Oath of Office

No where in Artice II, section I, of the Constitution, does it state that the oath of office of the Presidency be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words, "so help me God" appear in the oath.

candst.tripod.com...

I don't know what all the uproar is about. I'm guessing that most American's don't know what the Constitution says, and they assume a Bible must be used. Isn't the use of the bible a violation of church and state?

reply to post by aero56

I don't know what all the uproar is about. I'm guessing that most American's don't know what the Constitution says

Sadly, you're right. And that includes the politicians.

Americans get upset when a Bible isn't used for the oath or the words "so help me God" being omitted more from tradition than something Constitutional. Every president has said "so help me God", why shouldn't the new guy?

Isn't the use of the bible a violation of church and state?

No, unless the president, or other elected official, grabs the Bible, says which denomination is the state religion, and then proceeds to make religious decrees.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by aero56

 

I don't know what all the uproar is about. I'm guessing that most American's don't know what the Constitution says

Sadly, you're right. And that includes the politicians.

Americans get upset when a Bible isn't used for the oath or the words "so help me God" being omitted more from tradition than something Constitutional. Every president has said "so help me God", why shouldn't the new guy?

Isn't the use of the bible a violation of church and state?

No, unless the president, or other elected official, grabs the Bible, says which denomination is the state religion, and then proceeds to make religious decrees.

Spot on there. I am not a Christian, yet I firmly believe that the seperation of church and state campaign has gotten a bit oppressive here.

The state (specifically federal government) may not establish an official religion nor the limit the free practice of any particular religion (although many do state that the practice of one's religion may not infringe on the natural rights of others).

Beyond that, every induvidual in any position or office, may choose to practice whatever religion they wish. If a kid wants to pray in school, let him. If a kid chooses not to pray in school, that's just as valid. If I choose to give an oath on a bible or not is also my personal call, and cannot be imposed upon me by the state.

Now tradition is another beast altogether and just as dangerous as religion.

Originally posted by aero56
No where in Artice II, section I, of the Constitution, does it state that the oath of office of the Presidency be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words, "so help me God" appear in the oath.

These things are traditions that started because Washington did both at the very first Inauguration. It's sort of like how Presidents always stuck to just 2 terms maximum because that's what Washington did, in an echo of the great Roman leader/general Cincinnatus. Roosevelt, of course, broke that latter tradition, but it has since been ensconced in law via a Constitutional Amendment.

But the bible and "so help me God" stuff is all tradition, but tradition many Presidents are loathe to break, whatever their personal feelings or beliefs might be, as it would be politically difficult to do so.

If/when there is a Jewish President, some things will necessarily be different. First, he will have to "affirm" and not "swear," as swearing oaths is just not done in Judiasm (that's okay, the Constitution provides for affirming instead of swearing). Also, he won't be affirming on a Christian Bible, and I doubt it will be with his hand on a Torah, either. I don't think such a thing is quite Kosher, but I'm not a Rabbi, so I can't say that for certain. In fact, there is often no right or wrong answer in Judiasm about some of those things, so one Rabbi's advice might differ from another. Whoever it is probably will say, "so help me God," though. I don't think that's an issue.

The first elected Muslim congressman was planning to use the Koran during his swearing in ceremony. I don't recall if he actually did that. I haven't found anything in a quick search for the event. He did plan on it though.

www.foxnews.com...

Legally God is the Vicar of Christ the Pontificus Maximus in Rome the Pope. This was established by Treaty between nations centuries ago. Legally all of America belongs to the Pope who declared it is shortly before it being discovered and gave individual portions of it to various sovereigns to administer as vassals for Rome.

All of these relationships still exist to this day. The Pope still sits in Rome, and the sovereigns descendents still sit on their thrones, and anyone who wants to take the time to stop reading the fairy tales of history for the actual Treaties that established the United States the Treaties of Paris and the Treaties of Ghent and still wants to believe we won anything let alone our independence in the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, truly does love believing in fairy tales.

The Oath of Office that all elected public officials take, just like the Pledge of Allegiance, just like the money you spend are all oaths of fidelity and submission to Rome.

Yes you could call that a tradition!

