Should People Have to Defend Not Taking an Oath to God?

In Frederick County, Maryland, new county commissioner Kai Hagen refused to swear an oath declaring belief in the existence of God. This has ruffled some feathers and there are people demanding that Hagen explain himself and why he wouldn't take the oath. Hagen defends his actions on the separation of church and state, but critics are unimpressed.

Joe Volz writes:

Whether or not he decides to take the oath is important, in my view. It gives voters an insight into his attitude about church-state relations.

The oath is certainly not required. Thank God for that. There should not be, and is not, any religious test for running for office. Yet the issue of what role religion should, or should not, play at all levels of government has been debated for centuries. One of the reasons our first white settlers came to this country was to escape religious persecution.

Actually, there is evidence that people came to America more for economic than religious reasons, but the idea that America was founded by religious minorities fleeing persecution is a comforting myth to those who are currently a religious majority trying to justify their own persecution of minorities today.

Does Joe Volz fit in with this group? I don't know, but it's curious that he praises the fact that there should not be any test for running for office, but then turns around and demands that an elected official explain why they don't take an oath supporting God:

[Alderman] Alan [Imhoff] agrees that separation of church and state "was one of many things that helped this country" but says a belief in a Supreme Being by most of our citizens was an even larger influence.

[Alderman] Kip [Koontz] says, "While I believe that our founders did not codify one faith or one religious belief to be that of the nation, I do not believe they codified into law the belief that we have no belief in God, either."

There is no right or wrong answer here. But it seems to this commentator that if a public servant declines to take an oath supporting God, he should be more than willing to explain his position.

Quite frankly, it sounds like Joe Volz, Alan Imhoff, and Kip Koontz are disturbed at the prospect that Kai Hagen might be an atheist, agnostic, or something like that (I have absolutely no idea if is or not). Why should a public servant have to explain why they won't take an oath supporting and affirming the existence of God when being a public servant has nothing to do with religion or church? Kai Hagen was elected a county commissioner, not county pastor. Swearing or not swearing an oath to god doesn't appear to have any impact on any of their public duties. It doesn't even necessarily relate to their views on church/state separation, since supporters of separation will not automatically refuse to swear.

It's difficult to read Joe Volz's column as anything other than a subtle attempt to encourage a witch hunt against people who don't believe in gods or who don't believe in the same way that the majority does. I can imagine similar columns being written in the past to encourage people to question the sexuality of a "confirmed bachelor" whose behavior doesn't fit in with expected stereotypes and who might not be as heterosexual as he's supposed to be.