What they didn't teach us in history class. Also known as the parent of Ecclesiocentrism! Note the * link. This is particularly germain to a discussion on board earlier, wherein it was asked if an Atheist would qualify to take the oath of Presidential office. Per this information, the answer was intended at the inception of this country: No!



GOVERNMENT AND THEOCRACY
The State must be Openly, Publicly, and Officially Christian






Modern "liberals" dislike the Puritan view of Christian statesmanship because of its hostility toward the Messianic State. A Biblical "reconstruction" of the State strips away its power, its bureaucracies, and its prestige, and in its place creates decentralized personal responsibility and a distrust of political power.

Modern "evangelicals" also dislike Puritan statesmanship because it looks to all of the Bible - including the Old Testament - for binding authority on the "reconstruction" of politics. Both "liberals" and "evangelicals" are alarmed at the "intolerance" of the Puritans.

There is no escaping this fact: the Biblical doctrine of oaths and the Puritan implementation of these laws resulted in *oaths which could not be taken honestly by those who were not Christian. This meant that non-Christians could not hold political office. The word most often used to describe this situation is "theocracy." I believe a mature Christian statesman, consistent with Biblical teachings, will advocate Christian Theocracy and oppose "pluralism."

Theocracy or Pluralism: Which is Evil?
One morning you walk out front to get your newspaper and you see that your pagan next-door neighbor has built an altar on his front lawn and is preparing to rip the heart out of his young daughter's chest as a gift to his gods. Will you rescue the child -- and thereby "impose" your religious values on your "devout" neighbor -- or are you a "pluralist?" Will your religion govern all of your life, or will you keep it in a spiritual compartment reserved for a church building on Sunday mornings?

As we will see on this page, the Puritans believed that all of life should be governed by their Christianity. Even civil government was to be governed by their religion. For the Puritans, Christian statesmanship was Theocratic statesmanship.

Many people today join the Supreme Court in opposing the fusion of religion and government.[1] Many people today view "pluralism" as "enlightened" and "democratic," and "Theocracy" as an unmitigated evil.[2] People fear that "Theocracy" will mean the denial of civil rights and the breeding of a spirit of "intolerance." Secularists bemoan the

turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of the government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.[3]

But the Crusades and the Inquisition and the KKK and the Religious Right combined are but a drop in the bucket compared to the denial of civil rights occasioned by the Secular State. Secularism, not Christianity, has made the 20th century the most violent century in recorded history.[4] Everyone can see that the Inquisition and the Crusades were evil; only a few have come to see secular government as an even greater evil.[5]

Philosophers sometimes speak of "epistemological self-consciousness." It means being consistent with what you profess to believe. When Christians are consistent, they grow out of Inquisitions and Crusades. But when Atheists are consistent - and the 20th century has become more and more consistently atheistic - well . . . God says "all they that hate Me love death." (Proverbs 8:36) Secularism brings death. Secularism means Genocide.

Beyond Pluralism
"The Divine Right of Kings" was universally held several centuries ago. But the inner logic of monarchy led to a struggle for human rights. Now we have moved away from kings and royalty toward government "of, by, and for the people." And we think "pluralist democracy" is so much better than the "divine right of kings."

But the inner logic of Pluralism has led to violent crime, widespread ignorance, rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases among 14-year olds, graphic violence and perverted sex as "entertainment," ubiquitous divorce and illegitimacy, and the inability of our government or leaders to make a moral judgment and say that all of this wrong. After all, we mustn't "impose our values" on others. Indeed, when Christians attempt to "impose their values" on child-killers by praying in front of their homes or protesting in front of their clinics, they are met with armed force in the form of the State's police and military. In an effort to avoid "Theocracy," the Christians are arrested for violating the "civil rights" of the abortionists.

Civil rights are only violated when one group of people claim the moral right to a monopoly of violence over others. Is the answer to human rights violations to strip our government and culture of the moral absolutes Christianity provides? I don't think so.

Christians Must Defend Theocracy
America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation.[6] The ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court are not telling us the truth, "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Those who left Europe did so in obedience to God, in order to further His Kingdom. The establishment of civil government was seen as a tool in the process of establishing the Christian religion in the New World.

