Atheists Seek to Dissuade Congress From Taking Oath on Bible

CongressWASHINGTON — An atheist organization is seeking to dissuade new members of Congress from taking their oath on the Bible when they are sworn into office today.

“On January 6, Congress will take the ceremonial oath of office, during which each member will solemnly swear, or affirm, that he or she will ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ While members are not required to swear or affirm on a specific text, or any at all, many choose to swear on the Bible,” the Secular Coalition of America recently outlined to supporters.

“This year, the Secular Coalition will seek to remind Congress that it was elected to support and defend the Constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text,” it continued. “We will be circulating letters on the Hill and lobbying in person to get as many members of Congress as we can to take the oath on the Constitution.”

It is not known whether any of the recipients of the letter will actually heed the group’s request.

As previously reported, in 2012, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) did the same prior to the inauguration of Barack Obama, also requesting that he eliminate the phrase “So help me God” from his oath as well.

“When you stand to reaffirm your oath, do so using the language of the Founders. Eliminate the religious verbiage,” wrote FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel. “While you’re at it, why not place your hand on the Constitution instead of a Bible?”

According to historical information, America’s first president, George Washington, took the oath of office on the Bible. While it is disputed as to whether or not he used the phrase “so help me God” in his oath, his presidential address often made reference to the Divine Creator.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States,” he said.

“In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either,” Washington continued. “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”

According to a recent study, 57 percent of Congress professes to be Christian and 31 percent identifies as Catholic. Although the entirety of Congress takes their official oath together on the House floor with no religious materials involved, many choose to have an additional private ceremony where they recreate being sworn into office, largely for photo-op purposes.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Neiman

    Notice two things:
    1. So different that than over 175 years of our history, now barely a little over half identify as being Christians, which bodes nothing but sorrow for America’s future.
    2. Roman Catholics do not identify themselves as Christian.

    Then we have atheists and Muslims and Buddhists in Congress, so we have pretty much turned our backs completely on Nature’s God, our Creator, as the Guarantor of our Liberty, is it then any wonder that we no longer enjoy liberty and that the Bill of Rights are dead?

    • TheBBP

      It is amazing to me that the intellectuals that they think that they are continue to call themselves “Atheist” when they are clearly Anti-theist and more importantly, Anti-Christian. I know atheists and while they do not believe in God, they are not bothered that other people do.

      Remember, these FFRF folks are the ones who successfully threatened a small diner in NC for giving people a 15% discount for praying. Their entire goal is to completely suppress Christianity in any form. If they get their way, we will have to hide in our homes to worship God.

      • Neiman

        ” If they get their way, we will have to hide in our homes to worship God.”

        Just as they did in the first century and beyond – Christian faith is being forced underground. But guess what, that Church will be more powerful spiritually, they will have to be devoted to God as never before to survive. Sadly, a great number of apostate groups calling themselves Christian and who are submissive to the State will remain in public view to promote the pretense that the Christian Church is not being treated as an enemy, just as in the Old Soviet Union and the PRC.

        • skeptic15

          Please try to remember, there’s a difference between Christian hegemony and religious freedom – your religious freedom ends where someone else’s nose begins.

          • Fundisi

            Then you do not know the 1st Amendment at all.

          • skeptic15

            I suggest you explore The First Amendment Center and Exploring Constitutional Law websites – they may provide insight into the issues raised.

          • Fundisi

            I do not need them and in fact they are enemies of the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers were unable to say exactly what they meant, then we the people can never depending upon those rights to mean exactly what they say and the Constitution is meaningless.

      • Chris Clayton

        They didn’t complain about praying. FFRF complained about the discount for praying. There is a huge difference.

        • Guzzman

          Exactly right, FFRF was relying on civil rights laws that prohibit differential treatment based on religion.

      • Guzzman

        You have been totally misled by the broadcast you posted. The legal action against the diner for giving discounts for praying was based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The CRA says it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, national origin, or gender.

