Re: Constitutional revisionism
Read Thomas Pain! The Founding Father's commanded "no religious test shall ever be required." The First Amendment commands "religion," shall not be established by law or Congress. It is way past time for attorneys, judges, and justices to recognize the words of the Constitution. The words "church and state" are not in the Constitution. It is a "religious" test which shall not be required, not just a church test. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress or (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) government at any level, whether state, county, city, township, or school board. Strict constructionists accept the wording of the Constitution as written. The words of the Constitution either mean what they say or it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. The Founding Fathers understood the words they used. The six-member joint Senate-House conference committee (James Madison was co-chair) which produced the final draft of of the First Amendment understood the words it used and created no conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. There is no primary source evidence that George Washington used the words "so help me God" when he took the oath of office. Those words are not a part of the constitutional oath or affirmation required by the Constitution and should never be added by any government official. What part of "religious" or "religion" is difficult to understand? Obviously, some, if not all, justices on the current Supreme Court have not got a clue and meander endlessly through their massive Marsh of revisionist opinions, one of which is Justice Rehnquist's 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree dissent. He is a flaming liberal revisionist who changed the word "religion" to "a national church" in order to fit his undereducated knowledge of American history. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
It comes from the concept of Shuva! Or a Jewish oath. Remember the framers originally wanted to make Hebrew the first language (attributed to Ben Franklyn-as reported at Harvard) In fact that is why Hebrew was a required language in most of the Ivy League Colleges for so many years! The original framers wanted to get away from the English at all cost. The Jewish requirement for an oath is very strict. This is why a religious Jew only affirms an oath, rather than swear it, because it is a serious matter , to invoke G-ds name and his wrath! Frank Hirsch - Original Message - From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:21 pm Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath Volokh, Eugene wrote: I've heard various people mention that George Washington added so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is 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. Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in government affairs; others stress that so help me God isn't actually a part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of so help me God is the Presidents' own detour and frolic. Here's my question: In the late 1700s, did people who said oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include so help me God or some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths? If so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include so helpme God. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various saints. So common, in fact, that the so-called Pilgrims were often offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath bloody. Read Shakespeare. Marry was a variation on Mary. This was before the standardization of spelling. While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office were viewed as having religious significance by individuals. Hence the addition of So help me God. I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual peccadillos, and not something required by the office. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Read the original charter at Harvard. Closely! It is a dead give a way! I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Caucus. With Pat Leahy at the helm, I observed that witnesses were not being asked to give an oath which invoked Divine assistance (the "so help me God" oath). Was this a deliberate omission? Was this an excited, inexperienced Senator's accidental omission? Did it mean anything? These were the questions I was pursuing. In a humorous vein, the Law Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, in Australia, prepared a report on oaths and multicultural society, included an anecdote about a clerk asking a magistrate if it would be a problem that testimonial oaths for two previous weeks of court were administered on the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the courtroom Bible having disappeared. In the process of my research, I did find older materials that run alongside the answerto your question. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the invocation of Divine assistance in swearing an oath, among other things concluding that to do so was permissible, was subject to becoming habitual and the source of abuse, and was, in its essence, a religious act. (Question 89 in Aquinas' Treatise on Prudence and Justice). Aquinas' discussion is important because it lays out an early available theological justification for the employment of religious oaths in juridical proceedings. John Locke, in his Letter on Toleration, adverts to the subject but does not take the matter on directly. In the letter he explains why it is that atheists cannot be relied upon in establishing truth or determining sincere commitments to duty: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a 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 a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." Blackstone explained the practice (apparently well-established) of judicial oaths invoking Divinity: "The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity." The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut include the text of an oath to be taken by magistrates that concludes with an invocation of divine aid: "and that I will maintain all the lawful priviledges thereof according to my understanding, as also assist in the execution of all such wholesome laws as are made or shall be made by lawful authority here established, and will further the execution of Justice for the time aforesaid according to the righteous rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Other examples also exist (God forbid that I suggest peeking at Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. US for sources?). During Washington's time, immigrants arriving into Pennsylvania from abroad undertook an oath of loyalty and fealty to the British Crown and of abjuration of the Pope, which in some ways might be likened to an oath of office (the office of resident?). That oath, the text of which appears at http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/oathsfidelitytrans.asp, omits any invocation of divine assistance. Subsequent in time to Washington's oath, Daniel Webster expressed a view quite similar to Locke's: "In no case is a man allowed to be a witness [in court] that has no belief in future rewards and punishments for virtues or vices, nor ought he to be. We hold life, liberty and property in this country upon a system of oaths; oaths founded on a religious belief of some sort . . . . Our system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property, and all our rights, is founded on or rests on Christianity and a religious belief." Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to
