News-Record.com

In fact, the members of Congress take their official oath en mass, with no bibles, korans, torahs or anything else involved. They only come up later in the private swearing in ceremonies.

I guess my biggest question about the whole thing was what good it would do to have a guy swear on a book he didn't profess to believe in? That seems sort of self defeating to me.

Self-defeat may be exactly what those opposing Sen. Ellison's choice would like.

Does the Constitution have a clause requiring any kind of swearing-in of Congress? Or is it an entirely added tradition? Has every class of elected officials always done so?

Jim: The only thing the least bit instructive in the constution comes in Article VI, the third paragraph of which reads:

"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."

That's pretty dead on point in this case.

As for the manner of the swearing in, I suspect that's tradition. (Sort of like the State of the Union, which was alternately delivered as a lengthy "what I did over your summer vacation" essay and in person until Woodrow Wilson really got the whole "here's my vision for what we should be doing" thing going.)

And in case you haven't seen this elsewhere, the oath of office for the president is prescribed by the constitution as follows:

"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."

The "So help me god" bit was a flourish added - we think - by Washington, and adopted by most presidents there after.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Because of the widespread Christian consensus at the time the Constitution was framed, there was little attention given to formally and explicitly expressing the Christian character of the ordering documents of the new nation, and because states did so explicitly. Although understandable, I believe it was a mistake to have done so. I’m coming at this with a commitment to Jesus Christ as the reigning Messianic King, and the Word of God as the supreme authority for all mankind – sometimes referred to as a theocratic viewpoint: God is the ultimate standard for all meaning, law and morality: just as humanists/atheists have ensconced THEIR values (abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, et al.) and MO for the past several decades. A Christianity that is not theocratic in ultimate goals, is NOT true biblical Christianity, but a watered-down counterfeit, not worthy of the Messianic ascription.

This is not born of an emotional attachment to Christianity, but a studied belief that the Ten Commandments and the Holy Gospel are blueprints for human happiness, peace and societal order. To deny them and depart from them, leads ultimately (though not immediately observable) to cultural suicide.

That we are opting today for a tutti-frutti religious culture may not be immediately worrisome to atheists and humanists, but in the long run, if our nation comes under strong Islamic influence, they could find themselves in prison, estranged or even beheaded. It is the nature of humanism to see only the immediate goals of their ideology and fail to see the greater patterns that develop and sustain a culture. Biblical worldview is generational and long-term, and so, sees the effects of deviating from God’s truth. No “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow . . .” approach here.

And since there is, in fact, no rule or law to determine which book is used in these individual swearing in ceremonies, Mr. Ellison is free to use whatever book he chooses – and so for the Buddhists as well. The real issue is here is not personal options, but rather where we are GOING as a nation spiritually; and what will be the real-life consequences.

Nikos: A couple of points, knowing that I'm not going to sway you from your beliefs, something I'm not inclined to do anyway.

As much as our founding fathers were predominantly Christian, there was a great deal of variety of what it mean to be Christian even then. The sparse, puritan ethic that John Adams grew up with looked little like the Church of England which had an ongoing spat with Catholics.

And the founders were very conscious of the nation's early history, in which individual states were founded by men and women of different religious orders who were fleeing persecution of one sort or another. (One of the earlier forms of taxation that caused some revolt here in NC was a church tax that folks who didn’t belong to the CoE didn't particularly appreciate.) They also looked across the pond and saw how religious rivalries roiled the European political waters.

So while I think you could make a pretty good argument that the founders by and large believed in god, and that god for most of them was a small-C christian god, there is an equally good argument that the founders did not want religious practice to be a litmus test for public service or other aspects of public life. (I think that's pretty clear in the constitutional passage quoted above.)

Personally, I like the gesture John Q. Adams (the very religious grandson of John Adams) made, taking his presidential oath of office on a book of laws. In a free and tolerant democracy, as we're supposed to be, the best aspects of religous life will florish. Things that I took as articles of faith growing up in a Lutheran church (before my falling out with the pastoral set) included tolerance, charity, obediance to rightous authority, justice, patriotism (oddly enough) and peace.