        In a nutshell, religion is one of those prohibited factors that cannot be used to treat people differently, as the diner was attempting to do.

    • MarcAlcan

      2. Roman Catholics do not identify themselves as Christian.

      Incorrect. We are the first Christians. The Protestants were offshoots of Catholicism 1500 years after.

      Then we have atheists and Muslims and Buddhists in Congress, so we have pretty much turned our backs completely on Nature’s God, our Creator

      Partly incorrect. Muslims believe in God.

      • Neiman

        The poll above separated Christians from Catholics.

        It is an established fact that most Catholics when asked, identify themselves as Catholics first.

        No Roman Catholics were not the first Christians, the Bible never identifies the Church as Catholic, “The Way,” “Christians,” “Nazarenes” and in other ways, but not Catholic.

        No, Muslims do not believe in the God of the Bible, but Allah, a generic word for God was applied to the pagan moon god from the Ka’bah and they have no connection to Abraham either.

        • MarcAlcan

          The poll above separated Christians from Catholics.

          So what? All that means is the poll taker does not know much about Christianity and Christian history.

          It is an established fact that most Catholics when asked, identify themselves as Catholics first.

          Well I don’t doubt that there are many ignorant Catholics.

          But that aside, yes we identify ourselves as Catholics because that is who we are. Way back then, there were not other denominations. The break did not appear till 1000 years later.

          Back then, every Christian was Catholic.

          No Roman Catholics were not the first Christians, the Bible never identifies the Church as Catholic

          True. They did not call themselves Christians either. In fact, the term Christian was applied to them by pagans. When the Christian Church chose to self-identify, they called themselves the Catholic Church which is what it is – the universal Church.

          No, Muslims do not believe in the God of the Bible

          Did I say they do? You originally said that Muslism don’t believe in God. Period. And that is false because they do believe in God. Allah means God.

      • KenS

        Incorrect. The waldesians, which later became known as Anabaptists, then Baptists were the first Christians and were persecuted by the RMC long before the protestant reformation because they refused to join the RMC and it’s unbiblical doctrine of the layman not being allowed to read the bible because they are not smart enough to discern what it says.

        • MarcAlcan

          Incorrect. The waldesians, which later became known as Anabaptists, then Baptists were the first Christians

          The Waldesians started in 1170. That ‘s 1,136 years too late.
          They are not apostolic and they were never founded by Christ.
          There is only Church that Christ founded and that is the Catholic Church.

    • skeptic15

      “is it then any wonder that we no longer enjoy liberty”

      So, you cannot go to your church of choice? You cannot “worship” under the protections afforded to you (the legal protection of religious freedom as long as it is not disruptive or imposed on anyone else)?

      “now barely a little over half identify as being Christians, which bodes nothing but sorrow for America’s future”

      Yes, because no society in the history of humankind has ever done well unless there was a Christian majority/theocracy.

      • Fundisi

        The 1st Amendment is not restricted to whether ir not we can go to the Church of our choice, it is not limited by whether or not it is disruptive, it is the ability to freely express (word/deed) our faith anywhere and at any time in the United States.

        That is right, no society in the history or mankind has ever done well unless there have been a significant number of His people there that were obedient to Him. No one said anything about a theocracy, that is your atheist mindset speaking lies.

        • skeptic15

          “it is not limited by whether or not it is disruptive”
          Actually, it is. I suggest you read more about Constitutional Law (not just the Constitution but actual case law).

          “That is right, no society in the history or mankind has ever done well unless there have been a significant number of His people there that were obedient to Him”
          Then your knowledge of world/human history appears to be very limited. And as far as contemporary societies that are not religious, perhaps review Zuckerman’s paper on Atheism, Secularity, and Well Being.

          • Fundisi

            A. We are supposed to be ruled by the Constitution, not case law. When we stary from the Constitution, we are no longer a nation under law, but the tyranny of the State.

            B. It depends upon what you, a non-Christian define as doing well.

          • skeptic15

            “We are supposed to be ruled by the Constitution”
            The Constitution is the cornerstone of our government and laws, but there are clearly things not foreseen or addressed by Madison and others when they wrote the Constitution – thus, the need for judges and case law to be Interpreted within the framework of the Constitution – perhaps the book Original Meanings might be of some value in this regard.

            “It depends upon what you, a non-Christian define as doing well”
            You read the article very quickly – perhaps the parameters discussed weren’t defined well enough…??

          • Fundisi

            Neither the Congress nor the Courts have the Constitutional power to infringe upon the rights clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights – period, Words have meaning and if the Founding Fathers could not say exactly what they meant in the Bill of Rights, then we the people can never trust the Bill of Rights or the Constitution to mean exactly what it says, and thus the entire document is meaningless. That fact that the sheeple have allowed it is their disgrace and to their own destruction.

  • bowie1

    If it is not required then it becomes the personal decision of soon to become members of Congress. Atheists seem to think they alone have the right to control what they will say or do.

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      Atheists seem to think they alone have the right to control what they will say or do.

      How do you possibly get that from this request? They aren’t demanding it, and they acknowledge that it’s up to each of them and it’s legal to use a bible if that’s what they want.

    • James Grimes

      Atheists can do as they please and generally the decent people do not complain. If a Christian member of Congress chooses to use a Bible, what is it to The Useless?

      • Shaun Keefe

        Did you just call Atheists, useless? Really? You do realize there are atheist soldiers fighting for your rights and freedoms, there are atheist scientists creating your medicines and technology. Useless? Might wanna rethink that insult.

        And we have no problem if a Christian uses a bible to swear in.. It is when we are forced to swear in on something we do not believe in when taking office, that is where we have a problem.

        • James Grimes

          Shaun, there’s a big difference between casual Atheists and militant Atheists (FFRF and their ilk). My comments are directed at the militant Atheists who troll this site to be disagreeable and insulting.

          • Shaun Keefe

            “Casual Atheists”

            Hehe,, “Well, I think I’m gonna wear my casual atheist clothes today. I think I will be atheist in that group over there, but not over here.”

            Thats like calling someone a social Christian. I understand who you are referring to, but the term “casual atheist” made me chuckle a bit.

          • James Grimes

            Unfortunately, we have social Christians. I’ll laugh with you. Have a nice day.

        • skeptic15

          “And we have no problem if a Christian uses a bible to swear in”
          Actually, I might take issue with it – you see, it begs the question of what might take precedence in making or voting on legislation – the Bible or the Constitution. While I certainly would not want to take away their ability to choice to swear an oath on any “holy book,” I would feel better if they put a copy of the Constitution on/with it – at least then I might feel a little better that they understand they are representing a diverse society that the Constitution was designed to protect – not just those who “believed” in their particular “holy book.”
          I think we’ll have made some progress when people are being worn in using the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. (and perhaps we’ll really have come a really long way when we see a Kama Sutra used 🙂 )

          • Shaun Keefe

            See, that’s the hope. But religion is so ingrained into US politics that we may never see the day when the bible is no longer used as a measure of sworn oath. Perhaps it will happen, But we have to take a very real approach to this. The US government is 92% Christian majority, voted in by Christians. The reality of removing all religion-based oath swearing is very slim.

          • skeptic15

            And the reality of abolishing slavery when the Constitution was written was slim – as was the right of women to vote – as was equal rights for LGBT citizens, etc.

          • Shaun Keefe

            I like the way you think. Let’s hope we see this in our lifetime. It still took a very long time for those things to come to fruition.

          • skeptic15

            Again, I would be pleased if people used both – the Constitution and perhaps another book they revered – but not necessarily a “holy book.”
            I find it interesting that even the “tradition” itself, at least for Presidents, has been varied (and, personally, I like what JQA did):
            “Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon (also a Quaker) swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One. Washington kissed the Bible afterwards, and subsequent presidents followed suit, up to and including Harry Truman, but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible.”

