which are woven throughout the Constitution

i'm going to be pedantic here, but if you read the godless constitution they note that the only references to religion are negative, that is, no religious tests. you probably mean the declaration of independence, but it must be noted that the author, jefferson, was privately (as made explicit in his letters to john adams) a deist who believed that christianity would devolve into unitarianism (which in that day meant a pure monotheism, with jesus as a historical figure or prophet). in fact, though everyone is familiar with the use of the term "creator" in the declaration, people forget the one reference to god goes like so: laws of nature and of nature's God. "nature's God" is often a reference to the god of the deists, that is, natural religion.

of course, you get to the point, the question is whether we should just get religion out of the business of religion altogether. personally, i think all of it is silly, religious people might as well be worshipping a brick, but the fact is that accommodation is a serious issue. how far do we go? this specific instance is a gimme, reasonable people understand (right?) there is a difference between the koran and a brick, at least via social consensus. a cult is only a cult if it is socially marginal, much of the mumbo-jumbo in mainstream religions isn't mumbo-jumbo because the religions are mainstream. the problem comes in when i hear people saying "my religion dictates" all the time. what exactly does that mean? to give a specific example, many muslim women assert that their religion says that they have to go veiled (the whole driver's license photo issue). but who gets to determine that? religion is fluid, and there are many interpretations of islam, it should actually be my interpretation of my religion says, etc. etc.

typo: business of government, not religion. note to self-use preview!

you probably mean the declaration of independence...

Indeed I did, thanks.

Ellis said there is concern allowing the Koran could create new challenges.

I think allowing the Bible created those new challenges.

As a Muslim, if I ever commited a crime then I would be more morally obligated to tell the truth after swearing on the Qur'an than on a Bible. So, stay out of NC CAIR and quit ruining my criminal aspirations.

I think allowing the Bible created those new challenges.

but are ahistorical quips really advancing anything? btw, i wonder how courts have traditionally handled denominational differences, ie; roman catholic bible vs. KJV?

This is hardly a new issue. North American Muslims have been swearing on the Quran for decades. North Carolina is hardly Muslim-free -- it has a Muslim state senator -- has this never come up there before?

(I would add a tedious Canandian example here, but I think present company are quite sick of it)

This is hardly new. North American non-Muslims have been swearing at the Koran for decades, and sometimes in court.

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will tstify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awake the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.

The distinction is that an oath invokes a deity, or specific religion, and an affirmation is a pledge. It goes further than that: where a witness objects on religious/personal grounds to take either an oath or make an affirmation, the court can devise an alternative form that somehow allows the witness to make a "serious public commitment to answer truthfully", but doesn't run afoul of the witness' beliefs. (Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 939 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1991), see also United States v. Ward, 989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992), Ferguson v. Commisioner of Internal Revenue, 921 F.2d 588, 590 (5th Cir. 1991).

Of course, that's just the FRE, each state has its own rules of evidence, but they tend to stick pretty close to the FRE.

regarding comment in #1. I've always been curious about this point, but have never received a good reply.

Civil laws, i.e., those dictating marriage, inheritance of property, etc. in the US are based on Judeo-Christian traditions. Unlike India, where there are different civil laws for the different communities.

So, isn't this against the establishment clause of the first amendment? I am sure the issue is much more complex than how I have presented it, but if anyone has comments, I will appreciate them.

vivek

Civil laws, i.e., those dictating marriage, inheritance of property, etc. in the US are based on Judeo-Christian traditions. Unlike India, where there are different civil laws for the different communities.

So, isn't this against the establishment clause of the first amendment? I am sure the issue is much more complex than how I have presented it, but if anyone has comments, I will appreciate them.

Welcome to America, where we pretend that that our historically class-ridden, racially divided, White Christian dominated society lives up to our supposed values ;)

i'm going to be pedantic here, but if you read the godless constitution they note that the only references to religion are negative, that is, no religious tests. you probably mean the declaration of independence

But if you look at the larger system that the Constitution set up, which did in fact, allowed states to establish churches within the United States--which they did. So you can construe the position on establishment as more the result of a primary conflict in writing the document--the balance between state/federal power--than the taking of a strong stand against or for established churches.

That, along with the highly religious (albeit enlightenement influenced) beliefs of many of the founders, makes it hard for me to swallow any arguments about the alleged historically secular character of the United States or that the role of religion in the system set up was entirely "ceremonial" as is argued in the post.

Of course, that's all from 1787, so who gives a $hit--we should make our own rules, if we don't want to be slaves to history :)

if i'm ever in court and i have to take an oath, i'm going to do it Temple of Doom style and dress up as Molaram and tell them i need to yank a heart out to profess the truth. I want to see if I can get away w/ that.