Most Christians do not understand this point. Most Christians are ignorant of history, and they believe that in the here-and-now Christianity should be an essentially "private" matter, and should not have too much influence in politics or "public" life. They believe this even if they deny the doctrine of the ACLU known as the "separation of church and state." Even politically active pro-life people will deny that the Bible is an infallible standard for all of culture, not just "religion" or "moral" issues.

There is no neutrality. If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. We must come to grips with this fact.

The Puritans who settled this continent were far more aware of what the Bible requires than are most Christians today. The Puritans recognized that Christianity requires government to be Trinitarian, characterized by a public and official Theocracy.[7]

Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades and Inquisitions; Biblical Theocracy -- the decentralized Rule of God's Law -- is best exemplified by Abraham. He took hundreds of people into his household and attempted to transfer to them the discipline and godly habits which he had learned.[8] This educational ministry is the foundation of social order, and it is always familistic.[9] Such activities take place through voluntary associations, not coercion and regulation. There are neither priests nor kings, for every believer is a priest and king under Christ.[10] Future-oriented self-sacrifice is blessed by the Providence of God with prosperity and security, obviating the purported necessity for a centralized, welfare/warfare state.[11]

Source & Links

I always enjoy your posts GW. As for theocracy ... Here's a group with whom I engaged in a heated debate (Gary DeMar) some time back. American Vision believes in a Christian theocracy and an implantation of OT laws--including the death penalty for gays and abortion doctors.

American Vision
http://www.americanvision.org/

Kindly,

Sean

Eww revisionist history! ~shudders~ Ever notice people that advocate like unto that American vision of a return to biblical standards, never really know what they're talking about!? They just speak about their interpretation of the christian OT. That one they 'borrowed' from the jews. Edited a bit, bound it up and called it that exclusive and official how to guide, for those seeking their kind of god! Tanakh

Lemme see, a return to christian OT biblical standards. Well, that means I can beat or kill my wife, or let her to be raped. I can sell my children, or kill them if they disrespect me as their parent. (eww just say no, took on a whole new visual there! "WHAT! You got busted for pot again! Die, you disrespectful brat!" ~lifts rock to keep it true to the course~ )

Thing is, we have a history of Theocracy. When church ruled as one with the rulership. It was called the dark ages for a reason. Not that it was entirely dark. Why, you could always trust to find your way along certain avenues, if one but found their way to that glowing former human, now flaming heretic, in the town square. Yep, lots of light there! Must be the body fat. Burns longer and more brilliant than the hair, flesh and clothes.

I can't help but laugh at those who know little to nothing about our country's history (i.e. Fundamentalists).


From the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (1796-97),which was read aloud to the Senate and unanimously approved:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Notice that first line...it should speak volumes.

And as for the mistaken thought that anyone has to be of a certain religion in order to be elected to either house of Congress or to the Presidency:

Article VI,Section III of the U.S. Constitution: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (italics added)

I'm aware of the Treaty of T. However, it's important to remember that that clause, Article 11, was removed after the Treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli. It was then renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 was removed

I used the Treaty of Tripoli as well, and DeMar dismissed me saying I wasn't using primary sources! Um, yeah. My reply ... The Constitution is my primary source. Is it replete with Christian terminology? No! Was it ratified as is by all the states? Yes! What does that tell you?

He flamed me and told me to get an education.

America's Real Religion
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/

Christian Nation?
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/

Sean

You should have said you'd be happy to get that education, if they pay tuition!

Actually the Constitution, as is, was not truly ratified in all it's parts by all the States. Namely, the 16th Amendment. Not that that matters at all, clearly. Else, how would you be enslaved in this free nation?!

It doesn't matter that the article was removed at a later point.The main point is that part of the very first line says it all...that the U.S. government was *not* founded upon the Christian religion.People who think it was have no clue as to what beliefs many of the Founding Fathers had.All one needs to do is read some of the statements that some of the Founding Fathers made during their lives and they would immediately know that these men had *no* connection with Christianity.So,if they weren't Christians...why in the hell would they found this country on the beliefs of a religion which they felt was divisive and corrupt?



