In recent weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States of
America, reaffirmed that the BAN on providing Same-Sex couples with marriage
licenses in various states was ILLEGAL as a consequence of these laws being
contrary to the protections allotted all citizens and residents by the Constitution;
which we all should know is the SUPREME LAW of the land for these United States
of America. There is however a plethora of people that have refused, as
government workers, many who are sworn officers, to abide by this law of the
land citing their religious freedom as the foundation of their refusal. So let
us look at this issue from that point, what it means to be a sworn officer of
the law or a sworn servant of the land and what does the Constitution stipulate
about religious freedoms.
First
the definition of Oath, a sacred or solemn voluntary promise usually involving
the penalty of divine retribution for intentional falsity and often used in
legal procedures. There is a plethora of examples throughout the developing
civilizations of the Middle East and Near East of the development of Oath
taking and the laws and consequences of not keeping those oaths or promises.
Here in
California, as it is in most if not all states of the Union, government
workers, state, county, etc., are all sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution
of this country as well as those of the states they work within(see article 20
for California’s edition). They take
this oath “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” further
swearing “that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or
organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the
Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence
or other unlawful means”. Having taken this oath means that the person is sworn
to uphold all the laws of the constabulary they are employed, assigned or
volunteered to. If they are a county clerk they are required to follow all the
laws of that county in doing their job, no matter their conscientious belief,
unless there is a special dispensation given for moral reasons by the attorney
general of that state. They can’t refuse to issue a driver’s license to a
person simply because they identify their gender differently or refuse to
process a deed of trust because someone is of a different religion nor can they
refuse them any legal license or permit what-so-ever based upon their own
personal beliefs.
Now what
does this mean for Christians specifically (I will address other faiths later
in this article), well if they are truly followers of the faith then they will
have to consider first the SUPREME LAW of scripture, the Ten Commandments. We
know that the address specific issues that the Israelites had in their daily
lives, ignoring their God, worshipping more than one god, taking their God’s
name in vain or swearing, forgetting to take days off to recognize that which their
God gave them, listening to their parents, killing each other or other humans,
having sex with whomever or whatever, taking things which did not belong to
them, lying about other people or themselves and coveting other peoples
possessions, which may include their spouses. How does this relate to the
function of their job? Let’s take a look at the two laws having to do with
oaths and swearing.
What do the Ten Commandments say
about keeping oaths or false witness? Breaking down the first part of taking
God’s name in vain, the Hebrew לא
תשא לשוא is translated as
"thou shalt not take in vain". The word here translated as "in
vain" is שוא shav'
"emptiness, vanity; emptiness of speech, lying", while
"take" is נשא
nasa' "to lift, carry, bear, take, take away" and the expression
"to take in vain" is also translated less literally as "to
misuse" or variants. So using God’s name for selfish purposes or outside
of the legal spiritual allowance is strictly prohibited within the Abrahamic
faiths, which could also be interpreted as taking an OATH to another source of
law which could be construed as a sin.
"Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor", the command against false testimony is seen
as a natural consequence of the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” As
a people who have sworn to uphold the law of the land for which they are
employed, by not fulfilling their sworn duty they have borne false witness to
themselves and the God of their faith. In other words, sins against the truth
expressed by word or deed are a refusal to commit oneself to moral decency:
these are straightforward infidelities to their God and, in this sense they demoralize
the foundations of their covenant with their God. Exodus 23:1-2 states; “You
shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to
be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor
shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert
justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.” And should
someone of this faith further choose to ignore the teaches they can review
Proverbs 6:16-19 which says “There are six things that the LORD strongly
dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet
that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one
who sows discord among brothers.”
So for Christians who are to
consider the tenets of their faith when working within their daily lives with
other people; Christian or not, if they truly wish to remain faithful being a
government worker shouldn’t be their first career choice, either would the
choice of being a politician. But let’s consider further other religions of the
world and their view on oaths of office and fulfilling their duty under that
constraint.
As for their oath of office, no
Muslim may take an oath if it is not an oath to Allah, but failing that oath
through forgetfulness or by accident is exempted from kaffarah; compensation or
fasting. If national duties toward the country to which a Muslim belongs
contradict religious rulings, in such case they should try to make a compromise
between the two as much as possible. If they are unable, then they must choose
the more important between them. If they opt for their religious duty, they
should then declare their choice, bear the consequences, and accept the legal
punishment they may receive for their position. They should also announce
clearly the reason behind their choice, stating that the legal duty goes
against their religious beliefs. This is part of being a citizen in
“non-believing” countries.
In England, the courts and tribunal
judiciary have taken in consideration these differences and incorporated them
into their oaths, such as when judges are sworn in they take two
oaths/affirmations. The first is the oath of allegiance and the second the judicial
oath; these are collectively referred to as the judicial oath. Example:
- Affirmation – Judicial - “I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ____________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
- Members of the Hindu faith will omit the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Gita”. Members of the Jewish faith use the oaths above although some may wish to affirm.