A very unbreakable one!

I was taught this way..

People misunderstand the term separation of church and state. it does not mean that you cannot have god or Christian values in the U.S. Government.. in fact, many of the founding fathers said without Godly values, a government will fall.

What separation of church and state means is this,
(Taken from: en.wikipedia.org...)

"The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." "

And also,

"The phrase " hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[13][14] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[15] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[16] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

So you see, The President can swear on a Bible. He can put crosses and pictures of Jesus all over the White House. He can ask his staff to pray for the Nation every morning if he wants to. None of these things have anything to do with separation of church and state.

Most people wrongly take the phrase to mean government must remain separate from any thing to do with religion, Period.. This is simply not true.

Government will not endorse as a body a certain religion or belief and tell it's people they must follow it, but people in Government can act according to their beliefs anyway they choose.

Well Barak i mean President Obama could have sworn on the Koran if he wanted to.
Or he could have chosen to take the Oath without any religious book at all.
It's entirely up to the newly elected President or in-line Vice President.
I find it interesting that he chose the Lincoln Bible, a little message there me thinks.
He could also have chosen the Washington Masonic Bible or even have brought his own family bible, assuming he has one?
He chose the Lincoln Bible, think about that. That's powerful symbolism.

reply to post by aero56


Although you are correct in your assertion, I'm wondering why you would take what an unknown person on a website says as a source and not THE source of what you speak, unless you don't know where to find it. Therefore, I will link it, as I have done many times in the past due to my soapbox that more people need to actually read the Constitution of the United States of America

Article 2, Section 1

Before he 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."

Originally posted by aero56
I don't know what all the uproar is about. I'm guessing that most American's don't know what the Constitution says, and they assume a Bible must be used. Isn't the use of the bible a violation of church and state?

No, the use of the bible is not a violation of the separation of church and state. In fact, if there was a law saying that you COULDN"T use the bible, THAT would be illegal. Please read it yourself.. It's not that long and it really should be required of all American citizens, IMO.

[edit on 21/6/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

That's a tricky one. Judging by the prezzies we've had the last few terms, God is the last thing on their minds. The whole oath is bogus anyways since there are 2 seperate Constitutions. OUR Constitution For the United States of America, and THEIR Constitution of the United States. It is 2 documents on one paper. Their interpretation is completely different from what we would see as a prolific constitution for US. I wrote about it in detail in an article called The United Slaves of America. So when they swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, they are pledging their loyalty, alliegence, and diligence to the US Corporate entity. The original concept of the Constitution FOR the United States of America is a pact between USCorp and the Bank/King of England to repay war debts. Yep, we borrowed money from England to fight against England. A 'Constitution' is a contract of debt as per definitions found on law-dictionary.org
Not only did they seperate church from state, but have seperated state from corporate dominance. Wish us luck. We're gonna need it!

Originally posted by aero56
No where in Artice II, section I, of the Constitution, does it state that the oath of office of the Presidency be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words, "so help me God" appear in the oath.

candst.tripod.com...

I don't know what all the uproar is about. I'm guessing that most American's don't know what the Constitution says, and they assume a Bible must be used. Isn't the use of the bible a violation of church and state?

I agree. And the fact that a private corporation (Fed Reserve) is placing 'In God we Trust' on all currency. But it also caters to the gullible trust many christians place upon the system of justice and truth.

Originally posted by kyredThe first elected Muslim congressman was planning to use the Koran during his swearing in ceremony. I don't recall if he actually did that. I haven't found anything in a quick search for the event. He did plan on it though.

No Congressperson has ever had their hand on a Bible when they've administered the oath of office. They all take the oath in a single sitting with their hands in the air. After this is done, many choose to do photo ops where they pose with their hand on a Bible. In the case of the Muslim congressman, he did the same with a Koran. The entire issue was blown out of proportion beyond all reason considering the thing people were so upset about was nothing more than a photo-op. So sad, really.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Legally God is the Vicar of Christ the Pontificus Maximus in Rome the Pope. This was established by Treaty between nations centuries ago. Legally all of America belongs to the Pope who declared it is shortly before it being discovered and gave individual portions of it to various sovereigns to administer as vassals for Rome.