True,yet this wasn't proposed until 1909...and supposedly ratified in 1913.So,it wasn't an original part of the Constitution.

I'll not admit to being a history buff, however I wonder that so much has been allowed to infiltrate what is envisaged as a secular government, in this respect. If it wasn't intended to be founded in any way on christian principles, what is the pretext then that permits so much christian iconography and ritual to be implemented in the domain of government!? "In god we trust" on our federal reserve notes, during the "civil" war. That same slogan plaqued on the wall of our Congress and in various courthouses across this nation. Our leadership swearing oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. , on bibles. And when an incumbent in this last election elected to use the Koran, (Borrowed from the Thomas Jefferson library, btw.) , for his swearing in ceremony, some pundits would make that it was the beginning of the end of the Republic. Especially given the religious issue that immerses itself in the Iraq and Allies conflicts the U.S. invests herself into now.

So, if this nation was never intended to be founded on christian principles, why is it christian principles are allowed to seed themselves into the government of this country?! (Not to mention the 10 commandments placement on government properties, for so long and without issue until of late.)


Re: The ratification thing. That was my misunderstanding of your earlier reply. I thought you were speaking of the Constitution ratification in it's entirety to date. Not at it's inception.

The founding fathers where christians but I'm sure nobody said "Hey lets make a christian government!" they had their own ideas about government...they just happend to be christian. I think it wouldn't have made it different if they where all different religions.

As for things like swearing on the bible and "in god we trust" where originally put there because at the time the majority of people where christian. If at that time there where people who where against these things I think they would have bin changed...if the founding fathers where alive today I think they would understand the reasoning behind removing the bible from court and the like and be for it.

The founding father's ideas where not perfect and their ideas of equality and freedom where not put into good practice at that time...but they tried to improve on the ideas and so did their successors.

Slavery was abolished because it went against the idea of freedom, allowing every citizen to vote was installed because of the idea of equality, religious symbols in government should be abolished because of the ideas of "freedom of religion" and "seperation of church and state".

When your in politics your government should come before your religion...when passing a law you shouldn't be woundering about what would Jesus do but what would Jefferson do. It's a politicians job to look out for his government not his religion.

Well said.

Wait your agreeing with me? I think some things I said where contradictory to your ideas...

...are you tricking me?

I don't trick. As I said, I am no history buff. I know bits and pieces but not the entire tapestry, sort of speak, of what were the intricacies that plotted out this Republic.

It's interesting to me still, that the christian ideal is held so strongly by so many, that do imagine this country was founded as a christian nation. And how that notion is bolstered by those plaques and rituals I mentioned earlier.

I appreciate this part of your piece as well: When your in politics your government should come before your religion...when passing a law you shouldn't be wondering about what would Jesus do but what would Jefferson do. It's a politicians job to look out for his government not his religion. Wise words indeed. Worthy of an Email to the white house and incumbents, even. You know, just as a reminder of why they're there.

The motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on a coin in 1864.It did not appear on paper money until 1957.One year earlier (1956),the President approved of a resolution by the 84th Congress to declare "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-we-trust.shtml

...

As for the Founding Fathers and religion,some considered themselves "Deists",some were Protestants,3 were Roman Catholic,some were not religious at all..and some were completely against "organized religion".Those who were against organized religion were George Washington (Deist),John Adams (Unitarian),Thomas Jefferson (Deist),Benjamin Franklin (most likely a Deist),James Madison (supposedly an Episcopalian,but was more likely a Deist),Ethan Allen (Deist) and Thomas Paine (Deist).

Remember though,that Deists of the day believed in a "God"...but it was *not* the God of the Christians.

Well there you go...I don't necessarily believe that America was founded as a "Christian Nation" I just think that soem of the founding fathers, who happen to be christian, used some of the christian ideas in the making of their new government. But if you think about it the founding fathers kind of made an ant-christian nation of sorts. They had the idea of equality(which the religion doesn't, ex. gays), free speech(which the religion doesn't, can't say god dam) and freedom of religion(first commandment is broken there).

Since almost all americans at that time where christian they didn't think twice when they put In God we trust on the money or bibles in the court.

