Americans have lost touch with the ideals of
America's Founding Fathers. The
Founders of this nation intended to establish Christianity.
In order to make sure that the Civil Government would foster
Christianity and not atheism, it
was prohibited for any but Christians to hold political office.
(If you want to create a Christian society, such a requirement
only makes sense.) This did not officially change until 1961.
Like virtually all the state constitutions,
the Delaware constitution of 1776 established a Christian State
by requiring:
Art. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of
either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . .
. shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to
wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and
in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God,
Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine
inspiration."[1]
In other words, only Christians could hold any public office
under the Delaware constitution. Oaths of office in that day
required one to affirm - either explicitly or implicitly - that
he was "under God." This was the case in all
of the states, in varying degrees of doctrinal specificity.[2]
It was done because the Bible was understood to
require it. Legislators used to insert Biblical references in
the margins of the statute books to prove the validity of their
laws.[3] In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court
announced with pride that the purpose of the Founders of this
land was "the establishment of the Christian
religion,"[4] and this ideal was
universally held. The men who signed the
Constitution lived in this "Christian
consensus."[5] They understood the
Biblical requirements, and they acted in terms of them.
I too want to publicly acknowledge those requirements.
George Washington, "the Father of his country,"
made this
proclamation:
Whereas it is
the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence
of Almighty God, to
obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor . . . .
This is a duty all politicians must observe. A person who
says "I can't acknowledge God," should not hold public
office. This would be contrary to "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Who Should You Vote For?
Before we can cast our vote for a candidate, does the Bible
require that the candidate be a member of a
particular political party, or does the Bible require that
the candidate be a faithful believer?
I believe the Bible sets forth two general criteria for
office-holders. First, he must be a Christian. Second, he must
be able to take a Biblical oath of office. An
atheist could not take the oath of office because they
cannot take an oath of any kind. An "oath" is a
promise made to and in the presence of God.
If the Bible says that all politicians must be Christians,
then it logically follows that Christians can only vote for
candidates who are Christian. In either case, the Bible ought to
change the way Christians do politics. Here's what the Bible
says (in a minute we'll look at what the Founding Fathers said):
Exodus 18:21 Moreover you shall
select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of
truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be
rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties,
and rulers of tens.
Deuteronomy 1:15 So I took the
heads of your tribes, wise and knowledgeable men, and made
them heads over you, leaders of thousands, leaders of
hundreds, leaders of fifties, leaders of tens, and officers
for your tribes.
Deuteronomy 16:18-20 You shall
appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD
your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall
judge the people with just judgment. {19}
You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality,
nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and
twists the words of the righteous. {20} You
shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and
inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
2 Samuel 23:1-3 He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a
faithful saying: If a man desires the position of an overseer,
he desires a good work. {2} An
overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to
teach; {3} not given to wine, not
violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome,
not covetous; {4} one who rules his
own house well, having his children in submission with all
reverence {5} (for if a man does not
know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the
church of God?); {6} not a novice,
lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same
condemnation as the devil. {7} Moreover
he must have a good testimony among those who are outside,
lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I
left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things
that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I
commanded you; {6} if a man is
blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of dissipation or insubordination. {7} For
an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not
self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not
violent, not greedy for money, {8} but
hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy,
self-controlled, {9} holding fast
the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able,
by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who
contradict.
Seldom in the recent past have Christians had the opportunity
to vote for such men (or even such women!).
But do these verses have anything to do with who we vote for
in the United States of America? The Founding Fathers understood
these requirements to have abiding validity in our day. These
Bible verses should change the way we vote.
| Rolling
Stone is a very left-leaning
magazine, whose opinions can often be
safely ignored. The facts
revealed in a recent article, "The
Harder They Fall." however,
cannot be ignored:
.
. . acting leader Roy Blunt had
attempted to slip tobacco-friendly
language into a Homeland Security
authorization bill while having an
extramarital affair with a Phillip
Morris lobbyist. . . .
The
Missouri congressman three years ago
ditched his wife for a Phillip Morris
lobbyist named Abigail Perlman, whom
he subsequently married; it's been a
profitable marriage, as Phillip Morris
(now called Altria) has donated more
than $270,000 to committees tied to
Blunt. Meanwhile, Blunt's son Andrew
is also an Altria lobbyist, and
Blunt's other son, Matt, is governor
of his home state -- elected,
conveniently, with the help of funds
from Altria.
Blunt's
hands are also wet with the blood of
the Abramoff scandal; as party whip he
co-signed (with DeLay) letters on
behalf of a Louisiana Indian tribe
represented by Abramoff. Meanwhile,
Abramoff is one of the first names on
the list of 2004 individual donors to
Blunt's PAC, the sickeningly named Rely
on Your Beliefs fund.
