When Can the State Compel Someone to Swear an Oath?
Within the Reformed tradition, oaths in court or for public office are generally accepted as lawful acts of civic responsibility. Oaths of allegiance are not typically treated differently. But what if someone believes that it is wrong to swear an oath of allegiance to his country? May the state require someone to take such an oath as a precondition for citizenship, or for practicing a profession, or for some other benefit?
This question recently arose before the Alberta Court of Appeal in Wirring v Law Society of Alberta. Mr. Wirring, a Sikh law graduate, objected to the mandatory Oath of Allegiance required for admission to the Alberta bar. The oath stated (at the time): “I swear I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
Mr. Wirring argued that this language, and in particular, the comments about bearing “true allegiance” to the Queen, demanded a form of devotion inconsistent with his faith. Mr. Wirring explained that his religion requires sole allegiance to Akal Purakh and to his spiritual guides. Hence, swearing allegiance to any another political or religious entity, such as the Crown, would force him to act contrary to his convictions.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The lower court concluded that there was no infringement of Mr. Wirring’s religious freedom because Mr. Wirring misunderstood the oath. According to the lower court, the oath was not really about personal loyalty to the Queen, which would run contrary to Mr. Wirring’s religious beliefs, but was essentially a commitment to Canada’s constitutional order and the rule of law.
The lower court effectively set aside Mr. Wirring’s interpretation of the oath and substituted it with its own interpretation. The lower court basically said, “No, Mr. Wirring, you’re just reading the oath wrong. You don’t owe the Queen any personal loyalty, so it’s all good! No Charter violation here!”
The lower court’s reasoning left much to be desired. Suppose that the lower court came across an analogous situation to Mr. Wirring’s, where the government forced a potential hire to wear a rainbow flag pin as a condition of employment. The potential hire, who happens to be a Christian, concludes that wearing the pin would violate his conscience because, in his understanding, it endorses a worldview contrary to his.
Now suppose the court, while reviewing the matter, simply reinterpreted the rainbow flag pin to mean something slightly different. The court could say, “Well, no sir, you’re just interpreting the rainbow pin incorrectly. It doesn’t promote any particular lifestyle or belief. Objectively, it’s just a symbol for inclusion.” Can you see what’s going on here? The court in this hypothetical avoids recognizing a Charter violation by reinterpreting the rainbow pin.
Christian Legal Fellowship, intervening in Mr. Wirring’s appeal, rightly pointed out this exact problem at the Alberta Court of Appeal and argued that Mr. Wirring’s interpretation of the oath must be respected when assessing whether his freedom of religion was violated.
The Court of Appeal Decision
Ultimately, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that because Mr. Wirring sincerely believed his faith required sole allegiance to his religion, and because the oath required allegiance to the Queen, the requirement, objectively speaking, interfered with his religious commitments. Since the Court of Appeal felt that the infringement against Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion was not justifiable, it declared the Oath of Allegiance requirement unconstitutional.
Conclusion
For most Christians, especially within the Reformed tradition, the Oath of Allegiance poses no moral dilemma. As John Calvin explained in the Institutes of Christian Religion, scripture permits oaths so long as they are true, necessary, and subject to God’s law.
Yet the Apostle Paul sternly warns in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 against pressuring those with weaker consciences to act against their convictions. As Christians, we are called to be charitable with other believers, bearing with one another in love.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Wirring accommodates persons who sincerely, though perhaps mistakenly, believe that swearing an oath of allegiance is wrong.