Those articles of faith, I personally believe, are shared by the religous and spiratual of all walks of life and in large part by our constitution.

Where we are going, as a nation, I hope, is where we have been: a belief in those common values allow us to work together, while the details scrawled in our religous texts are reserved for whatever religous observance one chooses to make...or not.

"Because of the widespread Christian consensus at the time the Constitution was framed, there was little attention given to formally and explicitly expressing the Christian character of the ordering documents of the new nation, and because states did so explicitly."

This is a common claim made by Christian supremacists these days, but it ignores some basic and well-documented facts. The fact is, Nikos, that at the Constitutional Convenntion, there were in fact several Christian members who fought quite vociferously to have an explicit expression of Christianity added to the Constitution. Those efforts were rejected.

Similarly, there was an outcry from several Christian leaders after the Constitution was adopted, complaining about the omission and urging that it not be ratified on that account.

Now how on Earth you can claim that "it was simply an oversight"? It was not -- it was puropseful and it was a very fortunate thing for the sake of the country, because no matter who is in the minority, religion-wise, they will be protected. Unlike the ideal world Nikos urges, where Christians have special status and rights.

Just remember the wise statement by James Madison that the same authority that can declare Christianity the official religion to the exclusion of all others can be used to declare a particular SECT of Christianity superior to all others. Be careful what you wish for, Nikos. I don't think anyone would much like it if you got it.

I’m very much aware that the attempt to acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ explicit was not implemented. I’m just saying that I believe it to have been a grievous error, which opened the door in a more heretical and apostate generation to contemporary antichristian views and actions. It is historically ascertainable that it was not as pressing a concern at that time in the nation’s development to make everything explicit, because it was simply assumed by most people, and was implemented across the culture.

“And the founders were very conscious of the nation's early history, in which individual states were founded by men and women of different religious orders who were fleeing persecution of one sort or another.”

Yes, of course, this was a real concern; which emphasizes my point that there was legitimate concern about not having a state church (denomination), and little reason, therefore, to overturn that concern simply to make explicit what the vast majority of Americans already believed at that time. Other writings, speeches, letters of the time make it clear that Christian/biblical principles (“endowed by their creator” “nature’s god”) were the source and authority for rights, freedoms and truths.

John, I’m all for a generalized Christian belief system to be the guiding body of principles for this nation; i.e. not Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic – but a biblical and orthodox common belief system: a major on the majors, minor on the minors approach. This is pretty much what was the case for almost two hundred years. And I agree, if Christianity can’t really make its case and win the hearts of the nation generally, it probably isn’t the type of Christianity that needs to be in a position of ultimate respect and advocacy. But for any nation or culture to work, consciously and assiduously, to rid the country of God’s revealed truth and the Good News of His Messiah spells its ultimate doom – as sure as Babylon’s was declared by the handwriting on the wall. Will we ever learn?

I believe it to be vital to the stability and moral fibre of our nation to publicly acknowledge the God of the Scriptures and His divine Law. To opt for a tutti-frutti religions policy will weaken our unity of faith and values, especially those beliefs that reject God. We are already seeing the moral dissolution of our culture in many areas, and a general primitivization and degradation of the arts, fine and pop. This is directly attributable to a continuing rejection of God, His Messiah, and His Law/Word. Those who do so are madly sawing off the limb that holds up all order and sanity.

Nikos: Less than 2000 years ago, Christianity was a new fangled "tutti-frutti religion."

The inference that I'm drawing from your comments is that you believe anyone who does not believe in Jesus as the Messiah is misguided or immoral and should somehow have a lower status and priority in our national debate. If that is the case, I think the point that John and I were trying to make were that the founders disagreed, that they saw the trouble mixing religion of any sort and politics caused and tried to steer clear of it.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested Christianity needs to be gotten rid of. Quite the opposite in my case, where I think a free and fair democracy has and will continue to allow Christianity to survive quite nicely, thank you.

But the founders were quite clear: they wanted no one religion to become the measuring stick by which our Democracy or our leaders are judged.