  • James Grimes

    It’s interesting to note that 90% of the new congress identify themselves as CHRISTIANS.

    • Guzzman

      Identifying with Christianity and actually practicing the tenets are two different things.

      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Gandhi

      • James Grimes

        And your point is…?

        • Guzzman

          The hypocrisy of some politicians aligning with the Christian Right is staggering. As an example, the New Testament in particular talks about helping the poor, blessed are the poor, but these are the very politicians (many of whom are quite wealthy) who are the first to cut social welfare programs, unemployment benefits, and so on. They also talk about family values, but then end up in sordid affairs or even prison (e.g., Governor McDonnell). It’s not just Republicans either, preachy Democrats are no better.

          • James Grimes

            That happens all too often. I certainly will not deny it.

          • Guzzman

            It just gets to me sometimes. Didn’t mean to rant.

          • James Grimes

            No problem. I think most people are dissatisfied with Congress’s performance.

          • Guzzman

            Some people are good, and some people are not. I think it is time we admit that merely identifying oneself as Christian does not confer morality.

            So I guess that’s why that old adage, “But how can you be good without Jesus/God?” borders on obnoxious.

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            If one lives a christ-like life there is no need to tell others as they will see it for themselves.

  • Truthhurts24

    These idiots are in for a rude awakening if they do not repent of their plots against God.

    • skeptic15

      Name calling and fear mongering – nice….or were you expressing sentiments from the Inquisition?

      • John Munro

        no from the death camps of evolution we are all just animals ? then why listen to a monkey?

      • Truthhurts24

        You scoffers are idiots without Christ for he is your creator and only salvation from eternal death. He died on the cross for your sins because he loved you enough to not see you suffer from sins bondage but like most ignorant atheists Satan has blinded your mind from truth. I pray that one day you will receive Christ because without him there is no rest for your soul and everything is in vain.

  • Christofer Tamulevich

    Sad thing is – despite the popular belief – we aren’t supposed to be ‘swearing’ oaths at all – according to Jesus that is…

    Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

    Yet the world is so confusing Christians are fighting for their right to swear an oath – which Jesus taught against – and this is because the church generally doesn’t teach this truth.

    Think.

    • skeptic15

      And, look at Matt 6 and public prayer…. Do some “Christians” not even read the Bible?

      “Think.”
      Now that’s refreshing.

      • Fundisi

        I am always amused when non-Christians, enemies of Christ quote the Bible and that always in error. If you get help from a Christian, you will read where Jesus often prayed in public, as did the Apostles. So, Jesus was talking about another matter entirely.

        • skeptic15

          “where Jesus often prayed in public”
          Please, read those passages carefully – he did not “often” pray in public.
          And the context and intent of Matt 6 is pretty clear (to me at least) – you have to make some pretty convoluted arguments ultimately to justify being “like the hypocrites.”

          • Fundisi

            Yes, the Bible tells us He often prayed in public and because you are an enemy of Christ, daring to falsely use His Word, you have not His Spirit and cannot understand what the Bible teaches at all.

          • skeptic15

            “Matthew 6:5-6And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.”
            Now, what are your examples of “often” praying in public? Also, consider Jesus (if he existed) was supposedly Jewish – what were the actual prayer rituals of the Jewish people of his time? Matt 6 makes it clear to me that he was very critical of the public prayer rituals of that time period.

          • Fundisi

            I do not intend to debate God’s Word with an atheist, Jesus calls that casting pearls before swine, wherein atheist swine will only turn an attack God and His Word. You are an enemy of Christ and can never understand His Word.