There was freedom of religion at that time and seperation of church and state...but everybody practiced the same religion. If a bunch of Atheist or Buhdist came along when the founding fathers where starting the country then I think it would have bin different.

I think that if the founding fathers where here today they would realize that "in God we trust" and the bible in court shouldn't be there.

America was founded by christians but America was born out of the intentions of freedom of(and from) religion.

I mean its right there in the Bill of Rights.

But I do agree that you should agree with me on the part you quotes

Forgive me, but my understanding of the founding fathers of the United States only two were Deists. Jefferson and Franklin. The rest were considered themselves christian. (Link)

Just interesting ...

As Pastor Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter to the Los Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:

Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radi*spam filter*m of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity!

It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine.

We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith.” (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995)

Kindly,

Sean

There has been a lot of debate over the years on this subject.There is a definitive lack of evidence concerning some of the Founding Fathers and their beliefs,which leads to people mistaking the mention of "God" by some of these men to mean the Christian "God".Too,some of these men switched religions during their lifetimes...but at what points in time are still debateable.Yet by looking closely at the writings each did (both personal and public),you can see that some who are claimed to be Christian (by other people...not by themselves) are really not Christian at all.

I'll see about posting some more info for you later.Right now I'm headed out for work.

Excellent input Sean. Thank you. And Wolf, I look forward to reading more of you.

Here's a little bit for you:

George Washington:

"From a religious perspective, George Washington was a controversial figure. Like many of the founding fathers, he was a Deist – believing in God, but not believing that God intervenes on a day to day basis. Before the Revolution, he served as a member of the laity of two Episcopal churches in Virginia. "

Source: http://www.american-presidents.com/preside...orge-washington

John Adams:

"Adams was raised a Congregationalist, becoming a Unitarian at a time when most of the Congregational churches around Boston were turning to Unitarianism. As a youth, Adams' father had urged him to become a minister, but Adams declined, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. A detailed analysis of Adams' religion by Everett (1966) argues that Adams was not a deist, but he used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. Although not anti-clerical, he advocated the separation of church and state. He also believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense. Everett concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

Thomas Jefferson:

"Like many of the founding fathers, Jefferson was a Deist. He believed that although God was real, he was distant and unconcerned with humanity. That God simply created, and then went somewhere else to play.

Further, Jefferson did not believe in miracles – to the point of writing his own accounting of the gospels, commonly known as the Jefferson Bible. He brought copies of his new bible to many of his most famous engagements, quoting from them religiously and driving home his belief that man was man’s own savior.

Jefferson’s faith in the non-intervention of God in daily life is displayed in his belief that the separation of church and state was an absolute requirement for a civilized society, to the point where he wrote “"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

In spite of these things, though, Jefferson was a man who was completely for religious freedom. He simply didn’t want religion to be the basis for the founding – or running – of his country."

Source: http://www.american-presidents.com/preside...homas-jefferson

Benjamin Franklin:

"Like the other advocates of republicanism, Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous in the sense of attention to civic duty and rejection of corruption. Indeed all his life he had been exploring the role of civic and personal virtue, as expressed in Poor Richard's aphorisms.

Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin became disillusioned with organized religion after discovering Deism. "I soon became a thorough Deist."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_fran...ersonal_beliefs

James Madison:

"Also significant are the reminiscences of Bishop Meade, a patrician who knew the Virginia Founding Fathers well. When the bishop discusses their religion in his chronicles of the Anglican and Episcopal tradition in Virginia, he devotes considerable space to Washington, gives detailed information on the religious beliefs of Madison, and dismisses Jefferson's views as "disbelief." But in five mentions of Monroe—who had served with the bishop's father on Washington's staff during the Revolution—he says nothing about religion. Similarly, Monroe's biographers rarely introduce the subject. "When it comes to Monroe's ...thoughts on religion," Bliss Isely comments in his The Presidents: Men of Faith, "less is known than that of any other President."

But one item is known about Monroe that may shed additional light on his religious beliefs: he was a Freemason. The ties between Deism and Freemasonry were close."

