In this article, I complete my examination of Mr. Fortenberry’s “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era,” in which he proposes forty-eight points that allegedly prove the Constitution was based upon the Bible.
Point #45
“Article 6 – ‘All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution.’ The decision to honor all the debts accrued under the previous government system was made in recognition of the biblical command given in Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 to ‘pay that which thou hast vowed.’”
The framers never acknowledged Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 as their inspiration for this provision in Article 6. Unless Mr. Fortenberry has been involved in necromancy, one has to wonder where he comes up with these special insights into the minds of men long dead. If the framers were as Biblically astute as they are often made out to be, they would not have selected Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 as the basis for this provision. This passage concerns vows made directly to God, not between men or governments.
It was noble that the framers chose to honor the nation’s and states’ past debts. However, had they intended to abide by Biblical law, this would have been the ideal place to stipulate a return to Yahweh’s1 sabbatical year and its provision for debt cancellation…. Without this stipulation, the United States Constitution essentially provided for debt perpetuity, in contrast to Yahweh’s law provision for debt cancellation. Every seventh year (known as the sabbatical year) Yahweh requires the cancellation of all debts:
“At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.… Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called YHWH’s release.” (Deuteronomy 15:1-2)
The seventh-year release is not a moratorium, but a cancellation of all private and public debts. If the framers (and today’s politicians) were earnest about balancing the budget, they would have returned to Yahweh’s law and its seventh-year cancellation of debt. Rather than choosing the only means by which America’s current budget can ever be balanced, politicians opted to shackle future generations with ever-increasing debt.2
Point #46
“Article 6 – ‘The Constitution, and all laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.’ This recognition of a supreme law of the land is based on the same recognition given by Israel to the Law of God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and Proverbs 30:6, the Law given by Moses superseded all laws which may be given by men.”
What an incredibly audacious claim. Article 6’s assertion that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is not based upon the Scriptures Mr. Fortenberry provided. It is, in fact, seditious to Yahweh and His law:
The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matthew 15:6-9)
The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme….
Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add “under God” or “under the Bible” to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.
If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to [make Yahweh his partner and] provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry.3
Point #47
“Article 6 – ‘No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” As strange as it might sound, the prohibition against the use of a religious test is also founded on the Bible; for in the laws concerning the choosing of a king given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20; in the laws concerning the election of elders given in Deuteronomy 1:13 and Exodus 18:25; in the laws concerning the appointment of the princes given in Numbers 1:1-16; in all the Law of God, there is not one religious test given as a requirement for holding office.”
Strange? This is the strangest of Mr. Fortenberry’s claims. If requirements such as fearing Yahweh, being schooled in Yahweh’s law, writing out copies of His law, being men of truth, and hating covetousness aren’t religious tests, what are they?
Because Article 6 outlaws the Christian tests required by early State constitutions (which themselves fell short of what’s Biblically required), it repudiates all Biblical qualifications, particularly Deuteronomy 17:15: “Thou shalt in any wise set him king [leader] over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose….” (Deuteronomy 17:15). Is it any wonder both federal and state governments are populated with nincompoops, scoundrels, and criminals?
Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. It became the initial means by which America was transformed from a [predominantly] monotheistic Christian nation to a [thoroughly] polytheistic one.4
The strangest thing about Mr. Fortenberry’s claim is that it denounces the late 18th-century States’ extant Christian tests as unbiblical.
Point #48
“Article 7 – ‘In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.’ The concluding line of the Constitution of the United States of America contains direct recognition of its Christian foundation, for in this line our founding fathers publicly recognized the Christian God as their Lord….”
Mr. Fortenberry ends where we began in Part 1 of “Straining at Gnats…”
The extent people will go to in their attempts to make the Constitution Biblically compatible is alarming. This demonstrates the idol the Constitution has become to many Americans. The sad irony in this is that the Constitution’s greatest proponents are predominantly people who claim to be Christians. They strain at gnats and swallow camels and, in so doing, become complicit in the framers’ sedition against Yahweh. Lord willing, I will begin addressing “swallowing camels” in the next article.