Too many Christians
today place their allegiance in the
Republican Party rather than Biblical
Principles.
Too many Americans
today have bought into the myth of
"the
separation of church and state,"
and the myth that the Constitution requires
government to be secular.
Roy Blunt is not on
trial in this campaign; America is. |
|
|
Delivering an "Election Day
Sermon" before the Massachusetts Legislature in 1791,
Chandler Robbins declared,
How constantly do we find it inculcated in the sacred
writings, that rulers be "just men -- fearers of God --
haters of covetousness." That they "shake
their hands from holding bribes," because a gift
blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the
righteous."[6]
Political bribery and corruption is one of the biggest issues
in politics today, even if it's not one of the most talked
about.
From the Portsmouth, New Hampshire
newspaper, May 24, 1800 [7]:
On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was
opened in this town. The Hon Judge [Supreme Court Justice]
Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge
delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge . . . .
Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced
as being necessary to good government, good order, and good
laws, for "when the righteous are in authority, the
people rejoice" [Proverbs 29:2] . . .
After the charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. [Timothy] Alden
addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent, well-adapted
prayer.
The New York Times would undoubtedly not find this
news "fit
to print." Supreme Court Justices are not as likely to
be quoting Scripture, either. And too many Americans will vote
for the politician that promises them the most goodies.
Public schools taught what Noah Webster wrote in his
textbooks:
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting
for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God
commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in
the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government
depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the
citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be
made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local
purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to
execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on
unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated
or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be
because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad
men to make and administer the laws. [8]
And in another text,
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide.
Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the
candidate -- look to his character. . . . It is alleged by men
of loose principles or defective views of the subject that
religion and morality are not necessary or important
qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures
teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be
men "who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear
God, men of truth, hating covetousness" [Exodus 18:21] .
. . [I]t is to the neglect of this rule of
conduct in our citizens that we must ascribe the multiplied
frauds, breaches of trust, peculations [white-collar larceny]
and embezzlements of public property which astonish even
ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which
disgrace a republican government.[9]
Sam Adams would be appalled at those in
our day who say a leader's "private
life" should play no part in our evaluation of him as a
political leader:
He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is,
or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country.
[P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . .
. Nothing is more essential . . . than that
all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of
unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious
concerning the [private] characters of public men.[10]
Gouverneur Morris signed the Constitution believing that
There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society
is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to
foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers,
chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption
to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise
authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust.
They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell
honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their
country. . . . But the most important of all
lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that
rejects the precepts of religion. [11]
John Witherspoon signed a Declaration of Independence from
Britain, not from God:
Those, therefore, who pay no regard to
religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the
legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity
and will soon pay dear for their folly.[12]
But not just the voters. Innocent victims may suffer abuse
from those we send to Washington. Assuming Monica Lewinsky was a
person of good morals, did Christians do her a favor by putting
Bill Clinton in the Oval Office? How will hundreds of millions
of people experience the consequences of Clinton's sell-out to
the Chinese government for contributions to the Democratic
Party?
John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers,
and was appointed first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
by President Washington. He accurately summed up the meaning of
God's commandments:
Providence has given to our people the
choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the
privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and
prefer Christians for their rulers." [13]
James Madison, declared in 1785:
"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil
Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour
of the Universe. . . ."[14]
If the Bible says that all politicians must be Christians,
then it logically follows that Christians can only vote for
candidates who are Christian (or they would be saying
"NO" to God's requirements). Chief Justice Jay's
suggestion is so politically incorrect that even most Christians
don't agree with it. I have heard respected Christians --
following Martin Luther -- say they would rather vote for a
"politically competent" unbeliever than a
"politically incompetent" Christian. This is
idolatrous nonsense. No matter what kind of Constitutions and
laws we have, secular men will secularize them. This should be
the most obvious lesson of American history. We often hear it
said that ours is a "government of laws, not of men." This
is a fallacy. Bad men corrupt good laws. Good men will rule
well in the absence of good laws. A man of integrity, virtue,
and the Character
of Christ with little political experience is to be
preferred over a "seasoned politician" who is a
Secular Humanist. The Bible says this; the Founding Fathers said
this; Secular Humanists in Washington and the media disagree.
Guess what . . . ?
We must ignore what the secularists say.
WHO CAN TAKE AN OATH
A Sacred Act of Worship
The Puritans sought to pattern civil law after
Biblical Law. Therefore, for the Puritans, all oaths were
"test oaths." These oaths were the foundation of
Christian Government.