Source: http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2003/aut...n-james-monroe/

Ethan Allen:

"In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter; for I have not in the least disguised my sentiments, but have written freely without any conscious knowledge of prejudice for, or against any man, sectary or party whatever; but wish that good sense, truth and virtue may be promoted and flourish in the world, to the detection of delusion, superstition, and false religion; and therefore my errors in the succeeding treatise, which may be rationally pointed out, will be readily rescinded."

Source: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/allen-reason.html

Thomas Paine:

"Prior to his arrest and imprisonment, knowing that he would likely be arrested and executed, Paine wrote the first part of The Age of Reason, an assault on organized "revealed" religion combining a compilation of inconsistencies he found in the Bible with his own advocacy of Deism."

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

...

During the age that these men lived in,it was quite common for those who wished to be influential to be a part of a church,or at least *attend* church.Yet,many of them kept their true beliefs hidden from public view.

Too much poppin' here to go into details, but Wolf is largely correct...Washington's own rector admitted to reporters that "the President, he was a Deist". further reporting that will he did attend services with his wife, he never took sacraments and often found reason to leave the room just before. Surprizingly, it is conjected that Lincoln was probably a Deist or an Agnostic.....Mako

One person who knew Lincoln also stated that Lincoln was quite against the Christian beliefs,and tended to lean more towards Atheism.

...

There have been a decent amount of non-Christians holding the office of the Presidency.I see the mistaken belief that this is a Christian country being a more recent thing,due to the lack of knowledge and understanding that many have about the founding of our country and of those who helped run our country prior to the 1900's.

Perhaps it's a matter of contemporary reality, as opposed to the initial intent of the FF's. State seals with "In God We Trust" emblazoned about their circumference. Not to mention it's mark on our money. The pledge of Allegiance, that our elected officials , representatives of our secular interests, swear their oath of office on a christian bible, our president campaigning to have a Federal marriage Amendment interjected into the Constitution to declare, on christian principles, gays are not entitled to equal rights in marriage, etc... Perhaps it may be observed that what was intended by the Nations founding fathers has been augmented by the intent of the Nations new christian ones, to in some respect, imply this is a christian land.

Which is why the Constitution was a written one, vice an unwritten one such as that of Britain. This prevents any one religion taking over the government and eventually outlawing the practice of the competing religions. So any Christians implying this is a "Christian" land either are ignorant of the Constitution or intend to subsume it to their own nefarious goals!

Is it ignorance, or arrogance ? It may be observed there is a staunch far right wing advocacy at work in many parts of our nations politics. From activist groups, as mentioned, that wish to secede certain parts of the U.S. , and establish a christian theocracy. There are, "christian Taliban" groups, training for the day when it becomes a civil war like atmosphere in this country. Believers vs. Non-believers (& by that it's meant even fellow theists that don't subscribe to a particular sectarian philosophy), etc... Maybe where the impetus for such campaigns or projections came frome was in part related to the advent of the "christian Amendment".

After all, it was just after the civil war. At issue was the godlessness of the initial drafting of the Constitution, and so it was thought perhaps the civil war was an example of god's displeasure at that omission. So, in a sense, to appease god there was a proposal in 1863 to edit the preamble to include allusions to christian scriptural deities. It failed, obviously. But that was just the next step undertaken , after "In God We Trust" was embossed on the United States currency in 1861, via/ U.S. Treasury. So, that first step to at least impart the christian overlay, was on our trade instrument. Our American currency. Sending a message to the world, in every sense, that this was a theistic nation, at the very least. And has anyone noted how many times god is referenced by our politicians in speeches. Even at closing there's "God bless America". So, while Constitutions can be Amended, and we know Bush is trying to do so , based on christian values, with the marriage amendment, I think there's a quandary between what's on paper (Constitution) and what's implied, about the theocratic underpinnings in this contemporary political atmosphere. While the Founding Fathers may have not intended this country to be a theocracy, it's would appear that the christian god was and is permitted to at least be brought into the room, in government matters otherwise. So while all religions are free to practice here, I don't think we're at all free from the inference of one religious model, in the branches of American governmental powers.


edit missing text

Well,not all Presidents have sworn the oath of office on a bible.There's not much real evidence on most of the earlier Presidents ever doing so,but I do not see those who disliked organized religion ever doing that.But yes,it has become a standard practice over the years...which should *not* have ever been allowed to happen.It's just unfortunate that during the Civil War era there was such a huge influence on people from the Christian church.



