Various media reported that new CIA chief John O. Brennan swore his oath of office last week on a Constitution that didn't contain the Bill of Rights. And, given his strenuous support of the U.S. drone program -- which has killed thousands of people, including a few Americans -- stories focused on the lack of the fifth amendment's guarantee of due process.
But I wonder if there wasn't a religion angle there. I'm honestly not sure. Here's how The Guardian wrote up the news:
CIA director John Brennan swore the oath of office Friday on an original copy of the constitution, the White House announced, which at first sounds pretty cool.
Better than a Bible – everybody does the Bible. The copy is from 1787, and it apparently has George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it and everything. They keep it in a protective manila folder, visible in an official photo of the moment.
So far, so charming – except for one detail:
The founders were quick about the Bill of Rights, ratifying them in 1791. But the constitution was passed without them. A pre-ratification draft of the constitution certainly would not have included them. The fifth amendment's guarantee of due process before the law? Brennan's wife's not holding it and Brennan ain't swearing on it.
It's not like the document you swear on matters. None who swear on the Bible are bound thereby to keep the sabbath. You could swear on Our Bodies, Our Selves, probably. The book is just a symbol that the oath-taker is being serious.
As a symbol, though, in this particular case, given that the oath-taker is the man in charge of choosing those people who don't qualify for due process but instead must be executed immediately – in this case it might not have hurt to stick a copy of amendment number five in there.
Obviously not everyone "does" the Bible when swearing or affirming an oath. And swearing on Our Bodies, Our Selves might not be a symbol that you're being serious. But is the only interesting aspect here that Brennan swore or affirmed (I'm not sure which) on an original copy of the Constitution?
I'm not talking about the conspiracy theories swirling about some dark alleys of the internet. They originate, I believe, from former FBI agent John Guandolo. He says that Brennan "secretly" converted to Islam while he was stationed in Saudi Arabia. Some might say that the media should have covered this allegation but allegations of dramatically "secret" conversions need much more substantiation for media attention. Particularly when you're talking about a former spy.
Further, while some conspiracy theorists seem to think that conversion to Islam is sufficient for its own news stories (secret or otherwise), journalists should make sure that digging into a public official's religious views has a reason.
We discussed a bit of this with the rather curious instance of a New York Times reporter asking another reporter whether he was a Coptic Christian and whether this influenced his reporting (on the State Department almost celebrating a Muslim woman from Egypt who had made anti-Semitic and pro-9/11 remarks).
Many things influence our judgments, including our religious views, but some work is best assessed on its own merits. Does a CIA chief's religion influence his work? How? Is it an important part of the story to tell about someone? To me it seems just as relevant to report a CIA chief's religious views if he's Catholic (as Brennan is or was at least some time in his past) or if he's converted to Islam or if he's not terribly religious at all. No matter what the views are, they're interesting to me -- but I wouldn't want just one covered, as if it's "wrong" to be Muslim but OK to be irreligious or Catholic.
Leaving me further unconvinced about the conspiracy theory is that it's claimed to be substantiated partially because of statements that Brennan made about Hajj:
I did spend time with classmates at the American University in Cairo in the 1970’s. And, time spent with classmates from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine from around the world who taught me that whatever our differences in nationality, or race, or religion, or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our family. To practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And in a 25 year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East… In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage. And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem where three great faiths come together.
You can watch him make those comments somewhere on YouTube.
These comments made a bit of a splash a couple of years ago because of how he referred to Jerusalem first as "al-Quds." But for those speculating on Brennan being Muslim, the most interesting statement was: "In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage." Only Muslims can witness the Hajj. To quote WikiTravel:
WARNING: The Hajj is intended for Muslims only, and the territory around Mecca and Medina is off-limits to non-Muslims. If you are a non-Muslim and you do manage to enter anyway, it is considered sacrilege and, if discovered, the penalty can be a prison sentence and deportation. But since any person can convert to Islam, any person may enter Mecca and Medina upon entering the fold of Islam thus becoming a Muslim.
It is of course possible that Brennan is Muslim and completed the Hajj. But it's also possible that when he said he "marveled" at the majesty of it, he may have just meant from what he saw in pictures.
OK, back to the story about swearing in on the Constitution. I do wonder whether there's a religion story here, even if it's not the one alleged by "secret conversion" conspiracy theorists.
Could it just be that the CIA chief, who has spent much time in Muslim lands and whose work involves quite a bit of spying (and more!) on Muslim extremists just didn't want to be pictured with Christian Scriptures because it might be inflammatory? Or is there secret spy stuff where it's best to have some ambiguity about religious views (about which I'd love more journalism on the ethics of spying!)? Did he want to avoid Christian critics asking him whether his views on drone warfare contradict anything in Scripture?
All a long way of asking: Did the brouhaha about the original Constitution with no Bill of Rights miss an interesting religion angle? Should the media be interested in Brennan's religious views? Even if only in stories about the justice of drone warfare, in which Brennan has played a huge role, I think journalists should have asked some questions about how his religion guides him. No matter his religious views, I think that line of inquiry is most interesting for those interested in the ethics of drone warfare.