Related posts:
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
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 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
Dear Mr. Weiland: I applaud and congratulate your continued dismantling of the amoral, and antichristian nature of the US FEDGOV. This series of posts clearly shows that the Elect race of God, are in as much error as the ancient Israelites, and for much the same reasons. Seeking to ‘cry to Baal’ (the Federal Reserve, Mammonism) they also ‘play the harlot’ on all the high hills and groves’ (by their adoption of miscegenation as lawful among heterosexuals, and ‘gay marriage’ among the utterly damned). These are the last days before the US is judged by YHWH God Almighty. May the Good Lord in His righteous wrath, utterly destroy the heathen/goyim, and in mercy, at the same time, save His inheritance- the ‘apple of his eye,’ the ‘sheep of HIS pasture,’ the covenantally faithful whites who have not bowed the knee to Baal (or FedGov!) who, while small in number, are great in the sight of the God of Israel; for it is to Him alone, with whom we have to do, and to whom we swear allegiance! – http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com
Very interesting, Ted. When you told me that you were planning to address my point regarding religious tests, I assumed that you would offer a rebuttal of the lengthy explanation that I provided in support of that point in our conversation on part 5 of this series. Perhaps you will address that explanation as we proceed in the conversation.
Unfortunately, your list of supposed religious tests in the Bible demonstrates that we disagree on the definition of this term at least as much as we formerly disagreed on the definition of the term “elect.” Obviously, we cannot properly discuss the validity of the religious test clause until we establish a definition of the term “religious test,” so if you don’t mind, I would very much like to hear how you define this term. What exactly do you mean when you use the words “religious test”?
Bill, let me begin by commenting on what I FIND very interesting–in fact, what could very well prove to be tragic. I find it interesting that after addressing and dispelling twenty-seven of your forty-eight points in Parts 2-7 of this series of articles that you have yet to address ANY of the points in which I can’t imagine you cannot see you’re error. Instead, you have chosen to quibble over definitions in two of them. Not that you don’t have the right to quibble over definitions; but, do you ever intend to admit your error in any of your other points and in your promotion and complicity in what is a seditious document to Yahweh and His law?
I still intend to answer your lengthy rebuttal in Part 5. As I previously requested, please be patient with me. I hope to get back to it sooner than I anticipated.
By the word “religious,” I’m referring to only what is Biblical.
As for the word “test,” let’s use something hopefully both of us can agree upon–that is, Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary’s first definition: “1. the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined….”
Consequently, with the term “religious test,” I’m referring to those things specifically required as qualifications of civil and religious leaders as provided in the Bible.
Thank you for providing that definition, Ted. In doing so, you have confirmed that you view the term “religious test” to be synonymous with the phrase “biblical qualifications.” If this is true, then the Constitution’s prohibition against religious tests should be seen as a prohibition against any qualification requirement that is found in the Bible. That this is not the case can be seen in the fact that Article 2, Section 1 contains a requirement that the President be a natural born citizen of the United States. The Bible stipulated an identical requirement for the kings of Israel, and your acceptance of this as a proper biblical requirement is evident from the fact that you have not voiced a single, solitary objection to this requirement anywhere on your bibleversusconstitution website. If the religious test clause were a prohibition against any requirement for office that is found in the Bible, then the citizenship requirement for the office of the President would be a violation of that clause. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin’s invocation of Exodus 18:21 during the Constitutional Convention in opposition to a wealth requirement demonstrates that the founders had no objection to the use of the Bible in determining proper qualifications for office. It is therefore obvious that the people of the founding era of our nation understood the term “religious test” in a manner which differed from your definition.
To determine how this term was understood at the time of our nation’s founding, it would be proper to consider what was said about this phrase by the people of that era. I would like to begin that consideration with an address made to George Washington in 1789 by the First Presbytery of the Eastward. In that address, the ministers said, “Among the objections to the Federal Constitution we have never considered the want of a Religious Test, that grand engine of persecution in every tyrant’s hand.” ( http://books.google.com/books?id=rDMrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA66 ) This address clearly demonstrates that religious tests were considered to be more than just biblical qualifications, for when has a tyrant ever used a list of biblical qualifications for office as a “grand engine of persecution”?
I pointed out in my previous comment on part 5 of this series that the proper understanding of the religious test clause is that it is a prohibition against the requirement that candidates swear allegiance to the codified doctrines of an established church. I explained that this clause was instituted in direct opposition to the Corporation Act and the Test Acts in England by which only those who swore allegiance to the doctrines of the Anglican Church were permitted to hold office. This understanding of the religious test clause is fully consistent with the above address to Washington. It also matches every usage of this phrase in the literature of that era. For example, Joseph Story addressed this clause in his Commentaries on the Constitution by explaining that it was intended to prohibit laws similar to the English Corporation Act and Test Acts. He then state that:
“It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.”
( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s27.html )
Oliver Ellsworth, one of the pivotal drafters of the Constitution and the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also wrote about the religious test clause. His explanation also included a history of the English Corporation Act and Test Act, and he defined a religious test as:
“A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one’s belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissable to a publick office.”
( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s14.html )
Mr. Ellsworth also addressed the idea of a simple oath of alegience to God by providing an explanation nearly identical to the one which I previously provided.
Tench Coxe expressed a similar view of this clause when he explained that:
“In England every Presbyterian, and other person not of their established church, is incapable of holding an office. No such impious deprivation of the rights of men can take place under the new foederal constitution.”
( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s12.html )
Oliver Wollcott also understood the religious test clause in this manner when he said:
“For myself, I should be content either with or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test laws. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s17.html )
We could also consider the statement by Mr. Shute in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention:
“To object to the latter part of the paragraph under consideration, which excludes a religious test, is, I am sensible, very popular; for the most of men, somehow, are rigidly tenacious of their own sentiments in religion, and disposed to impose them upon others as the standard of truth.”
Then we have this statement from Edmund Randolph, another pivotal member of the Constitutional Convention:
“Although officers, &c. are to swear that they will support this constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect.”
( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s24.html )
All of these statements and many, many more attest to the fact that this clause was not a prohibition against biblical qualifications as you assert but rather an injunction against acts like the Corporation Act and the Test Acts of England which required that all government officials be forced to swear allegiance to the codified doctrines of an established church.
Now, let me point out that you are mistaken to assume that your posts have dispelled twenty-seven of my forty-eight point. You have not yet dispelled any of them. For most of them, you have only asserted your objections, but the mere assertion of an objection does not in any way disprove the opposite contention. That requires a much more detailed examination of both sides in order to determine which of the two really agrees with the truth. Due to the obvious length of such an examination, I have only engaged you in a few of your assertions at this point. Judging by the results of those engagements, I highly doubt that you would be willing to subject every one of your twenty-seven assertions to the same level of examination. For my part, however, I am willing to devote as much time as you will allow in order to analyze every claim that you have made.
“…the proper understanding of the religious test clause is that it is a prohibition against the requirement that candidates swear allegiance to the codified doctrines of an established church. I explained that this clause was instituted in direct opposition to the Corporation Act and the Test Acts in England by which only those who swore allegiance to the doctrines of the Anglican Church were permitted to hold office.” So that’s what it was about?
The Fundamentaal Orders of Connecticut of 1639, our nation’s first constitution, contains the following language: “…there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God…to mayntayne and prsearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse…” Please show me where the Constitution of the 18th century contains such language. And please notice that maintaining and preserving the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus is a far stretch from maintaining rights of We the People.
