Was Kash Patel’s Recent Oath… Taken On The Bhagavad Gita… Historically American Or Even Logical?

A Historical and Theological Reflection on Oaths in America

Recently, in a significant moment, Kash Patel took the oath of office on the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita. I have some thoughts here.

First, I wish him well and will pray for him as he begins the difficult tasks ahead.

Second, I wanted to mention the issue of consistency. By this, I mean there is often a vast difference between what one confesses and how one acts. This is true for all religious beliefs. As a Christian, I’m continually amazed by the things Christians say and do despite what they confess biblically. Very humbling indeed.

Third, I recognize that we are free to believe what is false in this country. If I believe, for example, that dishwater is champagne, that doesn’t make it so. But I am free to believe it.

Kash’s oath raises an important question about the nature and origin of oaths in American history. Specifically, it prompts us to consider whether an oath of office in this country implicitly rests on a biblical worldview rather than a pluralistic or impersonal one like Hinduism.

The Definition of an Oath

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it’s important to understand the historical context of an oath. It’s a tradition that invokes a reference to the God of the Bible. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines an oath as:

“A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false…”

Notice that Webster assumed the existence of one true God—the God of Scripture—and not many gods or an impersonal, pantheistic god. An oath, therefore, historically has been understood as calling upon the Trinitarian God to witness one’s promise or testimony.

Oaths in the U.S. Constitution

Contrary to the view that the Constitution does not reference biblical faith, its requirement of an oath for public office reveals a strong connection to the Christian understanding of truthfulness and moral accountability. The Constitution, the cornerstone of American governance, mentions the oath of office in two places:

1. Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 requires the President to swear or affirm that he “will faithfully execute the Office of President” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
2. Article VI, Clause 3 requires all federal and state officials to be “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” while stipulating no religious test shall be required.

In both clauses, the call to make a solemn vow underscores the seriousness of the office… and historically, it was understood that people would invoke the God of the Bible as a witness to this vow, instilling a sense of moral accountability.

George Washington’s Perspective

When George Washington, the first President of the United States, took the first presidential oath, he did so with his hand on a Bible turned to Deuteronomy 28, symbolically recognizing biblical law and its blessings and curses. This act, later echoed in his Farewell Address, underscores the enduring influence of biblical law in American politics.

Washington warned that religion and morality form “indispensable supports” of political prosperity. He was speaking, of course, about Christianity here. You won’t find any foundational documents whereby our country’s founders discussed the equality of Christianity and Hinduism. Nope, not one. Washington wrote this:

“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

His concern was partly spurred by the French Revolution’s atheistic tendencies which brought dreadful, horrific consequences. Washington feared anarchy would ensue if the biblical foundation for oaths were stripped away. Without fear of divine judgment, as posited by the Bible, people might treat oaths as empty words uttered by men whose foundational belief system was the autonomous reason of the French Revolution rather than solemn appeals before a holy God.

The Christian Understanding of Oaths

From a Christian standpoint, an oath is not just a formality. It’s a serious matter that’s deeply rooted in our faith. The Bible treats oaths as self-invoked covenant curses—a calling upon God to judge falsehood or disobedience. This understanding appears in 1 Samuel 19:6 and Mark 14:71, where breaking an oath is tantamount to inviting God’s wrath.

Historically, Christians have taken oaths very seriously. Exodus 22:10–11 allowed a person charged with certain crimes to clear themselves by swearing innocence before God, relying on the fact that no one who truly feared God would risk a false oath.

In the Westminster Confession of Faith and other Reformation-era confessions, entire chapters are devoted to the gravity of oath-taking.

Jesus warned against casual, everyday swearing (Matthew 5:33–37), but this condemnation applied to trivial or manipulative oaths, not the proper covenantal uses (such as in a court or for public office).

Competing Worldviews

Of course, this raises the question of those who take an oath on a non-biblical text—like the Bhagavad Gita. After all, Hinduism posits a fundamentally different worldview than Christianity, a contrast that is not just philosophical but also deeply rooted in our understanding of reality and accountability.

In many expressions of Hindu philosophy, distinctions are be regarded as illusory. This framework differs sharply from the biblical assumption of a personal Creator-God who not only sets moral absolutes but also holds individuals accountable.

Is Taking an Oath on The Bhagavad Gita Logical?

Meanwhile, a strictly atheistic or impersonal outlook similarly undermines the concept of a binding oath because if reality is merely random and impersonal, there is no transcendent Being to hold a person accountable. Under such a system, the oath reduces to a “free floating” non-binding personal pledge, lacking the self-invoked curse implied by the biblical tradition.

Now, let’s look at this logically. Fundamentally, Hinduism posits oneness. As individuals, our souls are compared to a drop of water and liberation at death to its merging into the vast ocean, which represents the supreme impersonal soul. Reality, then, is oneness without distinctions. All is one. Any distinctions in this life are “Maya” or illusion.

In fact, Hinduism posits pure contingency in metaphysics as well as pure irrationalism in epistemology. Remember, abstract, “open-ended” possibility in metaphysics and ultimate mystery in Hindu epistemology are involved in each other. I would also say that in Hindu ethics, this consists of the outright denial of God’s right to issue any commandment for mankind.

Further, if all is one, there are no distinctions. This means there are no class distinctions. Logical distinctions like A and B cannot be separated. Pretty important concept if we want to use the law of contradiction. Also then, conceptual class distinctions like right and wrong cannot be made. Practical class distinctions like good guys and bad guys cannot be made. All is one, right?