The notion I was trying to lay out above was that there is, I think, a common, valid and just morality shared among most if not all of the world's religions. The values found at that intersection could be invaluable as a guide for our broader society.

It seems to me that you have the notion that the Christian faith and its precepts are the only valid ones, which others must accept them or be disregarded, that Christianity - even a generic notion of it - must be officially sanctioned somehow as our national religion. I find that troubling and I respectfully disagree.

I wonder what sort of fine and popular art, Nikos, you feel would better reflect Christian values? Are we doomed to myriad "painters of light" in the mould of Thomas Kinkade? To nothing but "Touched by an Angel"? Is art's job then to be a propaganda instrument for pre-approved dogma and beliefs? What a boring visual and auditory world that would be. Besides, when Christian doctrine DID hold total sway in government, the art mostly was done to honoir a select elite even as it "instructed" the masses.

"Besides, when Christian doctrine DID hold total sway in government, the art mostly was done to honor a select elite even as it "instructed" the masses."

Sort of like the way it happened in the Soviet days in Russia. Or during the Cultural Revolution in China. Pretty creepy situations, all around.

The Soviets, of course, did enforce an atheist non-religion themselves. Extremism at either end of teh spectrum is dangerous.

"The Soviets, of course, did enforce an atheist non-religion themselves."

I'd qualify this. They enforced public statements of atheism. They wanted to control people's beliefs, but could do it no more effectively than any "forced conversions" to Christianity or Islam ever did. Or ever will, for that matter.

"Is art's job then to be a propaganda instrument for pre-approved dogma and beliefs? What a boring visual and auditory world that would be. Besides, when Christian doctrine DID hold total sway in government, the art mostly was done to honoir a select elite even as it "instructed" the masses."

Don't forget that it "instructed the masses" in the form of Michaelangelo, Chartres Cathedral and many other treasured examples of art. All art expresses somebody's dogma, whether Christian or Jackson Pollock's drunken, despairing existentialism or what's-his-name who spattered an image of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung. If we don't teach principles of good artistic craft, we'll get these as well as Kincade's eye candy; if we give artists the inspiring image of God the Ultimate Creator, and a universe of beauty and order that reflects His glorious nature, then we'll get, say, Fra Angelico. Is that so bad? But if we give artists the same alienation and meaningless despair that Humanism offers everyone, we'll get more pseudo-art expressing pseudo-philosophy. Artists are magnifiers for the culture; I for one am concerned about the kind of culture magnified when wrapped candy dumped on the museum floor is taken seriously as art.

I ahve given detailed accounst of the actual thinking Chris Ofili is credited for with his Virgin Mary image, which is NOT "spattered" at all, but carefully and semi-ritually adorned with the dung he claims is traditional (it is preserved in a sterile way, not smeared on the canvas).

Felix-Gonzales' conceptual work using the candy wrappers is also replete with complex ritual, but translated into more accessible "pop" art.

As for expecting another Fra Angelico or Michelangelo (who'd be castigated by conservative Christians today for being homosexual), it is quite unlikely. There have been Christian artists in the last two centuries well-trained in the "craft" of representational art, and their work jas largely been forgettable.
That is an interesting phenomenon, and I am not sure why, but it may be the culture is jaded about the "frozen" image, preferring Mel Gibson or Cecil B. DeMille for their visual god-fix.

That doesn't negate, I agree, the imapct The Sistine Chapel still has to inspire. Aesthetically and narratively. One doesn't have to believe the story to be true to find it emotionally satisfying.

And I don't think Pollock was dogmatic about anything philosophically. He did undergo Jungian analysis, and occasionally espoused some hope in a grand narrative, but his existentialism was lived, not grasped through theory. Yet, his art and that of other AbExers, many of whom died tragically, may not have redeemed their non-existent souls, but it gave some meaning during the making while they worked; many times the very compulsion to keep at art comes from the search to create meaning. Not a grand narrative, just the moment of seeing and responding to one's immediate tools and gestures. Anyone who is a dancer or musician may know waht I am speaking of.