CIA Director takes his oath of office the right way.

New CIA Director John Brennan has been sworn in, not on the bible, but upon a draft of the Constitution.

The Christian Post reported that shortly after Brennan took office, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that Brennan had been sworn in on “an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

Earnest said Brennan requested that particular document because he “wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” the Post said.

Well done and well said!

As you can imagine, religious people are upset.

And a publicist for the Pennsylvania Pastors Network said, “While many are focusing on the fact that the Bill of Rights is not included in what Brennan swore on, perhaps more concerning is that Brennan swore only on his own power that he will protect and defend the Constitution. By removing a holy book from the swearing-in ceremony, Brennan failed to invoke God – which is the very definition of an oath; invoking God as one makes a solemn promise – and His power to help in protecting and defending the Constitution, or His wrath should Brennan fail in office.”

Others went so far as to imply that Brennan’s choice suggests he is pro-Islam. Mat Staver, head of Liberty Counsel, which is an offshoot of Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty University, asked: “Was John Brennan’s choice to take his oath on a version of the Constitution missing the Bill of Rights intentional or coincidental? Only he can answer that question – but it speaks to a very disturbing pattern we are seeing within the Obama administration and his Leftist supporters – the undermining of our Constitution. Also of great concern is the infiltration of pro-Islam government officials, which will surely open the door for the penetration of Sharia into our system of justice.”

That they’re upset that Brennan took his oath on the Constitution, rather than the bible, reveals which document they think is more important to our government.  This is precisely why church and state must be kept separate.

It’s also why we shouldn’t listen to the Fox News crowd when they tell us how they love the Constitution, and the liberties it enshrines (including the freedom to not live under the thumb of religious rule), more than anybody else.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Brice Gilbert

    His job is going to involve killing all sorts of Muslims, so I’m pretty sure they have nothing to worry about.

  • Jessica

    I have this vague memory of the Bible saying “let your yes be yes and your no be no and don’t swear oaths” (paraphrased from what I remember from Bible classes as a kid). So, where’s the problem here? This guy did what was right legally and biblically.
    Of course, since when did the evangelicals care what the Bible actually says? It’s far more important what they think it says.

  • Rain

    “Was John Brennan’s choice to take his oath on a version of the Constitution missing the Bill of Rights intentional or coincidental?”

    Obviously it was intentional as part of his grand scheme to have Congress spelled like “Congrefs”. That’s how they spelled Congress back then in George Washington’s day. “Congrefs” with an “f”. Don’t ask me why. So, no it was not accidental at all. Very clever plan.

  • Randomfactor

    Matthew 5:37, Jessica.
    (Of course, Ed Brayton has pointed out that the “draft” of the Constitution didn’t have any of those pesky “rights” amendments.)

  • https://www.facebook.com/Kevin.C.Jenkins Kevin C Jenkins

    If Yahweh or Jesus exist and are as powerful as claimed, they should know when their help is needed and have the ability to influence events as they like. Intercessory prayer and swearing oaths on objects (a holy book is just another type of idol) are holdovers from the polytheistic past when gods weren’t claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-judging.
    Swearing an oath on one’s own citizenship within the system you hope to serve is far more meaningful. No supernatural parental figure is likely to swoop in and clean our messes up for us. We’re all in this together and have only one another to depend on.

  • Kodie

    Wait, I don’t get it. I had thought the ritual of swearing on the bible meant that the person who is doing the swearing is religious, it’s a religious test. It’s showing the people that he or she promises not to lie. I guess there is the “smite me if I’m lying”, the sort of morality people extend as the threat of being sent to hell keeps them good. But oh my, if he doesn’t swear to the bible, god’s hands will be tied by such a bargain to refrain from smiting him if he should fail or cheat at doing his job. So when have you ever seen a politician who swore on the bible do his job poorly or deceitfully and then we see him get punished by god’s wrath? Like, hardly ever!

    This is seriously some lucky-rabbit’s-foot-volcano-goat-sacrifice-ooky-juju-rain-dance rituals they have. I have no idea why they shouldn’t be outright ridiculed for taking this so seriously.

  • pjmaertz

    “Only he can answer that question – but it speaks to a very disturbing pattern we are seeing within the Obama administration and his Leftist supporters – the undermining of our Constitution.”

    He’s demonstrating that he wants to undermine the Constitution by swearing in on the Constitution? Only on planet Wingnuttia would this statement make any sense to anyone.

    • Azkyroth

      Maybe they’re afraid this betrays his intent to treat the constitution like they treat the bible – cherry pick the parts he likes and handwave away the ones he doesn’t.

  • Sandy

    “Others went so far as to imply that Brennan’s choice suggests he is pro-Islam.”

    Well shucks, appealing to the the US constitution over a holy book sure seems pretty Islam-y to me.

    In all seriousness, I’m not thrilled about Brennan’s appointment, but the guy is definitely off to a classy start.

  • Eric

    Ummmm. you all are making it a religious issue. You totally miss, or don’t even know the President is the ONLY govt agent to tak an oath TO the constitution. He becomes the trustee of Social Security and the capstone of the basis of the world economy. No trustee, no trust can be accessed. Now with that bit of fact… now ask yourself, why would the CIA Director do that then? Think… think… think… think…

    • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

      So what’s you’re saying is… The CIA Director is now the President? ZOMG, it’s worse than we thought!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X