Civil laws, i.e., those dictating marriage, inheritance of property, etc. in the US are based on Judeo-Christian traditions. Unlike India, where there are different civil laws for the different communities.

the laws in the western world, both civil and "common law" traditions are a synthesis of various traditions. i would argue that germanic customary law and roman law were the primary roots, with christian-judaic influences serving as a filter. to be precise, many roman laws were altered by the lawyers who formulated the Corpus Juris Civilis (which is probably the genetic ancestor of the civil law traditions, which are dominant in europe, louisiana and scotland). for example, the roman legal tradition of the pater familias having the power of life and death over his family was reformed.

there is a legal tradition in the hebrew culture and jewish religion, but what is expressed in the western legal traditions that are cognate with the hebrew tradition are human universals, that is, common to most literate cultures that have legal codes. what is specific to the jewish-hebrew tradition, the 613 commandments, is not adhered to outside of it. also, i believe most of the canon law used in the roman catholic church has roman, not christian, roots. christianity after all is a religion of the spirit, not the law (so sayeth paul). the conception that our legal traditions are somehow judeo-christian in my opinion is simply because conservative christians and some jews push this view to the point where it is accepted as normative.

But if you look at the larger system that the Constitution set up, which did in fact, allowed states to establish churches within the United States--which they did.

the established churches existed prior to the formation of the republic, and the constitution ban on religious tests was a major factor in their eventual dissoluation (new england was last in the 1840s i think to abandon any relationship between church and state). but, both madison and jefferson did believe in a secular government, they pushed explicitly for the disestablishment of the anglican church in virgina, and madison was famous for saying that he cared not if his neighbor believed in many gods or no god.

the attitude of the "founders" towards religions is obviously not unitary. some, like paine, were anti-clerical in the french revolutionary mode. jefferson and madison leaned in that direction. but even men like john adams were not religious conservatives (he was a unitarian). others of the founders were traditional christians. pluralism has been with us since the founding.

I'm sure my view is not original, but I haven't seen much of it in the discussion so far. The core issue with swearing on the Bible is that its meaningless if the person doesn't believe in it. I don't know what's the courts' response to a more diverse people is, but it seems silly to have someone take an oath upon an object which wouldn't cause them to attain any additional moral gravity.

And of course, 'meaningful' objects can be actual objects like religious books, or even people - like when as a kid I used to pinch my adams apple (lightly) and take oath on my mother's soul, I was entirely serious and NEVER told a lie following it. (this sounds weird written out, much simpler and 'natural' when doing it, trust me!)

the attitude of the "founders" towards religions is obviously not unitary. some, like paine, were anti-clerical in the french revolutionary mode. jefferson and madison leaned in that direction. but even men like john adams were not religious conservatives (he was a unitarian). others of the founders were traditional christians. pluralism has been with us since the founding.

I don't really think about Paine as a founder, since his internationalist and more radical views (to the limited extent I know them) were essentially written out of the Constitution. He didn't actually participate in the process of writing or subsequently serve as part of the development of the system (as Jefferson did).

In any case, thank you for your insights. It's good to be prodded into looking into this further. Look at the section entitled "The Bill of Rights and the Establishment Clause" in this paper (pdf). If it's to be trusted, it makes a pretty clear case of the existence between tension between active promotion of religion and simple tolerance of it. It's still hard for me to buy what I consider anachronistic arguments that politics has traditionally been fundamentally divorced from faith in the United States since the writing of the Constitution. I think a lot of the more radical secular positions came about in the last 50 years or so.

It's still hard for me to buy what I consider anachronistic arguments that politics has traditionally been fundamentally divorced from faith in the United States since the writing of the Constitution. I think a lot of the more radical secular positions came about in the last 50 years or so.

well, a lot of this is semantics. i think the word anachronism is key: we need to understand the historical context. i don't particularly care that none of the founders were atheists (that i know of), since atheism was an almost non-existent public position aside from a few outliers in the 18th century (d'holbach and bradlaugh for example). rather, in the context of the times many of the founders were intellectuals of their time (jefferson was a first rate scientist, adams a self-made humanist) in that they rejected revealed religion for natural religion and some form of deism, coupled with (in for example jefferson's case) a reverence for cultural christianity and jesus the man as an ethical exemplar. i suspect that their skepticism of 'old time religion' explains their attitude toward the relationship (or relative lack of) between church and state in the early republic (also, locke, who was an inspiration for many tended toward asserting neutrality in his social contract stating, reserving discrimination only against atheists).