Here is the governor’s oath of office: “I N.W. being now chosen to be Gournor wthin this Jurisdiction, for the yeare ensueing, and vntil a new be chosen, doe sweare by the greate and dreadful name of the everliueing God, to prmote the publicke good and peace of the same, according to the best of my skill; as also will mayntayne all lawfull priuiledges of this Commonwealth: as also that all wholsome lawes that are or shall be made by lawfull authority here established, be duly executed; and will further the execution of Justice according to the rule of Gods word; so helpe me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
This is a religious test oath. Did you notice the phrase “Justice according to the rule of God’s word”? This, rather than the Anglican Church test oath in England, is what the framers of the 18th century Constitution wished to avoid. The Anglican Church test oath avoidance smoke screen is another swallowed camel.
Are you noticing any difference between the two constitutions? Can you see that government based on Yahweh’s law should be somewhat different from government based on the lusts of a multitude of bribed baby-makers and corporate sponsored “legislators”?
By the way, I don’t recall any response from you in regard to my pointing out another of your swallowed camels—your denial of the greatest love story never told.
David, for sake of illustration, I am going to assume that you agree with Ted in his view of the necessity of baptism by immersion for salvation. I disagree with him on this particular point of doctrine. I do not believe that baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation. Now, let’s suppose that you and Ted have managed to implement the requirement that all candidates for federal office swear to abide by the quoted statement from the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. It is obvious that we have different understandings of what exactly constitutes “the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” The two of you think that baptism by immersion is part of this gospel, and I do not. This means that one of us is not maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and you would most likely include that the guilty one is me. Do you think that this would disqualify me from federal office?
1 Peter 3: 21 says, “…baptism doth…save us…” It seems to me that anyone who wishes to be saved would also wish to be baptized. Peter J. Peters’ book The Greatest Love Story Never Told gives a thorough explanation of why baptism is necessary. But if you don’t have time to read that book, here’s the short version: Yahweh was a husband to Israel (Jeremiah 31: 32). He divorced her (Jeremiah 3: 8). He said He would remarry her (Hosea 2: 19). He couldn’t do that at the time because it was against the law (Deuteronomy 24: 4) But that law applies only to those who are still alive. So He died and then remarried her (2 Corinthians 11: 2). The proper response for her is to die for Him. Hence, baptism. It’s the greatest love story never told.
Of course there are extenuating circumstances that might require some mercy for those who can’t easily take a splash. For instance, if you are hanging on a cross and won’t be near any water before you die, it is still possible to go to Paradise.
If you are asking me if I would nominate someone to be a judge, who utterly refuses such a small request as to be baptized in the name of Jesus, after what Jesus did for him, the only response I can give to a question that silly is: Are you kidding?
I am not asking you if you are willing to make such a nomination. I am asking if you think that my beliefs about baptism should disqualify me from running for federal office. So what do you think? If our government were to institute a religious test oath that you find acceptable, would that oath require me to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation in order to be a candidate for federal office?
Why would I be interested in your or anyone else’s “running for public office”? Haven’t I made it clear that His law, wherein He does the choosing, rather than “running for public office,” should be the supreme law of the land?
Well, David, if God is doing the choosing, then why do you want to have a religious test? Why not just let God choose whomever He wants?
I would want a test for the same reason I tested the wings on the airplane I built. Here is the video of the maiden flight of the world’s only all-steel structured, class 103 ultralight airplane that was designed, built and flown by a home-schooled aero engineer who never took a formal engineering course, never took a flying lesson, and never sat in the front seat of a flying airplane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GYaelwdHkw Just reading books and being faithful was all it took. I like reading books. Especially Yahweh’s book, because His law is perfect. But please bear in mind that my rejection of your endorsement of the Constitution as heavenly inspired is because it prohibits a religious test. How would you like to fly around in airplanes that were manufactured in an industry that prohibits structural testing?
You seem to be implying that a religious test is not necessary but just a very wise step to include in the process. Is that correct, or am I missing the point of your illustration?
A religious test is certainly something that should not be prohibited. The Biblical requirements for a nominee must be met. Your questions seem to be following a pattern. You seem to enjoy giving me a religious test. If you were to ask Jesus questions like these, do you suppose He might say: Get thee hence, Fortenbury: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,and Him only shalt thou serve.?