The Bible says that only men of the Faith can take any oath
genuinely. Only a believer can raise his right hand toward heaven, place his left hand on a Bible, and make a promise, "So help me, God." A true oath is one that is made in the Presence and
in the Name of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
says that swearing an oath is an act "of religious
worship"[1] and "the Name
of God only is that by which men ought to swear."[2]
This is why atheists were never allowed to testify in
court: oaths were sacred, witnessing to the authority of
God. How could an atheist take an oath? For an
atheist, every man is his own god. Secular Humanism says
"Man is the measure of all things." He never prays,
"So help me, God." As a result, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story observed, "infidels and
pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of
credit."![3]
A. A. Hodge, a well-known expositor of the
theology of the Reformation and Professor at Princeton, wrote in
1869 about the requirements of God's Law:
It is evident that none who believe in the true God can,
consistently with their integrity, swear by a false god. And
it is no less evident that it is dishonest for an atheist to
go through the form of swearing at all; or for an infidel to
swear with his hand upon the Christian Scriptures, thereby
professing to invoke a God in whose existence he does not
believe.[4]
The Founding Fathers took oaths this seriously; they would
not permit an atheist to take one. Oaths were sacred, witnessing
to the authority of God; how could an atheist take an oath?
John Locke believed in freedom for all Christian
denominations. But Locke did not believe the civil magistrate
should tolerate atheists. The constitution he drafted for
Carolina did not allow atheists to hold office. And
in his Essay on Toleration (1685), he specifically
exempted the atheist from the civil protection of toleration:
Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the
being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the
bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The
taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all;
besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and
destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion
whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.[5]
The French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville
came to America and published his observations in the famous
book Democracy in America. He observed the following
during his travels through the states:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be
called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New
York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of
God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to
admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had
destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what
he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without
any further comment. The New York Spectator of August
23d, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:
The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a
few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief
in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that
he had not before been aware that there was a man living who
did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief
constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of
justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian
country, where a witness had been permitted to testify
without such belief.[6]
The
Constitution did not require God to be stripped from
the law. Atheism has been imposed on the legal system by Secular
Humanists. One such Humanist, in an article which advocates one
last purging of religion from the law, has noted some of the
restrictions on atheists which existed long after the
Constitution was ratified.[7]
| Oaths to God to assume public office and
in judicial proceedings were inherited from England . .
. . Anyone who wanted to assume public office in England
or to testify in a court proceeding was required to do
so in the presence of Almighty God, according to the
teachings of the Holy Evangelists, and to kiss the
Bible.[156] According to
one English scholar, the purpose of the oath was to
provide the "highest possible security which
men in general can give for the truth of their
statements."[157]
Although the oath of office specified in the
Constitution does not include a reference to God,[158]
Presidents have appealed to the deity in their oaths
since the inauguration of George Washington.[159]
When President Washington completed his constitutional
oath of office, his hand placed on a Masonic Bible, he
added, spontaneously, "I swear, so help me
God" and then kissed the Bible.[160]
It is most likely that Washington borrowed this practice
from the English coronation ceremony, where the new King
would kneel at the altar, place his hands on the Bible,
swear the oath, and then kiss the Bible.[161]
Every President in modern times has sworn his oath
"so help me God."[162]
President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore
followed this tradition when they were sworn into office
on January 20, 1993.[163]
Similarly, under English common law, no one but a
believer in God and in a future state of rewards and
punishments could serve on a jury or testify as a
witness. The oath was taken on a Christian Bible, in
effect disqualifying non-Christians.[164]
The English courtroom was quite explicit as to the
consequences of perjury while under oath:
I charge thee, therefore, as thou will answer it to
the Great God, the judge of all the earth, that thou
do not dare to waver one tittle from the truth, upon
any account or pretense whatsoever; . . . for that God
of Heaven may justly strike thee into eternal flames
and make thee drop into the bottomless lake of fire
and brimstone, if thou offer to deviate the least from
the truth and nothing but the truth.[165]
This is the courtroom atmosphere America inherited.[166]
Consequently, in certain places in early America the
privilege of serving as a witness or on a jury was
expressly restricted to Christians.[167]
It is, therefore, not surprising that the South Carolina
Supreme Court is reported to have noted in 1848 that
"[i]n the courts over which we preside, we
daily acknowledge Christianity as the most solemn part
of our administration. A Christian witness, having no
religious scruples against placing his hand upon the
Book, is sworn upon the holy Evangelists -- the books
of the New Testament, which testify of our Savior's
birth, life, death and resurrection; this is so common
a matter that it is little thought of as an evidence
of the part which Christianity has in the common
law."[168]
In 1828, the Connecticut Supreme Court "ruled
that disbelievers in accountability to God or in an
afterlife were not competent witnesses."[169]
Indeed, as late as 1939, five states and the District of
Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a
disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional
states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to
attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired
by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.[170]
Oaths on the Bible are still standard fare in American
courtrooms today; witnesses, grand jurors, prospective
petit jurors, and interpreters are all asked to swear to
tell the truth, "so help me God."[171] |
What the Founding Fathers believed about
"infidels."