in the context of european culture at the time (pre-french revolution) this was somewhat peculiar. federick the great seems to have been a freethinker who rejected religion, but it wasn't until the 19th century the idea of being "confessionless" (that is, without affiliation to the protestant or roman catholic confessions) was normalized in germany. remember, dissenters still suffered penalties (though they were tolerated) in 18th century england, and roman catholics were still disenfranchised, and england was a relative exemplar of toleration. the netherlands, it is true, long had a history of toleration, but it was also strongly dominated by the calvinist reformed church, who had over time rejected the more traditional (post-constantinian) idea of universal salvation of the nation for a more narrowly constrained somewhat radical protestant notion of a saved elect in the midst of a sinful society. the netherlands tolerated other religions (roman catholicism, liberal protestants, jews and radical protestants), but there was no religious equality (until later).

so i will sum it up with this: the founding of the republic was not a strike for revolutionary atheism. but, i do think it was a major discontinuity with the long tradition of state power sanctified by a particular church or religious tradition (just as it was a large scale republican experiment in a world dominated by monarchies). rather than a christian nation, it was a nation of christians (and remember, it is significant that jews were invited to washington's inauguration, somewhat to the shock of contemporary observors). this is important because it goes to the heart of the critique of christian conservatives that this nation was founded fundamentally as a christian nation. it was founded as a christian nation (most people were professing christians after all!), but it was wasn't fundamentally christian in its design. this in contrast to the british monarchy, where the head of state also commands the church, or the spanish monarchy which was solidified in large part by its status as a catholic monarchy (until the 19th century the spanish regions had their own customary laws and a great deal of autonomy, and their shared iberian identity was probably more based on catholic faith than anything else). and we all know of the power and venality of the french church which resulted in the outbreak of anti-clericalism (common to most catholic countries).

addendum: many of the founders of nationalist movements in the 19th century were against the established church in some way. simone bolivar and giuseppe garibaldi for example. i would argue that the populism (at least in its forms) of american democracy explains the piety of its political class: when most white males were allowed sufferage you see, in my judgement, a sharp trend toward political candidates affirming populist and orthodox religious viewpoints, while all the early presidents tended toward more elitist and heterodox religious attitudes. i think this is gotten even more extreme in the modern media era, william howard taft was elected in the early 1900s as a unitarian, something that couldn't happen today-his son bob taft, senator from ohio, was non-practicing episcopalian, while his grandson (or great-grandson, i forget?) is a methodist (unitarians then weren't as secular humanistic as they are today, but they were certainly not christian in the orthodox sense since they rejected the divine christ).

so i will sum it up with this: the founding of the republic was not a strike for revolutionary atheism. but, i do think it was a major discontinuity with the long tradition of state power sanctified by a particular church or religious tradition (just as it was a large scale republican experiment in a world dominated by monarchies). rather than a christian nation, it was a nation of christians

I think you write with good balance here. I might research a little and nitpick about exactly how sharp a break this was given the options available (esp. considering that the French Revolution occurred almost contemporaraneous to this event and people like Tom Paine staked out more radical positions) and the extent to which the laws, administrative rules, etc. were imbued with a basis in various Protestant ethics and worldviews, but I generally agree.

My primary underlying premise in all this has been that, as with so many other things, the radical secularist types that have a public platform and mild popular support are scarcely more accurate in the historical basis they make for their ideological claims than the Christian right. Which is fine for now, but once they get into power, they're going to be annoying and repeat the same farcical cycle of ideological conquest and disempowerment based on a shoddy or convenient misreading of history.

It would be much easier if everyone just showed their cards and let the chips fall where they may
(and pursued some structural reform that would actually allow things to get done in this country in a speedier and more democratic fashion). There should be little relevance, imo, to contemporary political arguments that seek to justify themselves in terms of "the founders'" intentions. Even less so when those that make those arguments pretend it is "progressive" and rather than inherently conservative exegesis that leads to bad policymaking strategy and/or historiographically unsound reimagining that continues the glorification of these people that wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, etc., when they were really just imperfect people like the rest of us (even if some of them were smart and well educated). In either case, to look back two hundred years to resolve debates about women's rights, regulation of the Internet, sexuality, or the importance (or lack thereof) of certain provisions of the Constitution and other traditions instead of looking outside the window makes little sense if you're interested in understanding the present.

I say that with the caveat that if this country (the U.S.) actually had a viable Left, I would value the role of tradition (and other forms of conservative thinking) more in political thinking (and I do so even now in particular contexts).

Why is there a need to put ones hand on a book while "swearing to tell the Truth". Why is there a need to "Swear to tell the Truth" at all. You should be telling the Truth in the witness box.