Why are you so offended by my questions?
Why was Jesus offended by Satan’s questions?
Bill, let’s begin by not overlooking that there is not one affirmative statement or endorsement (not even a hint) by the framers in the entire Constitution regarding Biblical qualifications. The same is true concerning God, Christ, Christianity, Yahweh’s law, His morality, or anything else Biblical. This alone is appalling from men who allegedly are upstanding Christian stalwarts. I doubt if even the most liberal of churches today would construct such a document without some reference to God and the Bible, particularly if their objective was to produce a Biblically based document, as you allege was the framers’ intent. With this being true, people, like you, who keenly desire for those men to be Christians and the Constitution to be Biblical, have no other alternative but to read such things into the Constitution and/or minds of its framers.
Your first paragraph provides a classic case. It is true that Article 2, Section 1’s stipulation that U.S. Presidents be natural born citizens sounds similar to what’s found in Deuteronomy 17:15. But, the fact is, the framers nowhere acknowledged that Deuteronomy 17:15 was the inspiration for this stipulation. We don’t know where the framers came up with this idea because they never informed us. Consequently, it cannot be used as an illustration of a calculated Biblical qualification. This is just more Bill Fortenberry attempting to read the Bible into the minds of dead men.
You claim, “Benjamin Franklin’s invocation of Exodus 18:21 during the Constitutional Convention … demonstrates that the founders had no objection to the use of the Bible in determining proper qualifications for office.” It does no such thing. I only proves Franklin himself was not opposed to referring to the Bible. Franklin employed Exodus 18:21 merely as an illustration for his point, not as the basis for any law or as a Biblical qualification for American rulers. It certainly did not make it into the Constitution. As I responded to you in Part 2 of this series, “Along with the other indispensable Biblical qualifications, I wish it had. The best the framers could come up with was undefined ‘good behavior’ in Article 6. Franklin couldn’t get his fellow ‘Philadelphians’ to [even] agree to prayer every morning. That Franklin’s request for morning prayer was rejected by the bulk of the conventioners speaks volumes about where these men were religiously.”
Did any of Franklin’s fellow framers respond by declaring something to the effect that “Well, that settles it then! If it’s not Biblical we’re not doing it!” or “We’ve all agreed that this Constitution is to be based upon Biblical principles, so Exodus 21’s requirements must be included in all leadership requirements.” Of course, you know they didn’t respond in such fashion on this issue or any other issue raised in the convention. Why didn’t they? If they were intending the Constitution to be Biblically based, as you contend, why didn’t they state somewhere something to same effect like what we find, for example, in the following:
The Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Compact, 1638:
“We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.”
Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, 1639:
“Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….”
Why don’t we find such statements anywhere in the Constitution? Because, the Constitution was never intended to be Biblically based.
The remainder of your reply provides contemporary quotations regarding the test oaths. The problem with them is that they only provide half the story. The following is excerpted from Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html):
“Although the religious test clause was overwhelmingly approved with little discussion at the Constitutional Convention, it was hotly debated in several of the States’ ratifying conventions:
‘Amos Singletary, … delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” …Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that “the exclusion of religious tests” was “dangerous and impolitic” and that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us [and the Senators and representatives might all be pagans].” If there is no religious test, he asked, “to whom will they [officeholders] swear support – the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?”’30
“…Gary DeMar declared, ‘The most base pagan practices –
child killing and sodomy – are now accepted in our nation’s capital as fundamental constitutional rights. Massachusetts voters have sent two acknowledged sodomites to Congress every two years. [Henry] Abbot knew what he was talking about’”31
‘Virginia [attempted] … to change the wording of Article 6 itself. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States” became “no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil.” This change was rejected.’32
“If only today’s Christians were equally concerned.
‘In the North Carolina convention a delegate protested that
“in a political view, these gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.” James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, conceded that the people might “perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans [might] be admitted into offices.” But how, he asked, was “it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?”33
‘Governor Johnson agreed with Iredell, but assured the convention that while “Jews and pagans” could conceivably be elected, it was not very probable that this would appen.”34
“History has proven Johnson wrong….
