New York City, New York

A Ceremony That Meant More Than It Claimed

The swearing-in of New York City’s new mayor on a Quran was presented as a harmless symbol of inclusion, a private expression of personal belief with no bearing on public duty. That framing is dishonest. Public oaths are never private acts. They are civic rituals that signal continuity, allegiance, and the moral source from which authority is claimed. When that source shifts, so does the meaning of the office itself.

For over two centuries, American public life has been shaped by a broadly Christian moral framework. Not because the Constitution establishes a church, but because the people who built the nation believed that liberty required virtue, and virtue required a transcendent moral law. The oath of office was never about personal spirituality alone. It was about anchoring civil authority to a moral order that stood above the state.

Why Symbols in Government Matter

Defenders of the ceremony insist that “it’s just a book” and that any religious text should be equally acceptable in a pluralistic society. That argument collapses under even modest historical scrutiny. Symbols teach. Rituals catechize. What leaders elevate in public forms the moral imagination of the nation.

The American oath tradition emerged from a worldview shaped by biblical Christianity. Concepts like inalienable rights, equal justice under law, and limited government were not neutral abstractions. They flowed from the belief that man is created in the image of God and accountable to a higher authority than kings or bureaucrats. Replace that foundation and the entire structure eventually follows.

Islam and the American Order Are Fundamentally Incompatible

This is not a discussion about personal sincerity or individual Muslims as neighbors or citizens. It is a sober assessment of worldviews. Islam is not merely a private set of spiritual beliefs. It is a totalizing religious, legal, and political system that claims authority over every sphere of life, including the state.

The American order was built on a Christian worldview that sharply distinguishes between God and Caesar, church and state, conscience and coercion. That distinction is not incidental. It is foundational. Islam, by its own classical sources and historical practice, rejects this separation. Sharia is not optional theology. It is law. Political authority in Islam is not restrained by natural law or inalienable rights grounded in the image of God, but by submission to a religious-legal system that governs belief, speech, and public life.

This incompatibility is not theoretical. In Muslim-majority nations, Christianity is routinely restricted, surveilled, or criminalized. Churches are closed or banned, conversion is punished, evangelism is outlawed, and equal citizenship for Christians is denied. There is no reciprocal vision of religious liberty. The idea that Islam peacefully coexists with competing moral authorities is a Western projection, not an Islamic principle.

To pretend these systems are morally interchangeable is not tolerance. It is historical ignorance. A civilization that refuses to acknowledge when a worldview contradicts its own moral foundations is not being generous. It is surrendering clarity, coherence, and ultimately sovereignty.

The Myth of Harmonious Multiculturalism

America was not founded as a multicultural experiment where all religions were expected to coexist as equal moral authorities. It was founded as a nation with a shared moral culture rooted in Christianity, while allowing freedom of conscience within that framework. Those are not the same thing.

When a nation moves from one established religion to so-called pluralism, it is not entering a neutral phase. It is transitioning toward another religion. Pluralism is not the absence of faith in public life. It is the label given to a society in the middle of changing its religion. It is the staging ground between one moral order and another.

The United States was once unmistakably a Christian nation in its moral assumptions, legal reasoning, public symbols, and civic language. Pluralism did not emerge as a peaceful coexistence of beliefs. It emerged as the excuse for replacing Christianity as the nation’s formative faith while pretending no replacement was occurring.

The modern claim that all religions can seamlessly coexist in the public square ignores history and human nature. Some systems demand dominance. Some deny reciprocity. When a culture refuses to defend its own foundations, it does not become neutral. It becomes vulnerable.

Multiculturalism has functioned as a one-way street. Christianity is systematically removed from schools, public ceremonies, and civic language in the name of tolerance, while other religions are elevated as symbols of progress. The only religion treated as uniquely intolerable is Christianity, precisely because it has been the religion of America and must be dismantled for the transformation to succeed. This is not fairness. It is displacement.

The Pattern Is Not Isolated

The swearing-in of officials on the Quran is not an isolated or accidental development. It is part of a broader Western pattern that has accelerated over the last two decades.

Across Europe, at least a dozen Muslim politicians, including senior officials in the United Kingdom, have taken oaths of office on the Quran. These ceremonies have been publicly defended as symbols of inclusion, even as public concern has risen over officials signaling loyalty to Islam or foreign moral frameworks rather than the historic values of Western nations.

In the United States, Mamdani is now the ninth high-profile American politician to be sworn in on a Quran. Members of Congress including Keith Ellison (D–MN), André Carson (D–IN), Ilhan Omar (D–MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D–MI) have all taken their oaths of office on Qurans rather than the Bible that historically symbolized America’s Christian moral inheritance.

This pattern extends beyond Congress. Mayors in Dearborn, Michigan; Teaneck, New Jersey; Prospect Park, New Jersey; and Cambridge, Massachusetts have also taken their oaths on Qurans. These acts are routinely framed as harmless personal choices, yet collectively they represent a clear shift in public ritual and moral signaling.

What is changing is not merely the book used in a ceremony, but the civilizational assumptions beneath the ceremony itself. Oaths once grounded in a shared Christian moral order are being replaced by pluralist symbolism that denies the very idea of a unifying national faith.

A Precedent With Consequences

The concern is not that one mayor chose one book on one day. The concern is what that choice normalizes. Precedents shape expectations. Expectations shape policy. Policy shapes culture.

When civic rituals detach from the moral tradition that gave birth to American liberty, the result is not greater freedom but confusion about what the nation stands for at all. A society that cannot name its own moral center will eventually be ruled by those who can.

What America Must Remember

The United States does not survive on procedure alone. It survives on shared convictions about truth, justice, and human dignity. Those convictions did not emerge from nowhere. They were cultivated within a Christian moral vision that restrained power and honored conscience.

Religious liberty was never meant to erase America’s spiritual inheritance. It was meant to protect it from coercion while allowing it to flourish. When leaders treat that inheritance as disposable, they are not expanding freedom. They are severing the roots that made freedom possible.

References

• The Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison, Jay)
• John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
• Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
• Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
• U.S. Constitution and Founding-Era State Constitutions

‍

Photo by RDNE Stock project: