24 March 2013
John Brennan, the President's typically poor choice to direct the Central Intelligence Agency, took his oath of office on a 1787 draught of the US Constitution instead of a Bible; the Obombast Administration's explanation was that he did so to "reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law". There has been commentary on the symbolic significance of this action, concerning the fact that the Constitution in 1787 did not yet include the "Bill of Rights", but I don't know of any on the significance that may be more than symbolic, which is the subject of this uncommon commentary. The reason why one normally swears an oath with one's hand on Holy Writ is not to pledge to uphold the noble principles therein (although it would be nice if our rulers in general, and members of the present administration in particular, would do precisely that); it is to make the vow by something that one holds sacred, as most of us probably do still consider the Bible to be. Does the Administration, then, rank the US Constitution, the authors of which never claimed divine inspiration for their writing, on a par with Scripture? If so, this episode may mark a new high for the incoming tide of secularism and idolatry in our land.