My primary underlying premise in all this has been that, as with so many other things, the radical secularist types that have a public platform and mild popular support are scarcely more accurate in the historical basis they make for their ideological claims than the Christian right. Which is fine for now, but once they get into power, they're going to be annoying and repeat the same farcical cycle of ideological conquest and disempowerment based on a shoddy or convenient misreading of history.

i am one who believes that truth should strive to be independent of norms, and that norms do not follow from truth (though the implementation of those norms to shape "a more perfect society" are "canalized" by truth). and yes, i also agree that many secularists create a false mythology.

in fact, to become typological, let me speak specifically of "the west." i believe in the united states secularist intellectuals on the Left valorize athens. i believe christian and jewish intellectuals on the Right valorize jerusalem. but i believe both neglect the organically essential contributions of the germanic substrate and the roman exemplar (we are a republic after all!). to use examples, christian conservatives often seem to want to distill Western civilization down to the essence of christianity. many atheist Leftists seem to want to project the history of the West as the period after 1800 and the period between 500-400 BCE in athens. but there are many strands which come together, the growth and development of the civilization was a gradual process, a continuous flux between various strands (which waxed and waned).

of course, this sort of narrative is hard to sloganize, so it is difficult to push forward. to make an analogy with the south asian example, hindu nationalists and muslim radicals often try to recreate a past before 1900 that fits their own mythology of how south asians viewed their religious and ethnic identity.*

as for the relevance of such historical points to public policy, you could attempt to model the dialogue according to rawls' a theory of justice, or nozicks anarchy, state and utopia. but such relatively a priori axiomatic state-of-nature narratives will have few takers. rather, i think a "true mythology," that is, refashioning the past in a relevant but accurate (this is a hard dance) way so as to inspire and shape the present is the best product politically motivated individuals can put on the market. it's been done before, though the american colonials to a great extent (in my reading) revolted for reasons of personal self-interest, and rhetorically justified their actions via the 'traditional liberties of englishmen,' the state which arose after the revolution modeled itself on ancient roman motifs, a res publica with a senate, balance of powers (thank you rome and montesquieu!) an executive with terms (traditionally limited by custom until FDR, and later limited by statute).

* note that i also am skeptical of subalternizing south asian history so that europeans became the sole drivers of identity formation after 1800, as if south asians themselves were passive, malleable clay without form or self-conceptualizing capacities. i believe there is a middle-path between acknowledging the importance of british culture as a catalytic force in identity formation and the indigenous trajectory of cultural development which served as the base for the transformative effects of british cultural imperialism.

razib, I can't believe you footnote your comments :)

i think a "true mythology," that is, refashioning the past in a relevant but accurate (this is a hard dance) way so as to inspire and shape the present is the best product politically motivated individuals can put on the market.

A problem with American politics is that the type of people who look towards independent thinking or potentialities (i.e. socialists and utopians and the such) rather than past precedent to justify their arguments have been systematically rooted out. And now all we have left are conservatives.

This is problematic even if you don't support utopianism and the such (as I don't), because the dialectic gets all f@#ked up and you get a lot of stupidity in the public discourse out of a lack of ideological diversity.

The Alaska state constitution seems to have a good approach (http://ykalaska.blogspot.com/2005/03/bethel-restricts-all-but-few-citizens.html

The City of Bethel doesn't
http://ykalaska.blogspot.com/2005/06/re-city-govt-support-for-some-churches.html

["I for one would be tempted to swear my oath upon The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy."
I find large silk scarves are nearly as useful as towels.]

This is a very good issue, and the CHristian Science Monitor newspaper did a good story today on it, reported by Patrik Jonsson. Reporting from Raleigh NC.

Actually, Americans should be allowed to swear in court on any holy book they desire. Koran is cool, if that is what Muslims desire. Certainly the Christian Bible is not their book. In the same way, Jews in America should not be made to swear over any Bible that contains the Christian New Testament, as the New Testament is anti-semitic and anti-Jewish. And yet, for centures, American Jews have made forced to swear oaths over this non-Jewish Bible. Why? Have there been any court cases where Jews in the USa asked for a bible that was just the OLD Testamewnt and did not contain any of that anti-semitic gospel stuff? Yes, everyone should swear oaths and allegiances under any God book they wish. Muslims too. Sure. USA is not a Christian country, never was.

danny bloom,

I saw that article when it came out 10 years ago.
He's definitely on the pessimistic side, and fails
to consider how many millions of Christians are
praying for America, and how God answers those
prayers, and prevents judgment from overtaking us.

http://KevinCraig.us/religion/providence.htm