The American Family Association has its knickers in a twist because Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman, wants to swear on a Koran rather than a Bible. AFA quotes Dennis Prager, who is predicting the end of American civilization. Not really (although it sounds like it) — he simply argues that it "undermines" American civilization.
Well let's go to the reason why people swear on the Bible in the first place. They swear on the Bible to give force to their oath. Swearing on a Bible says, "May thus and such be done to me if I fail to uphold this oath", that is, may the curses in this book be upon me. It also invokes God's help in carrying out the oath.
Now it doesn't take much thought to see that such an oath is much more meaningful and effective if one actually believes in the book one is swearing by. Obviously a Muslim swearing to a Koran is going to pay much more attention to fulfilling his oath than if he swears by a Bible, which he cares relatively little about. So I for one would rather have him swear on the Koran.
I wonder if Jews, by the way (there have to have been some Jews in Congress), have the option of swearing on a Tanakh rather than a Christian Bible. Surely there is some precedent here? Prager claims that "Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament." Not sure if this means that all Jews have done so or just most Jews have done so. He makes the claim, which is a respectable one, that not everyone believes in the Bible, yet (the implication is) they all swear on the Bible, even if someone else is more meaning to them. I would argue that we're going to restrict ourselves to religious books, otherwise things get out of hand, and we're talking about God witnessing the oath and enforcing it anyway, so swearing on the collected works of Voltaire isn't going to cut it.
One could argue that putting your hand on a Bible is a meaningless symbol of a bygone era. Few actually believe that God is going to curse them if they violate the oath. But the fact is that is the nature of oaths (just ask Scott Hahn). There is not much point in taking an oath otherwise. Perhaps the Bible is a symbol that we are a "Christian" nation, and the AFA wants to cling to that, despite the fact that it seems obvious that whatever we were, we aren't one anymore. It also brings up the question of what the meaning of an oath is in a world which by and large gives little thought to God. I guess that's why it just makes me happy to see someone take his oath seriously enough to want to make it on what he believes is the Word of God.