“The federal ban on religious test oaths almost immediately began to affect the States:
‘The federal test oath clause apparently had a liberalizing effect on the states. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained a much weaker religious test than its constitution of 1776, and by 1793, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Vermont had removed religious tests from their constitutions. The revision of Pennsylvania’s test oath of 1776 resulted in part from the efforts of Philadelphia’s Jewish community. In December 1783, the city’s one synagogue submitted a memorial to the civil authorities objecting to the requirement that state legislators acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. Four years later, Jonas Phillips, a Philadelphia Jew, petitioned the Federal Constitutional Convention concerning the same provision. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 accommodated the Jewish requests, requiring only that state officials acknowledge “the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.”35
‘In addition to Pennsylvania, various other states, following New York’s example and Virginia’s Notable Act for Religious Freedom of 1785, removed political restrictions against the Jews. Georgia acted in 1789; South Carolina did so simultaneously with Pennsylvania; Delaware removed the bars in 1792; and Vermont a year later. Still other states were slower to respond to Enlightenment currents. For example, the disqualification in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 barring Jews from public office was not removed until 1825. Rhode Island did not secure equal rights for the Jews until the adoption of its constitution in 1842, and North Carolina not until 1868. …[I]t was the federal government rather than the states which provided the most vigorous impetus to the movement.’36
“…The ban on the religious test clause was issued, not because a federal test was deemed unnecessary in light of the States’ constitutions, but, instead, to pave the way for deists, atheists, and even antichrists to hold public office. It was not the intent of the constitutional framers to leave the decision of religion solely to the States. While it is true that the prime motivation for the two religious clauses found in the Constitution appears to have been liberty of conscience in religious matters, the framers were not opposed to non-Christian or even antichrist religions. The framers had liberty for all religions in mind when they forbade Christian test oaths, as evidenced in their writings. Two years
before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison wrote the following:
‘Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?37
“This was written in opposition to a state bill introduced by Patrick Henry entitled ‘A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,’ introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia. When Madison was sent as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was already prejudiced against an exclusively Christian society. Following the Convention, he again bared his polytheistic leanings:
‘Twice in February 1788, in the Federalist Nos. 51 and 56, James Madison cited the “no religious test” clause as one of the glories of the new Constitution. “The door,” Madison wrote, “of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”38
“The framers well understood the polytheistic implications of a ban on Christian test oaths. In a letter to the Honorable Thomas Cockey Deye, Speaker of Maryland’s House of Delegates, Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland and one of Maryland’s delegates to the federal Constitutional Convention, noted that the convention delegates were generally unconcerned regarding the pluralistic implications of Article 6’s ban on Christian test oaths:
‘The part of the system which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the convention, and without much debate; however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think, that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that, in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.’39
“Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. It became the initial means by which America was transformed from a monotheistic Christian nation to a polytheistic one.
“On both the state and federal levels, Jews40 were instrumental in the removal of the Christian test oaths and were the first to reap the rewards of these prohibitions:
‘By the end of the Revolution, Jews had been chosen not only
to local posts in some cities, but had also been selected for more responsible positions in many parts of the country. There was no inclination to bar these people from public office and generally the question of the offensive oaths had only to be raised to be resolved. Thus the Jews of Philadelphia [led by Jonas Phillips], in 1783-84, protested as a “stigma upon their nation and religion” the requirement that members of the General Assembly take an oath affirming belief in the New Testament. The revised constitution of Pennsylvania, a few years later, explicitly barred the disqualification on account of religious sentiments of any person “who acknowledges the being of a God and future state of rewards and punishments.”’41
“The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that “This petition [by the Jews of Philadelphia] later on proved to be instrumental in the revision of the Pennsylvania state constitution in such a manner as to abolish the religious test.”42 On September 7, 1787, Jonas Phillips, a founder of Philadelphia’s Mikveh Israel Synagogue, also petitioned the framers at the federal Constitutional Convention:
‘Sires: … It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful Whigs, and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and assisting the states with their lifes [sic] and fortunes. They have supported the cause, have bravely fought and bled for liberty which they can not [sic] enjoy.