I believe it's a combination of ignorance,arrogance,stupidity and pure malicious thought behind much of what has happened involving the religion & politics of our country.

I think with the election of Keith Ellison, and his swearing into office on a copy of the Koran (on loan from the Jefferson library no less. ) , and the uproar over that, lends the impression that people believe this to be a christian nation. I heard as much said, on those political talk shows, like Hannity and Combs, etc... Political pundits objecting because at this time especially, it's not the right impression to allow someone to swear an oath of office/power, on the Koran.
Which, in effect, insults that persons right to freedom of religion by saying they're entitled to it as long as they don't try to bring themselves and their faith into office, to represent the American people. How arrogant is that!? I remember Newt Gingrich being one of the most vocal critics of Mr.Ellison's choice of the Koran, for his oath of office. Keeping in mind Mr. Gingrich advocates inequality in the America he Represented while in office, for his own gay sister. A man that wrote the book: "Rediscovering God in America". Read that, you'll see what I mean about the implications of the vocal right wing christian politicians expressing America as a christian nation. The parchments might beg to differ, from so long ago, but the contemporary powers are what shape America's future.

And you are right, not every President has sworn an oath of office on the Bible. In fact one didn't take the oath. (Excerpted from an article wherein Mr.Ellison's oath of office, was at issue)" In the fourth place, contrary to what Prager thinks, this isn’t the first time a politician has declined to take his oath on a Bible. Law professor Jonathan Turley reminds us that presidents John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover opted not to use Bibles. Jewish lawmakers have used Jewish holy books. President Franklin Pierce declined an oath altogether." (Full article here: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/10/b...ng_oath_office/ )


And I would certainly agree with your second point. We might imagine this is a democracy, but I don't think we would ever knowingly vote into office whats clearly at work , once it gets in. Nefarious, malicious, arrogance, is just the beginning of the list, for what appears to be occurring in that collaborative of politics/religion. They are each part of the same pie, in so many ways. I remember a pundit, versed in foreign affairs, say years ago that America isn't any different than all those nations she chooses to criticize for their politics. She's the same, just disguised as a democracy so that the people are led to believe they did this to themselves. Funny. I've heard that same thing from religionists. Yes, there are people in hell, but they chose to be there.


See how it works?!

Pierce was one of three Presidents who chose to "affirm" the oath of office instead of "swear" it.He affirmed it on a law book instead of a Bible.The other two were Herbert Hoover (who was a Quaker),and John Tyler.



Some went against this as if it was offensive to the "Christian Nation",while others were against it purely because some of the "enemies" we're fighting against just happen to be Muslim.In some cases though it is a mixture of these two reasons.It really should not matter what he chose to use for taking the oath,and the uproar against his choice shows just how divided our nation has become.

...

What gets me is that it was during the 1950's that much of the real damage has been caused by the interjection of religion into politics.It was during that period that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance (1954),and "In God We Trust" became the National Motto (1956).These two things do not belong,and should no longer be used.Truly,the era of McCarthyism screwed up our nation.

WOw! The mystery of the disappearing post. Wolf, Hope you read me before my reply was taken away.

When I get sworn into office I'm going to use a Spider-man comic book, a Bigs Bunny coloring book, or a copy of "Politics for Dummies"...people will freak.

Perfect! Then, when you sign the first Bill into law, insist on using a giant pink Crayola crayon! Swearing all the while that you also took an oath to uphold the power of whimsy!

Hmm...I don't think that I managed to see it,GW.

I was probably logged out at the time.

The U. S. Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers, and reserved all others to the states or to the people. It is a popular government. Those who administer it are responsible to the people. It is as popular, and Just as much emanating from the people, as the state governments. It is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. It may be altered, and amended, and abolished at the will of the people. In short, it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people. It grants the U. S. Government no power over religion.


The U. S. Constitution provides that

"Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

An affirmation does not assume a God who avenges perjury. An atheist President may affirm that he "will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The best way to promote the Christian faith is to obey the instructions of the Lord Jesus Christ not to entangle "the things that are God's" with those of Caesar. (See Matthew 22:21)