Taking an Oath upon the Constitution, Rather than the Bible

“While laws do not and absolutely should not regulate a politician’s religious practices, the time and place for these practices is not when taking an oath of office.”

Simultaneously holding a religious text and promising to defend the Constitution of the United States are at odds, two opposing actions. Yet, we see it all the time, most recently with the slate of new leaders taking office as a result of the 2020 elections.

People like to imagine that the contemporary Christian Bible only has messages of love and compassion, instructions for leading a sound, moral life. This is inaccurate. The Bible is a collection of copies of ancient texts that condemn people to death and suffering, that condone slavery, that oppress people, and that demand perfect obedience toward impossible-to-follow, often inhumane commandments.

The Constitution is certainly flawed itself. (It has also needed a complete overhaul for some time.) The Constitution, in the words of Melissa Harris-Perry, is basically a document that says, “maybe possibly all white men with money are equal in a few kind of ways and maybe they can get a government [together].” Indeed, the Constitution codified Black women, Black men, and Black children as not even being full persons. Basic recognition as humans deserving of constitutional protections came to women, to Native Americans, and even to children well over a century after the founding of the United States. In the immediate aftermath, the American Revolution only replaced one out-of-touch group of rulers with another.

On the other hand, the Constitution does effectively call for separation of church and state, for free speech, and for anti-authoritarian governments. And it does not mention any religion or any God(s). The 27 Amendments to the Constitution have also—mostly—fostered positive steps in the long arc toward actualized freedom.