source: Reclaim Our Republic
Why has the tradition in America been for oaths to end with “So Help Me God”?
The military’s oath of enlistment ended with “So Help Me God.”
The commissioned officers’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”
President’s oath of office ended with “So Help Me God.”
Congressmen and Senators’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”
Witnesses in Court swore to tell the truth, “So Help Me God.”
Even Lincoln proposed an oath to be a United States citizen which ended with “So Help Me God.”
On DECEMBER 8, 1863, Lincoln announced his plan to accept back into the Union those who had been in the Confederacy with a proposed oath:
“Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States…Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion … that a full pardon is hereby granted to them…with restoration of all rights of property … upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath … to wit:
“I, ______, do solemnly swear, in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves… and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves… SO HELP ME GOD.”
A similar situation was faced by Justice Samuel Chase, who was the Chief Justice of Maryland’s Supreme Court in 1791, and then appointed by George Washington as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1796-1811.
In 1799, a dispute arose over whether an Irish immigrant named Thomas M’Creery had in fact become a naturalized U.S. citizen and thereby able to leave an estate to a relative in Ireland.
The court decided in M’Creery’s favor based on a certificate executed before Justice Samuel Chase, which stated:
“I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern, that … personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery, and did repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State, entitled, An Act for Naturalization.”
An oath was meant to call a Higher Power to hold one accountable to perform what they promised. . . . Courts of Justice thought oaths would lose their effectiveness if the public at large lost their fear of the God of the Bible who gave the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Chancellor Kent noted in People v. Ruggles, 1811, that irreverence weakened the effectiveness of oaths:
“Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.”
George Washington warned of this in his Farewell Address, 1796:
“Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?”
In August of 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville observed a court case:
“While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul.”
The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say.
The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms: “The court of common pleas of Chester County (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God.”
The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.’” Oaths to hold office had similar acknowledgments.
The Constitution of Mississippi, 1817, stated:
“No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.”
The Constitution of Tennessee, 1870, article IX, Section 2, stated:
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”
The Constitution of Maryland, 1851, required office holders make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
In 1864, the Constitution of Maryland required office holders to make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
The Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776, chapter 2, section 10, stated:
“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ‘I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”
The Constitution of South Carolina, 1778, article 12, stated:
“Every…person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in the future state of rewards and punishments… (is eligible to vote).”
The Constitution of South Carolina, 1790, article 38, stated:
“That all persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshiped, shall be freely tolerated.”
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court stated in Commonwealth v. Wolf (3 Serg. & R. 48, 50, 1817:
“Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life.”
It was understood that persons in positions of power would have opportunities to do corrupt backroom deals for their own benefit.
But if that person believed that God existed, that He was watching, and that He would hold them accountable in the future, that person would hesitate, thinking “even if I get away with this my whole life, I will still be accountable to God in the next.” This is what is called “a conscience.”
But if that person did not believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments, then when presented with the temptation to do wrong and not get caught, they would give in.
In fact, if there is no God, and this life is all there is, they would be a fool not to.
This is what President Reagan referred to in 1984:
“Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience.”
William Linn, who was unanimously elected as the first U.S. House Chaplain, May 1, 1789, stated:
“Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there be no God, there is no law, no future account; government then is the ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake.”
Sir William Blackstone, one of the most quoted authors by America’s founders, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1770):
“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.”
When Secretary of State Daniel Webster was asked what the greatest thought was that ever passed through his mind, he replied “My accountability to God.”
Benjamin Franklin wrote to Yale President Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790:
“The soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this.”
Benjamin Franklin also wrote:
“That there is one God, Father of the Universe… That He loves such of His creatures as love and do good to others: and will reward them either in this world or hereafter, that men’s minds do not die with their bodies, but are made more happy or miserable after this life according to their actions.”
John Adams wrote to Judge F. A. Van der Kemp, January 13, 1815:
“My religion is founded on the love of God and my neighbor; in the hope of pardon for my offenses; upon contrition… In the duty of doing no wrong, but all the good I can, to the creation, of which I am but an infinitesimal part. I believe, too, in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
John Adams wrote again to Judge F. A. Van de Kemp, December 27, 1816:
“Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child, would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium. For, I am certain there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.”
John Adams wrote in a Proclamation of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer, March 6, 1799:
“No truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration… than… acknowledgment of… a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments.”
Is Belief in God Required to Hold Office in America?
11 December, 2014 By Jake MacAulay
There are seven states including Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding public office.
And now, according to a recent New York Times article by Laurie Goodstein, a coalition of nonbelievers including atheists, agnostics, humanists and freethinkers, led and primarily funded by atheist Todd Stiefel, says it is time to get rid of these atheist bans because they are discriminatory, offensive and unconstitutional.
Besides Maryland, the other six states with language in their constitutions that prohibit people who do not believe in God from holding public office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
Mississippi’s Constitution, for example, says, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold office in this state.”
Mr. Steifel’s coalition, which is known by the name “Openly Secular,” claims that these constitutional requirements are a form of bigotry against those who deny God’s existence.
But before we jump on the bigotry bandwagon, let’s think about this a little more carefully.
Our American system of law and justice is predicated upon the belief that individuals have rights and that the purpose of civil government is to protect and to secure these rights.
Foundational to this system of law, liberty and justice is the belief that these rights come from God.
This “American View” of law and government is found in the Declaration of Independence and it is contained in each and every Constitution of each and every state.
Now, let’s be clear. Mr. Steifel may not believe that there is a God. And no one is forcing him to do so.
But if he doesn’t believe that God exists, it follows that he doesn’t believe that God-given rights exist either.
And if he doesn’t believe that God-given rights exist, then how would you expect him, if elected, to defend and protect those rights?
You see, when someone is elected to office he swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the God-given rights that are secured thereby. To elect someone who does not believe that God exists, is to ask them to do that which is impossible for them to do.
The drafters of our state constitutions understood this simple logic and so they included these provisions designed to protect us from officeholders who do not share the American philosophy of law and government.
Think of it this way.
Suppose instead of not believing in God, Mr. Stiefel informs us that he does not believe that there exists a city called Cincinnati, Ohio.
By not believing in Cincinnati, Mr. Stiefel breaks no law that we can punish him for.
But now suppose that a few of us have decided to take a bus trip to visit Cincinnati. We advertise for a driver for the bus and Mr. Stiefel answers our advertisement.
Is Mr. Stiefel qualified to drive us to Cincinnati?
Do you see the problem? Once he started the bus, what would Mr. Stiefel do next? How would he get us to a place the existence of which he denies?
Of course he is not qualified. He not only doesn’t know the way. He doesn’t even believe that there is a way. He is not qualified to take us to a place that, in his own mind, does not exist.
So this constitutional requirement that an office holder must believe in God is a logical and consistent protection against those who might drive our constitutional republic in a bad direction.
This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry. It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.
Jake MacAulay serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), an educational outreach that presents the founders’ “American View” of law and government. IOTC has produced thousands of graduates in all 50 states with a full understanding of the Biblical principles on which America’s founding documents are based. Jake is the former co-host of the syndicated talk show, The Sons of Liberty, an ordained minister and has spoken to audiences nation-wide, and has established the American Club, a constitutional study group in public and private schools. Jake has been seen on Yahoo News, Fox News, The Blaze, AP, CBS, NBC, The Weekly Standard, and more…
We know those who want to Destroy our Country, from within or without, reject God. Those who have taken the oaths stated above and reject God have violated their oath of office, can not be trusted, and should be removed from office.