I could go on, but I hope you see the issue here. As a side note, it would be necessary for a law enforcement officer to have class categories like good and evil or guilty and innocent. That said, a challenge then emerges: can an appeal to polytheism, or a purely impersonal force, carry the same weight of moral sanction as an oath appealing to the sovereign, personal God of Scripture?

Historically, America’s founders assumed the biblical God when speaking of “divine” accountability. They recognized the seriousness of oath-taking precisely because they believed in one supreme Lawgiver who rewards and punishes.

Tolerance But Not Universal Tolerance

To be clear, acknowledging that oaths historically invoke the Christian God does not mandate a top-down theocracy or compel everyone to be Christian per se. While the U.S. Constitution forbids denominational religious tests, during the Colonial period, many states required Trinitarian oaths for magistrates, which meant that individuals had to swear an oath affirming their belief in the Trinity in order to hold public office.

Some of the states that required Trinitarian oaths for magistrates during this period include:

1. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Bay Colony required a Trinitarian oath for all public officials, including magistrates, as early as 1631.
2. Connecticut: The Connecticut Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1639.
3. New Haven: The New Haven Colony, which later merged with Connecticut, required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1639.
4. Maryland: The Maryland Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1649, although this requirement was later relaxed.
5. Virginia: The Virginia Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1658, although this requirement was later repealed.
6. New York: The New York Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1665, although this requirement was later relaxed.
7. New Jersey: The New Jersey Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1676.
8. Delaware: The Delaware Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1682.
9. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1693, although this requirement was later relaxed.
10. North Carolina: The North Carolina Colony required a Trinitarian oath for magistrates and other public officials in 1698.

So then a paradox emerges when one swears by a text or deity that does not affirm the binding authority of that oath in the same sense Scripture does.

The Bible’s position is exclusive: “All the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens” (Psalm 96:5). Christians believe the biblical worldview alone provides the ultimate consistency for moral and legal accountability.

The Core Issue: Foundations

When we lament modern examples of judicial activism or revolutionary anarchy, we are often reacting to the symptoms rather than the disease. Washington pinpointed the root malady: destroy the religious foundation that gives meaning to the oath, and the core of law and order collapses.

If the oath is trivialized… if there is no transcendent, personal Judge to whom individuals answer… then moral and legal standards become fluid. What was wrong yesterday becomes right today.

By contrast, the Founders understood that a solemn oath invokes God’s blessing or curse: truthfulness and faithfulness bring divine favor; perjury or betrayal merit divine judgment, highlighting the importance of upholding these standards.

Changing Worldviews

Kash Patel’s decision to take his oath on the Bhagavad Gita highlights the evolving nature of American public life and the encroachment of religious pluralism. Thankfully, our Constitution protects such freedom, even for those of non-Christian persuasions. Yet, historically, the oath’s meaning has always been tied to the God revealed in Scripture.

Removing or dismissing that biblical assumption as optional is not merely a benign shift. It calls into question the very bedrock upon which the founders believed truth and accountability rest. As our culture grows more pluralistic, we might remember that the oath, at its core, historically assumed a covenant with the God of the Bible.

Removing that foundation risks losing the very heart of what an oath was always meant to be—a solemn, binding promise made in the sight of the One who holds life and truth in His hands.

Christianity is in a Class of its Own

What’s the bottom line here? Well, Christianity, at its core, offers a worldview of absolute personalism in which the eternal, self-sufficient God creates and sustains everything, giving meaning, purpose, and coherence to all of life.

This stands in stark contrast to the Hindu interpretation of reality, which posits an impersonal, random universe where concepts like morality, logic, and genuine human freedom struggle to find a consistent foundation. The Christian teaching that God is both personal and sovereign introduces a framework that honors human responsibility while underscoring our dependence on a Creator whose authority undergirds every fact and every domain of knowledge.

Beyond its foundational theism, Christianity also distinguishes itself from other major religions. Many faiths either posit an impersonal force or propose a personal deity who remains inaccessible in terms of true self-revelation and sustaining grace.

In contrast, the Christian God not only acts in history but speaks directly into it through inspired Scripture. This divine self-disclosure answers humanity’s most profound questions about morality and meaning without collapsing under its own contradictions or leaving us adrift with purely human rules and rituals.

On top of that, biblical teaching uniquely addresses guilt and human brokenness by emphasizing grace over works. While Hinduism relies on mystical insight in reaching the divine, Christianity proclaims that our acceptance with God depends on what He has done for us in Christ. This puts Christianity in a class of its own as it offers not just a hopeful philosophy but a life-giving relationship rooted in the historic person and redemptive work of Jesus.

Coherent and Transformative

Lastly, as followers of Christ we live and serve in environments that are often skeptical or dismissive of Christianity’s claims. Thankfully, as Christians, we have the opportunity to demonstrate, in love and with patience, how a truly personal Creator provides the only sufficient basis for knowledge, morality, and purpose.

In affirming that the choice is not among countless worldviews but rather between the biblical God and every other impersonal alternative, believers can articulate and embody a faith that is both coherent and transformative… conclusively showing that Christianity stands alone, without any real competitors in its “class.”

The post Was Kash Patel’s Recent Oath… Taken On The Bhagavad Gita… Historically American Or Even Logical? appeared first on Off The Grid News.

Source: https://www.offthegridnews.com/religion/was-kash-patels-recent-oath-taken-on-the-bhagavad-gita-historically-american-or-even-logical/