- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
CIA Director John Brennan Turns Down Bible, Takes Oath Of Office On Constitution
While there is nothing that prevents officials from being sworn in on a Bible, there’s certainly nothing wrong with following Brennan’s example and honoring the U.S. Constitution. Doing so not only sends a positive message, it frees government from giving the appearance of religious favoritism.
When CIA Director John Brennan placed his hand on a copy of the U.S. Constitution last week to take his oath of office, did he defy the very document on which he swore? Absolutely not.
It’s a common misconception that the oath of office for various government positions must be taken on a Bible, but in fact the Constitution does not require it. As my colleague Rob Boston reported in the January issue of Church & State magazine, leaders ranging from presidents to members of Congress have taken the oath of office on everything from legal books to copies of the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita.
The Christian Post reported that shortly after Brennan took office, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that Brennan had been sworn in on “an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”
Earnest said Brennan requested that particular document because he “wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” the Post said.
That sounds like a pretty good statement from a man who is responsible for much of the nation’s security. Commitment to constitutional principles and laws is imperative for all governmental office-holders.
But, of course, that just isn’t good enough for some critics. The conservative-tilting Post noted ominously that Brennan “chose to put his hand on a copy of the Constitution – before it included the Bill of Rights – and not a Bible.”
And a publicist for the Pennsylvania Pastors Network said, “While many are focusing on the fact that the Bill of Rights is not included in what Brennan swore on, perhaps more concerning is that Brennan swore only on his own power that he will protect and defend the Constitution. By removing a holy book from the swearing-in ceremony, Brennan failed to invoke God – which is the very definition of an oath; invoking God as one makes a solemn promise – and His power to help in protecting and defending the Constitution, or His wrath should Brennan fail in office.”
Others went so far as to imply that Brennan’s choice suggests he is pro-Islam. Mat Staver, head of Liberty Counsel, which is an offshoot of Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty University, asked: “Was John Brennan’s choice to take his oath on a version of the Constitution missing the Bill of Rights intentional or coincidental? Only he can answer that question – but it speaks to a very disturbing pattern we are seeing within the Obama administration and his Leftist supporters – the undermining of our Constitution. Also of great concern is the infiltration of pro-Islam government officials, which will surely open the door for the penetration of Sharia into our system of justice.”
This is typical, as the Religious Right often takes umbrage with officials who choose to swear on anything other than a Bible. As Boston noted in his article, when Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, was elected to Congress in 2006, he took the oath of office on a Quran. Several right-wing figures went ballistic.
The American Family Association went so far as to advocate for federal legislation requiring members of Congress to swear on Bibles, and then-U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) asserted that Ellison’s act would empower Islamic terrorists.
This is all completely ridiculous, of course. Government officials are chosen to uphold the laws of the United States, not the words of the Bible (or any other religious text).
While there is nothing that prevents officials from being sworn in on a Bible, there’s certainly nothing wrong with following Brennan’s example and honoring the U.S. Constitution. Doing so not only sends a positive message, it frees government from giving the appearance of religious favoritism.
It’s also worth noting that being sworn in on the Bible doesn’t exactly guarantee personal morality. When now disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus took office, his wife held the Bible on which he swore.
If you snickered at the irony there, you’re not alone.
Issues: Prayer at Government Events and Legislative MeetingsTags: John Brennan, David Petraeus, Mat Staver
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter














Comments
Good on him. Now once you're
Good on him.
Now once you're done swearing your oath of office on it, try reading it. And do throw the Bill of Rights in there, too. The CIA doesn't have a great track record there recently.
I'm betting that Brennan has
I'm betting that Brennan has never read the Constitution and has no plans to uphold or support it.
I'm hoping that he was sworn
I'm hoping that he was sworn in on a replica of said document, as the original needs to be treated more delicately - what, with it being 226 years old and all, it could have been damaged.
I think it is kind of bizarre that we allow people to be sworn in using any kind of religious books at all - since, as Buxxee implies, they'll only be upholding with their office what is written in the document they are sworn in on. Shouldn't they all just be sworn in using a copy of their job description?
Speaking as an Atheist, I
Speaking as an Atheist, I would not want to swear on a copy of the Bible, as doing so would be false and a lie. Taking an oath of office on a lie is lying from the very start and not the way to do a job. The only people who should swear on the Bible are Christians.
I have more respect for someone who does something like this, than for someone who would swear on the Bible whilst not being part of that religion.
It is worth noting that the
It is worth noting that the Constitution on which he took the oath did not include the Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments to the Constitution did not come into effect until December 1791. Mr. Brennan should go back and affirm his commitment to the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to that Constitution. He acts as if they don't exist. His choice of the Constitution over the Bible is trivial; war criminals will swear on anything.
Why is it "worth noting"?
Why is it "worth noting"? When soldiers, police officers, elected officials, etc take the oath of office, they do not swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic." "The Bill of Rights" is implied.
Worth noting because Mr.
Worth noting because Mr. Brennan's tenure in national security has been marked by his criminal disregard for the principles of due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights--the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to call and cross examine witnesses, the right to see the evidence against you, the right to know with what you are charged, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment--amendments that had not yet become part of the Constitution upon which John Brennan chose to affirm his allegiance. A version of the Constitution printed after December 1791 would have included the Bill of Rights. His affirmation on an earlier version of the Constitution pre-dating the Bill of Rights is a sinister reflection of his notorious contempt for the principles embraced in and rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
Oh, a sinister plot. I
Oh, a sinister plot. I understand now.
While the U.S. is not a
While the U.S. is not a Christian country, Christianity does run deeply in its roots. While I happen to be Jewish I believe that the country's heritage should be honored by those that choose to accept a high position.
I am disappointed by the current celebration of disunity.
If it's us or them I choose us.
"Brennan had been sworn in on
"Brennan had been sworn in on 'an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.'"
"Brennan requested that particular document because he 'wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,'"
Absolutely outstanding. I hope he means it and I hope he stands up against pressure to violate the law. Someone needs to.
As for the remainder of the story, same stuff, different day.
Absoulutely awesome. He made
Absoulutely awesome. He made his oath to the constitution, and that is the oath for the country that matters.