"Offenses Against God and Religion,"
William
Blackstone (1765). Showing the common understanding that the
integrity of the judicial system depends upon the participants'
belief in God.
What
Would John Jay Say Today?
NOTES
1.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.
xxii.i., cf. The Larger Catechism, Q. 108. [Back
to text]
2. Ibid., ch. xxii.ii; cf. Larger
Catechism Q. 108. (one of "the duties required in the
second commandment," citing "Deut. vi. 13. Thou shalt
fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his
name." (Emphasis in Catechism)). [Back
to text]
3. in William W. Story, ed., Life and
Letters of Joseph Story (Boston: Little & Brown, 1851)
vol. II, pp. 8-9. Cited in David Barton, Original Intent (Aledo,
TX: Wallbuilders, 1996) p. 38. "Credit," means here
"trust" (from the Latin, credo," I
believe"). [Return to text]
4. A.A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith,
287 (1869 [1978]). Hodge was a professor at Princeton, 1877-86.
[Back to text]
5.John Locke, Treatise of Civil
Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Chas. Sherman
ed., (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13. [Back
to text]
6. A. de Tocqueville, 1 The Republic of
the United States of America and Its Political Institutions,
Reviewed and Examined, 12 (H. Reeves, trans., 1851). Cited
in D. Barton, Myth of Separation, p. 81-82. [Back
to text]
7. Steven B. Epstein, "Rethinking the
Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism," 96 Columbia Law
Review 2083, 2110-12 (1996). [Back to
text]
Prof. Epstein's Notes
156.
See [Anson Phelps] Stokes & [Leo] Pfeffer,
[Church and State in the United States (1964)] at 489. [Back
to text]
157. Richard Whitcombe, An Enquiry into
Some of the Rules of Evidence Relating to the Incompetency of
Witnesses 38-39 (1824) [Back to text]
158. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8
(presidential oath); U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3 (federal
officers). These provisions do, however, require Presidents to
"swear (or affirm)" the specified oath and state that
officers "shall be bound by oath or affirmation," the
former in each instance implying appeal to the divinity. Id.;
U.S. Const. art II, § 1, cl. 8. [Back to
text]
159. Carl H. Esbeck, A Restatement of the
Supreme Court's Law of Religious Freedom: Coherence, Conflict,
or Chaos?, 70 Notre Dame L. Rev. 581, 604 n.83 (1995) (noting
the practice of taking the Presidential oath of office with the
added "so help me God" was started by George
Washington). [Back to text]
160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God
Bless the President": The Rhetoric of Inaugural Prayer
(1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State University
Library).] at 62. [Back to text]
161. See id. [Back
to text]
162. See 83 Cong. Rec. 316 (1937); 87
Cong. Rec. 189 (1941); 91 Cong. Rec. 364 (1945); 95 Cong. Rec.
477 (1949); 99 Cong. Rec. 451 (1953); 103 Cong. Rec. 805 (1957);
107 Cong. Rec. 1012 (1961); 111 Cong. Rec. 985 (1965); 115 Cong.
Rec. 1290 (1969); 119 Cong. Rec. 1659 (1973); 123 Cong. Rec.
1862 (1977); 127 Cong. Rec. 541 (1981); 131 Cong. Rec. 631
(1985); 135 Cong. Rec. S68 (daily ed. Jan 20, 1989); 139 Cong.
Rec. S56 (daily ed. Jan 20, 1993). [Back
to text]
163. See 139 Cong. Rec. S55-56 (daily ed.
Jan 20, 1993) (chronicling President Clinton and Vice President
Gore swearing their oaths). [Back to text]
164. See Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note
[156] at 489. [Back to text]
165. Lady Lisle's Trial, 11 How. St. Tr.
298, 325 (1685), quoted in 6 John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials
at Common Law § 1816, at 383 (James J. Chadbourne ed., 1976).
