Because the oath touches on a number of issues: religion, loyalty, nationalism, history, it's an interesting subject:
- in Britain the oath for MPs has a long history, going from short to long to short. At different times Quakers, Moravians, Jews, and atheists who were elected had problems with the existing oath, which normally led to a modification to accommodate the problems each had. But because the oath is still one of allegiance to the sovereign, some Ulster MPs still refuse to take the oath. So the live issue in Britain seems to be which functions of an MP require the oath, and which don't.
- by comparison to the Brits, the writers of the Constitution look pretty good. They prescribed the oath for the President in the Constitution, permitted affirmations and didn't include: "so help me God". And they kept it short.
- I barely remember the oath I had to swear when I became a bureaurcrat, but here it is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God". It would be nice for Mr. Newdow to try to shorten that oath.
- As a side issue, oaths used to be big for the Reformed Presbyterians. And in the first part of the 19th century they'd refuse to take the oath because the government was not covenanted with God. (That's part of my family history.)
- skimming the wikipedia article is fascinating--consider the differences in oaths between the President of Pakistan, which combines religion and government, and the President of India, which is secular.
No comments:
Post a Comment