the Bible, so why would we expect that they would acknowledge the God of the Bible on the front end? I wouldn't be surprised if Mrs. Clinton decided to be sworn in by placing her hand on Cosmopolitan Magazine. And on what basis would someone object? Sadly, Cosmo probably has more impact on Mrs. Clinton than the Bible does (for that matter, the same is true for many others who have taken the oath with hand on Bible).
Anyway, the whole concept of "swearing in" is obsolete. It no longer holds any real significance. It's a warning with no teeth. It has been relegated to the top shelf with all the other archaisms left over from the pre-enlightenment period like honoring parents and marital fidelity. It's nothing more than tradition in a culture where traditions are made to be broken. To be worth anything, an oath must have a Higher Authority who knows all and sees all, and to whom the oath-taker expects to give an account for his actions. There must be a real threat of punishment for disregarding the "values" of the ultimate Lawgiver. But how many of the U.S. Congressmen of the last three or four decades do you suppose really meant something like," Great God of the Bible, and my Lord Jesus Christ, I solemnly swear to govern this nation as Your vice-regent, and to punish evildoers according to Your standards of righteousness. If I fail to do this, may You be my Judge and sentence me accordingly." The Bible is used in the inauguration ceremony for the same reason that most people get married in churches--Uh, I dunno', that sounds good, I guess. At least, that's how my parents did it. If Mr. Ellison really believes that he is obligated to serve Allah faithfully, and expects to be held accountable by him, then in this respect at least he is far more noble than many others who did it the "Christian way."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that it has finally come to this. But I am surprised it has taken so long. Such things are inevitable in a pluralistic, relativistic, individualistic, (i.e. atheistic) country.