            Our Lord does not mean to exclude and condemn public prayer, in joining
            with few, or more persons, in such service; for he himself directs to
            it, and approves of it, ( Matthew 18:19 Matthew 18:20
            ) but his view is to instruct persons that they should not only pray in
            public, but in private also; and especially the latter, which is more
            suitable and fitting for their particular cases, and less liable to
            pride, hypocrisy, and vanity.

            Jesus prayed the Lord’s Prayer in Public, “There are several references in the New
            Testament to public prayers that are unacceptable, and it is true that
            Jesus condemned the Pharisees’ manner of praying. But Jesus Himself
            prayed out loud on occasion (see John 17), as did the apostles (Acts 8:15; 16:25; 20:36). Acts 1:14
            says, “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the
            women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”
            Then in
            verse 24, the apostles prayed together to choose someone to fill Judas’
            spot among the twelve. They were clearly praying together and out loud.
            So, the sin was not in the public nature of the prayer or the fact that
            people could hear it.”

            So Jesus did not condemn praying i public, as the Jews were commanded to pray in the Synagogues when they were all gathered together. He was teaching against pride, in wanting to be seen praying that others might speak well of them.

            Now that ends your misuse of God’s Word in your service to your father the Devil and my debating an enemy of Christ about God’s Word which is alien to him.

          • skeptic15

            Please see my response to Kw Henry above – again, I ask, are the examples of prayer we see today more like the hypocrites or those of what was written about Jesus?

          • Fundisi

            These are things beyond your understanding, you are spiritually dead and trying to use God’s Word falsely. You hate Christ and then dare to try and use His Word against His children.

            No matter how many times Jesus prayed in private, He prayed publicly and never condemned such public prayer. He was only talking about those people wanting to be heard by their prayers and thought to be super spiritual, when they were, like you, spiritually dead.

            I will not talk of hypocrites with you, we always have them with us, but even in their hypocrisy many of them may still be spiritually alive and only poorly taught and will suffer divine correction, while still gaining heaven. You on the other hand will die in your sins.

          • Guzzman

            It seems rather telling that the legal oath is performed without any religious materials being present, but when it’s photo-op time the bible’s come flooding out, presumably for show, you know, to pick up that faith-based voter block. Ugh, talk about a bunch of hypocrites. When you mix religion and politics, all you really get is bad politics.

          • Guzzman

            I enjoyed reading your link to “How Would Jesus Pray?”: “… the desire to use prayer as an opportunity to parade one’s spirituality
            before men is intrinsically evil because it both originates in and is
            intended to satisfy pride. As we noted earlier in this chapter, the
            motive of sinful self-glory is the ultimate perversion of prayer.”

            That makes sense. If God is the audience for the prayer, then that strongly implies a PRIVATE conversation, preferably in an isolated spot – a closet would be the perfect location. I think Matthew 6 means exactly what it says.

      • Kw Henry

        matthew 6:5-and when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be honored by others. truly i tell you, they have recieved their reward in full…thats the scripture you are referring to skeptic15? notice that it doesnt say “do not pray in public”, but it says “do not be like the hypocrites who love to pray…to be “honored by others”..THATS real issue Jesus was talking about here..not that it was a wrong thing to pray in public, but to pray in public for the sake of boosting ones ego, like the pharisees of His day..”hey, look at me, how pious i am! i;ll prove it by showing off how i can pray like an expert…give me compliments..tell me how great i am”..THATS what Jesus was warning about…the pride and arrogance that comes with showing off how pious a person is..NOT the idea that somehow He was discouraging public prayer..if your going to use a scripture to critisize a belief, please at least read and understand it to know whether you have it right or not…the blatant misuse of scripture that i see running rampant on a myriad of sites is, frankly..embarrassing.

        • skeptic15

          When you read all the passages of Jesus praying, there is a pattern of him doing it alone.
          And why do you (and many others) seem to selectively ignore this, overt verse that is pretty clear on how to pray:
          “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly”

          • Kw Henry

            i dont ignore it..thats a good scripture too..but it involves privately praying and the previous scripture involves public praying, both of which Jesus did not condemn..why is that so hard to understand..public praying is good..as is private praying..He encouraged both…

          • skeptic15

            Well, again, look at his pattern of praying – it is fairly consistent that he does it in solitude.