All of these relationships still exist to this day.

Naw. England broke away from the Papacy under Henry VIII when he established the Church of England, in large part because they refused to let him divorce his first wife, who was sister to the King of Spain, the most powerful Catholic empire at that time.

The various British colonies were mostly Church of England, but some were established specifically for reasons of religious freedom. Maryland was established originally as a Catholic colony, Pennsylvania by the Quakers, Massachusetts by the Puritans (though sometimes religious freedom within these colonies was not practiced, so much as they were havens for one specific religion for a long time).

When New York was still New Amsterdam and owned by the Dutch, there was a push by the colonial governor once to force all non-Protestants to convert, however this was in direct opposition to the terms of the Dutch West India Company's charter for that colony. The citizens of the town of Flushing (many of them English) appealed to Holland in what was known as the Flushing Remonstrance (seriously, read this thing, it's kind of awesome) and the mother country ruled with the English that they should have full religious freedoms.

After that we have our Constitution and the First Amendment which says we can worship anything (or nothing) and that's the law of the land.

My long point here is that in the New World there has long been a tradition of fleeing the religious persecutions of Rome, the Crown(s), etc. The Pope has no power of oaths or any such thing over us, no matter what you might think. It's a big part of what our ancestors fought, bled and died for and why they came here. There's no secret power or oaths any entity holds over the US, it just doesn't work that way.

reply to post by LifeInDeath


You keep telling your self that!

One day when you aren't too busy denying things, look up the history of banking and see where all that money comes from and flows too!

Then realize that the fiat de facto instrument of debt currency system that each nation uses to barter and trade all eminates from the same papal source.

Don't think Rome doesn't have leverage guess again.

Rome is a business fronted by the Vatican it's not simply a religion.

No matter what you imagine Henry the VIIIth did in regard to the Church of England there are two important things to rememebr 1. is it's still the same Christian God as put forth by Rome. 2. is that King George despite being the King of England at the time of the Revolutionary War was also a prince, prince elector and arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire.

So for a nation that many imagined had long been out of the Roman bed, they were in fact very much in it when we were incorporated as a state of first the Holy Roman Empire and then the Roman Empire after the War of 1812.

It's all in the Contracts, and if Oaths mean nothing, why exactly do all officers of the Government have to take at least one?






[edit on 21/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Don't think Rome doesn't have leverage guess again.

Rome is a business fronted by the Vatican it's not simply a religion.

No disagreements there. They are certainly powerful in that sense and can exercise influence, but they do not control or own the U.S.

No matter what you imagine Henry the VIIIth did in regard to the Church of England there are two important things to rememebr 1. is it's still the same Christian God as put forth by Rome.

His break with Rome was political, he no longer wanted to be controlled by them. It matters not one bit that they were worshiping the same God. That's a side issue when you are talking about temporal control, which is what my post addressed.

2. is that King George despite being the King of England at the time of the Revolutionary War was also a prince, prince elector and arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire.

As the famous saying by Voltaire goes, "the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." Politically it meant nothing after the mid-1500's, though in name it still existed. Religiously the various states that made it up were a mix of Catholic and Protestants.

So for a nation that many imagined had long been out of the Roman bed, they were in fact very much in it when we were incorporated as a state of first the Holy Roman Empire...

Huh? The Holy Roman Empire grew out of the Carolingian Empire in the 10th and 11th Centuries. Henry VIII lived in the 15th and 16 Centuries. In what alternate history was England incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire and when? They HRE was primarily German, but extended down into the Northern half or Italy, as well.

...and then the Roman Empire after the War of 1812.

Again, you seem to be talking about an alternate history that does not exist in the world that I live in. Are you talking about Victor Emmanuel II? He didn't become King of a newly united Italy until the 1860's.

It's all in the Contracts, and if Oaths mean nothing, why exactly do all officers of the Government have to take at least one?

Show me an oath of office in the U.S. where people are asked to swear fealty to the Holy See and I'll be impressed. I've never heard of nor seen such a thing anywhere. Contracts? Show me these contracts.