In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.
Article 2’s Atheistic, Polytheistic, and Impotent Oath of Office
In addition to fearing and serving Yahweh1, Deuteronomy 6:13 commands us to swear by His name. There are at least three reasons for this command: 1) By invoking Yahweh, all other false gods and any opportunity for polytheism are eliminated. 2) Yahweh is made party to whatever vow or covenant is being sworn to. 3) By swearing in Yahweh’s name, a curse is invoked upon the person who violates his vow or covenant. All three of these imperatives were lost with Article 2’s generic oath:
Because the presidential oath does not appeal to Yahweh, it is essentially atheistic [or polytheistic]…:
“The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mahammedan [sic] as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed, it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions. In these things the minority in our country has hitherto managed to govern the majority. We look on the designed omission of it [the name of God] as an attempt to exclude from civil affairs Him who is the governor among the nations.” (D.X. Junkin, The Oath, quoted in T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Amend the Preamble, “History of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) p. iv.)
On November 26, 1873, at the National Convention to amend the Preamble, Pastor E.R. Craven noted the following:
“On Tuesday next another inauguration is to take place. President Grant may, if he so choose, appeal to God; but even as he takes the oath required, he may proclaim himself an atheist, and there is no power on earth that can stay his inauguration. The Constitution does, in terms, require an oath, but by the proviso quoted it degrades it to the low platform of a solemn promise—the oath that it requires is emasculated.” (E.R. Craven, Address, Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) pp. 18-19.)2
No one knows what god, if any god, President Grant swore his oath to. The same is true for Obama and all past presidents.
As early as 1796 when oaths still retained an appeal to the Supreme Being, they were already inclusive of gods other than Yahweh, as attested by United States Representative Zephaniah Swift:
“All persons who believe in the existence of a God, let their religion be what it will, may be admitted to be witnesses….” (Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne, 1796) vol. 2, p. 238.)
This polytheistic inevitability was the consequence of Amendment 1’s freedom of religion provision. In 1844, Daniel Webster testified before the Supreme Court regarding the pluralism of constitutional oaths:
“What is an oath? …[I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices…. We all know that the doctrine of the … law is that there must be in every person who enters court as a witness, be he Christian or Hindoo, there must be a firm conviction on his mind that falsehood or perjury will be punished either in this world or the next or he cannot be admitted as a witness.” (Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844) p. 43.)2
It is true that George Washington and many subsequent Presidents took their oath of office with their hand on a Bible3:
But this empty tradition is nowhere required in the Constitution. Even if this custom were spiritually significant for some of the presidents, it was a meaningless ritual for the majority of them. How could swearing upon a Christian Bible be meaningful to these men when Christianity itself means nothing to them?
Swearing upon the Bible is an empty gesture for an even more important reason. If ever there were an unequal yoking, it is when public officials place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. This no more Christianizes the oath than Aaron’s naming the golden calf “Yahweh” sanctified his idolatry. The Bible offers no precedent for swearing to uphold any other law than Yahweh’s. Swearing in Yahweh’s name, or swearing on the Bible, means nothing to Him if you simultaneously swear to keep the laws of another god. This is treason and sedition against the God of gods and King of kings.4
Not only does the Constitution’s oath fail to identify Yahweh as a party to the office, it also lacks any imprecation by which the one swearing calls a curse upon himself if he fails to keep his oath of office:
Swearing in Yahweh’s name places a person under Yahweh’s jurisdiction and judgment:
“For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.” (Hebrews 6:16, NASB)
In order for such an oath to end every dispute, it must be self-maledictory—that is, one in which the person calls down a curse upon himself if he does not uphold his oath. An example of a self-maledictory oath can be found in Nehemiah 10:
“…their nobles … entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes….” (Nehemiah 10:29-30)
Unlike the vast majority of oaths, which are broken whenever it is advantageous, the oaths taken in Nehemiah’s day actually meant something. Maledictory oaths taken in the name of Yahweh place the oath taker under the curse of Yahweh if he does not uphold his oath….
Oaths that do not force us to answer to someone greater than ourselves are impotent. In the event that the oath taker is not a man of his word, something must compel him to uphold his pledge. Cole v. Richardson noted that without self-imprecation, an oath becomes merely an “amenity.” The presidential oath of office contains nothing compelling or binding. Nothing prevents a president from disregarding his oath the moment he steps off the inauguration platform.4
Biblical oaths are sworn in the name of Yahweh, invoking His imprecation, and are enforced by the Third Commandment’s judgment.
Stay tuned for Part 6.
Related posts:
Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation”
Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism”
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. George Washington was inaugurated as Worshipful Master, with his hand on a Bible taken from St. John’s Masonic Lodge in New York City. Four other presidents have been sworn in using the same Bible, including George H. W. Bush. Had it not been for inclement weather, George W. would have been as well.
4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.