- Members of the Muslim faith will omit the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Allah”.
- Members of the Sikh faith will omit the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Guru Nanak”.
By adding a sovereign deity or God
into the mix, the British manage to make their oaths even more substantial and
profound. So without a doubt anyone breaking these oaths would be breaking
their covenant with their God and committing a grave sin.
Further exploring the consequence of being a resident or citizen of the United States and having the government as your employer we find serious conflicts with the oaths sworn and the Ten Commandments or tenets of Christian faith. Anyone taking an oath as part of their induction into the military or law enforcement has to consider an even greater conflict with the 6th commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Jesus – Matthew 19:18). This commandment is in direct conflict with the military code of conduct and following a lawful order which could mean engaging the enemy and using deadly force in such an engagement. How does a true believer reconcile their faith to their oath to their Commander and Chief and to the Constitution of the United States of America? How many Christians or Muslims have gone into battle as members of the United States military and broken this law, while at the same time evoking their God through prayer to protect them from their enemy?
It seems at this point declaring
one’s self loyal to any entity other than their God puts several people of
faith at odds with their own belief system. As for Christians, declared
followers of Jesus Christ, a Hebrew who dedicated himself to the restrictions
of the original commandments of the first Israelites, there is even more for
them to consider. Specifically the commands given to them by Jesus as to how
they are to dedicate themselves to his godly example, to his disciples Jesus
said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
Let’s review some of these commandments according to the Gospel.
- Honor God’s law—Matthew 5:17-19 – God’s law being the original Ten Commandments.
- Love your enemies—Matthew 5:44 – Even if they are civil servants - Matthew 5:46-47
- Judge not or be concerned with others sins—Matthew 7:1-5
- Do unto others—Matthew 7:12 – In other words stop behaving badly towards your fellow humans. They have the same right to happiness as you do.
- Render unto Caesar—Matthew 22:19-21 – Pay your taxes and obey the law of the land.
- Keep your promises/oaths—Matthew 5:33 – And no swearing using God’s name.
So with this being laid out as such, in all the various
translations, the gist is actually very simple, the Christian’ duty is to
follow the commandments of Jesus and God, and Jesus made this very clear on
several occasions when his disciples ask or when he was tested by the
Sadducees.
If human law deems that all people are created equal by their Maker, whoever they believe that Maker is, then they should have equal consideration under the law. And as sworn officers of that law and land, their Christian duty is to fulfill that law, even if they believe that law to be contrary to their conscience. If they wish to not have that burden then they should never take the oath of a sworn officer or elected official.
The case in Kentucky where an
elected official has refused to do their duty has a simple resolution, resign
or be recalled. The county clerk of Rowan county Kentucky has stated that they
will not do their sworn duty; they are therefore in violation of their sworn
oath, not just in violation of the court that ordered them. They are then also
in violation of the commandments of the God and Savior for which they have
chosen and in violation of their “Christian” oath.
Unlike the good old days when a
store could post a sign “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”, we
are in the age of accommodation; I respect your beliefs and you respect mine. I
command nothing in respects to your beliefs or the manner of worship of the god
you believe in and you provide the same courtesy towards me. However here is this attitude within the
community of the God-faithful that if others can refuse to believe then they
have no obligation to treat them kindly or equally, an interesting form of
bigotry that is becoming more and more prevalent. A bigotry that they support
by stating that this should be or is a Christian nation.
Unfortunately they have forgotten their basic civics lesson, one that teaches that we live in a secular society, one created for us by the founding fathers for the specific purpose of avoiding the issues of a sectarian based government or a monarchy or totalitarian state. And as much as Christians espouse to the idea that this was a nation built on Christianity, the adoption of the Constitution as the law of the land and not the Christian Bible, Hebrew Torah, Muslim Quran, Hindu Bhagavad Gita or any other religious text provides a contrary argument. Though there may be some underlying Christian ideology used to develop the guidelines within the text of the Constitution of the United States, its design was not meant to be an extension of the Christian faith, on the contrary it was designed to avoid such conflicts that have led to the religious wars that have persevered within human culture since the very first war more than eight millennia ago.
If these United States of America is
to survive as a democratic nation, where all people are treated equally under
the eyes of the law, then the truth about civic duty and the origins of our nation’s
laws must be taught as factually as possible, leaving opinion and dogma at the
door. Politics must stop being preached at the pulpit and altar, people of
particular faiths must stop trying to impose their will and ideology upon
others of a differing belief and most of all the talking heads and pundits of
mediocre media outlets must cease the incessant onslaught of rhetorical idiocy
where opinion is touted as fact.