          • Kw Henry

            yes…HE did it in solitude.with the obvious exceptions of meal times…in the synagogues and open displays where He would give thanks to His father..such as the sermon on the mount as well as the last supper. ..but if we were meant to pray in solitude as He did..and pray that way all the time, with no other option to choose from, why would He even have an opinion on the subject of the pharisees, who prayed in public for looks, if He was endorsing a solitary stance on the subject for all occasions? what you are trying to endorse here is the idea that Jesus was against praying in public, so as to bolster the stance of non believers that we christians are being hypocritical for wanting to pray in public…thats just not true..there is also a scripture that advises us when we SHOULD pray..i will have to look it up, but it names all the times and places we SHOULD pray..when we get up, when we lie down, when we are alone, when we are with others..when we are home, when we are outside..the point is, there is no set appropriate place for prayer..and no amount of scripture twisting to make it seem that way will change the fact that prayer is good, privately or publicly.

          • skeptic15

            “that prayer is good, privately or publicly”
            It seems to me, public prayer is not “good” when it is done “to be seen by men.” And in my experience, much of it is self serving – not in the “spirit” or examples of Jesus.
            But I do understand your opinion – thanks for sharing – I will think some more about this.

          • Kw Henry

            your welcome..and i really was referring as to “public: those fools who obviously do it for attention, for recognition..for praise. i dont think its a bad thing to pray, anywhere ( obviously) but i think its absolutely despicable the way i see some of these charlatans praying “in public”, on tv and so forth..as if their whining and screeching will get God to notice them faster than the slower, quieter “pray” ers…thats the kind of “public” i find repulsive…but i believe prayer anywhere is a good thing. if it isnt shouted in a public place so as to drown out even the thoughts of people passing by…talking and praying is fine, but screaming really goes no where, whether its prayer or preaching..if it cant be done in a normal calm voice..then it probably shouldnt be done..if i stand on a street corner, and i have people passing by 10 feet in front of me, but i have to shout at them as if they are a block and a half away…i dont need to critisize them..i need to be critical of myself..but prayer is a very sacred thing to many, many peopled..once you restrict the sacredness of it, you leave it vulnerable to attack just as a free expression, regardless of what the expression is…anyway, i know you didnt ask for all that, so i should stop now…lol. glad i gave you a thing or two to think about….have a great day.

  • Guzzman

    “So help me God” is not in the Constitution’s oath for government office. As to court testimony and oaths, all citizens have a right to just “affirm” that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, bibles, or anything else religious is ever required. This is addressed in the Constitution where it forbids “religious tests.” When I took my oath of office I was simply asked, “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will defend and protect the Constitution?” No bibles or “so help me gods” were involved.

    • Fundisi

      You are correct, there is no religious test, no one is required to take an oath before God, no one is required to swear an oath on the Bible. Yet, our Founding Fathers, when the Constitutional Convention was in trouble, they all prayed together for God’s guidance. Isn’t it strange that Thomas Jefferson, no Christian he, in the Declaration of Independence said that our rights, our liberty depended upon Nature’s God, upon our Creator. Isn’t it strange our Founding Fathers appointed chaplains, only Christian chaplains to pray at the opening of every session of Congress and every official meeting and ceremony.

      Yes, you may turn away from God and swear any way you want, but if our national leaders were all truly devoted to God, if they truly prayed to God every day over everything they did, this country would not be in the mess it is in and we would still enjoy liberty, instead of every citizen being in involuntary servitude to the State under penalties of Law. Until people like you got involved, we were the strongest, most prosperous nation in all human history; and, now we have fallen behind China economically and have fallen into the moral abyss, being a depraved, degenerate people.

