Myths and Realities: Kamala Harris and Her Oath of Office

Introduction

The recent oath of office taken by Vice President Kamala Harris on two bibles has stirred debates across political and religious spectrums. The use of two religious texts during the inauguration ceremony has been subject to various interpretations and criticisms. This article aims to clear the myths surrounding the symbolic act and provide a comprehensive understanding of the oath-taking tradition and its historical context.

Myths and Reality: Kamala Harris's Oath on Two Bibles

The myth that has been widely circulated, particularly by political opponents, is that taking an oath on two bibles somehow negates the oath's binding nature, allowing the new official to act outside the confines of their commitment. However, this assertion is far from accurate and does not stand up to scrutiny.

According to NPR, the practice of using two religious texts during an oath-taking ceremony is not unique to Kamala Harris but is a common tradition among several US presidents. Examples include Donald Trump, who also swore on two bibles.

The significance of using two bibles lies more in the symbolic gesture of unity and respect for different religious traditions than in any legal or constitutional significance. In fact, the US Constitution’s Article 6, Clause 3, explicitly prohibits any religious test for public office, ensuring that political officeholders are not subjected to a requirement to swear on a specific religious text.

The Constitution Center notes, "No religious test shallever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This clause underscores the principle of religious neutrality in public office, reflecting the federal government's commitment to a secular foundation and the separation of church and state.

Historical Context and Multiple Presidents

In 1825, when John Quincy Adams took the oath of office, he placed his hand on a U.S. law book, which included the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, Theodore Roosevelt, during his first inauguration in 1901, did not use the Bible but chose to swear on it during his second inauguration in 1905.

Lyndon B. Johnson, another significant figure, leaned on a Catholic missal due to circumstances where a Bible was not available. This action is particularly notable given that Johnson was not Catholic, highlighting the flexibility and practicality behind the oath-taking tradition.

These historical precedents illustrate that the use of a religious text during the oath-taking ceremony is not a fixed requirement but a choice that reflects individual preferences and circumstances.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The act of taking the oath on two bibles is a symbol of unity and respect for different religious traditions. There is no legal or constitutional requirement for political candidates to swear on religious texts. The US Constitution guarantees the right to practice any (or no) religion and prohibits any form of religious test for public office.

In conclusion, the portrayal of Kamala Harris's oath-taking as a violation of oath restrictions or a politically motivated act is nothing beyond a political myth. Each president and political leader has the right to choose their preferred text during the oath, based on their religious convictions or specific circumstances. This tradition should be understood and appreciated for its symbolic and practical significance, rather than being mired in partisan rhetoric.