[Back to text]
166. Indeed, President Washington
emphasized the religious nature of the oath in his farewell
address: "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for
property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of
investigation in Courts of Justice?" Note, A
Reconsideration of the Sworn Testimony Requirement: Securing
Truth in the Twentieth Century, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1681, 1686 n.23
(1977) (citing V. Paltsits, Washington's Farewell Address 151
(1935)). An early American court description of the purpose of
the oath follows:
The purpose of the oath is not to call the attention of God
to the witness, but the attention of the witness to god; not
to call upon Him to punish the false-swearer, but on the
witness to remember that He will assuredly do so. By thus
laying hold of the conscience of the witness, and appealing to
his sense of accountability, the law best insures the
utterance of truth.
Clinton v. State, 33 Ohio St. 27, 33 (1877). [Back
to text]
167. See Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note
[156], at 489. [Back to text]
168. [Morton] Borden, [Jews, Turks, and
Infidels (1984)], at 114; see also O'Reilly v. People, 86 N.Y.
154, 157-58 (1881):
Some form of an oath has always been required, . . . and
the sanctions of religion add their solemn and binding
force to the act . . . . While these sanctions have grown
elastic, and gradually accommodated themselves to differences
of creed, and varieties of beliefs, . . . yet through all
changes and under all forms the religious element has not been
utterly destroyed.
(citation omitted) (emphasis added). [Back
to text]
169. Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note
[156], at 489. [Back to text]
170. See id. at 490. It is interesting to
note that in 1901, the United States Supreme Court upheld a
federal statute requiring that the testimony of Chinese
witnesses, in some cases, be corroborated by white men due to
"'loose notions entertained by [Chinese] witnesses of the
obligation of an oath.'" Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S.
486, 494 (1901) (quoting Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130
U.S. 581, 598 (1889)) (citation omitted). [Back
to text]
171. See Federal Judicial Center, Forms of
Oaths for Use in the United States District Courts 2 (1976);
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina forms (on file with the Columbia Law Review)
[hereinafter E.D.N.C. Oaths]. The religious purpose of the oath
is still manifest. See Society of Separationists v. Herman, 939
F.2d. 1207, 1221 (5th Cir. 1991) (Garwood, J,. dissenting)
(asserting that the Constitution recognizes an oath, unlike an
affirmation, to be a religious test); Lackey v. Mesa Petroleum
Co., 559 P.2d. 1192, 1193 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976) ("An oath is
an appeal by a person to God, to witness the truth of what he
declares."); 6 Wigmore, supra note 165, § 1816, at 382
(recognizing that the purpose of the oath is to remind a witness
"strongly of the divine punishment somewhere in store for
false swearing"). [Back to text]
Is
it a SIN to Vote for Roy Blunt?
Questions Christians Should Ask Before They Vote
NOTES
1.
Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20,
1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975). Commended by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity
Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 469-70, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 516
(1892). The Constitutions of All the States According to the
Latest Amendments, Lexington: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817, p.
181, cited in D. Barton, The Myth of Separation, 23 (6th
ed., 1992). [Back to text]
2. Some states required membership in a
specific denomination; others just required a belief in
Protestantism or Christianity in general. [Back
to text]
3. For an example, see John Cotton, "An
Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now
Established, Printed in London in 1641," Collection of
the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835
in 2 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117 (No. 2;
Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law"). [Back
to text]
4. Rector, etc., of Holy
Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 466, 12 S.Ct.
511 at 514, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892). [Back to
text]
5. F. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?
The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture 110
(1976). [Back to text]
6. Chandler Robbins, A Sermon Preached
Before His Excellency John Hancock, Esq and the Honourable the
Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the Day of General Election
(Boston: Thomas Adams, 1791), p. 18. [Return
to text]
7. United States Oracle, see also The
Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States,
1789-1800, Maeva Marcus, ed., (NY: Columbia Univ. Press,
1988) vol. III, p. 436. For a discussion of the Founding
Fathers' views on the "private lives" of candidates,
see David Barton, Original Intent, (Aledo, TX:
Wallbuilders, 1996) pp. 330ff. [Return to
text]
8. Noah Webster, History of the United
States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832) p.6. [Return
to text]
9. Noah Webster, Letters to a Young
Gentleman Commencing His Education (New Haven, S. Converse,
1823) pp. 18-19, Letter 1. [Return to text]
10. Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel
Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., (NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons,
1907), vol III, pp. 236-37, to James Warren on Nov. 4, 1775.
[Return to text]
11. Collections of the New York Historical
Society for the Year 1821 (NY: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821) pp.
32,34, from "An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the
New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris,
(President,) 4th September, 1816." [Return
to text]
12. Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh,
J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from "A Sermon Delivered at a
Public Thanksgiving after Peace." [Return
to text]
13. The Correspondence
and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New
York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October
12, 1816]. [Return to Top] [Return
to text]
14. The Papers of James Madison,
Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol.
8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120. [Back
to text]