      • skeptic15

        “Yet, our Founding Fathers, when the Constitutional Convention was in trouble, they all prayed together for God’s guidance.”
        Actually, if you read Madison’s notes carefully, there was no prayer for months and then there was a motion made for prayer prior to the 4th of July weekend – the motion was never voted on, and when they returned after the 4th of July weekend prayer was started by those who wanted to have it – without a formal vote.
        Regardless, because they did it doesn’t make it right – if appeal to history/tradition were actually valid, we might still have slaves, women couldn’t vote, etc.

        “If they truly prayed to God every day over everything they did”
        Prayed to which god? Also, consider it might be reasonably foreseeable that if they prayed to a milk jug they would have the same outcomes as not praying or praying to any other god(s)(refer to whywontgodhealamputees The Best Optical Illusion in the World).

        • Fundisi

          Your liberal, atheist revisionist history is of no interest to em.

          • skeptic15

            “atheist revisionist history”
            I have my copy of Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention – please point out, specifically, where I got that wrong.

          • Fundisi

            Your trying to say that God had no part in the work of our Founding Fathers and no part in the establishment of this nation, which was a union of 13 Christian Colonies.

      • Guzzman

        I must take issue with your reference to “nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence as having anything at all to do with Christianity. At the time, this phrase was plainly understood to be the deist god of Enlightenment philosophers such as Spinoza and Voltaire. Deism was popular in Revolutionary America, and Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and other founding fathers were either deists or inspired by the movement. Deism imagines a hands-off god, a creator who, once the clock is built and wound up, leaves it to tick by itself according to the “laws of nature.”

        The role of this “Creator” is clarified in the Declaration:
        “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

        In other words, this “Creator” has no role in government. The founders emphatically rejected divine sovereignty, or anything remotely resembling a “government under god.” God isn’t the foundation on which authority rests. No—it’s the consent of the governed. In any event, the Declaration had no legal bearing on the U.S. Constitution that came 12 years later. The god-free Constitution says “We the people” are the foundation on which authority rests, not Jesus or Yaweh or any other supernatural entity.

        • Fundisi

          The Declaration of Independence is our National Charter.

          George Washington
          “”While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
          –The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

          John Adams
          “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of
          English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

          “Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that
          those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”–Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

          Thomas Jefferson
          3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

          “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
          –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

          “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

          Samuel Adams
          Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution

          “And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of
          the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.”
          –As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

          Well I could go on and we could play dueling quotations, but the point is our Founding Fathers did not share your hostility to the Christian faith.

          • Guzzman

            I have shown no hostility to the Christian faith, as you contend, but merely pointed out the recognised fact that the “nature’s God” referred to in the Declaration was NOT the god of the Bible.
            Not all of the Founders were Christian. Some of the more prominent ones were religious skeptics and Deists who did not believe in the supernatural at all. For example, Thomas Paine wrote an entire book (“The Age of Reason”) criticizing the legitimacy of the Bible, calling it a “fabulous mythology.” But the personal beliefs of the Founders were largely irrelevant to writing the Constitution because these men, with all of their religious differences of opinion, were committed to the “separation between religion and government” (to use Madison’s term).

            I guess the real question is why you seek to make a big deal out of the personal, religious beliefs of the authors of the Constitution? You seem to think that if the Founders can be identified as devout Christians, then it follows that the U.S. Constitution is a Christian document which embodies Christian principles and doctrines (as defined by the Christian Right, of course). This plainly does not follow. A Christian is every bit as capable of creating a godless, secular document as an atheist is.

            Indeed, the fact that many of these men were devout Christians (even if not in the way that the Christian Right imagines) BOLSTERS the case of contemporary secularists because it makes the absence of overt religious and Christian language in the Constitution all the more glaring. If they had mostly been atheists, the lack of religious language in the Constitution would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because many were religious and steeped in Christian education, the COMPLETE absence of Christian language and references must be read as both deliberate and purposeful.