‘Therefore if the honourable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath [as found in the altered Pennsylvania Constitution] and leave out the words to viz.: “and I do acknowledge the Scripture of the New Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” then the Israelites [Jews] will think themselves happy to live under a government where all religious societys [sic] are on an equal footing….
‘Your most devoted obed. Servant, Jonas Phillips Philadelphia, 24th Ellul, 5547, or Sep’r 7th 1787.’43
“Phillip’s petition undoubtedly bore weight with the framers, as did the personal relationships many of the framers shared with Jews….
“Michael Alexander summed up Article 6 and Amendment 1’s
impact upon equal rights for American Jews:
‘Although the Constitution of the United States does not specifically mention Jews, its religious liberty provisions in essence granted Jews the honor of citizenship. The United States was thus the first non-Jewish country, ancient or modern, that included Jews as political equals…. The Constitution of the United States prohibited a religious test for government (Article VI), and the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing any religion, thus permitting Jews to participate as equal citizens on the federal level…. By 1820, most state constitutions eliminated religious qualifications that had kept Jews from participating in public affairs and government office….’45
“Article 6 opened the door for Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians to serve in official government capacities. It was not only an open defiance of the First Commandment, but an unequivocal contravention of the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:
‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.’ (2
Corinthians 6:14-18)
“As important as Paul’s directive is for personal relationships, how much more crucial that it be applied to those who govern
others? The ramifications are much greater.
‘Hear this word that YHWH hath spoken against you…. Can two walk together, except they be agreed?’ (Amos 3:1-3)
“The constitutional framers made it possible for Christians
and non-Christians to be unequally yoked in official capacity…..”
Consequently, along with the test oaths, Biblical qualifications prohibiting Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. from holding
positions of power in the Constitutional Republic were also eliminated. Where, may ask, do you provide any of this vital information in any of your material?
We need look no further than George Washington, the United
States first President, to know the Constitution eliminated Christian, Biblical qualifications. However, to save a drawn-out debate about Washington’s Christianity, let’s instead consider Thomas Jefferson, the United States third President; someone, I’m sure, even you wouldn’t argue was a Christian. That Jefferson, an antichrist (who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament1), could be elected President speaks volumes of the non-Christian character of the Constitution and the complete lack of Biblical qualifications.
1. Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.
Hold on a second, Ted. I’m well aware of the contents of your book (I’m curious, however, as to whether you’ve yet obtained a complete copy of mine), but none of the material that you provided even addresses my claim that the religious test clause was a prohibition against laws such as the Test Acts of England. You denied this in your previous comment, and I would like to know if you have evidence to prove that this clause was not enacted as a prohibition against Test Acts like those passed in England. Do you have any such evidence or not?
Now, you also denied that the founders had a “Well, that settles it” response to Franklin’s quotation of Exodus 18:21. You are quite mistaken in that regard. The debate over whether the representatives should be subjected to a minimum wealth requirement was one of the most vigorous discussions of the convention, but when Franklin quoted the Bible, all debate on that topic immediately ceased, and the delegates voted in favor of the biblical model. Your claim to the contrary has whetted my curiosity about the extent of your studies. Have you ever read Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention from beginning to end?
No, Bill, YOU hold on. Before answering your questions, you
need to first answer mine.
First, go back and read my last response to you and you’ll
see that I DO address your comments and quotations regarding the Test Acts of England, etc. I acknowledge that what you and many others always provide regarding the test oaths IS indeed HALF THE STORY and, in my book and in the quoted material above, I declare “…it is true that the prime motivation for the two religious clauses found in the Constitution appears to have been
liberty of conscience in religious matters….”
Second, you misrepresent me when you wrote that “you also
denied that the founders had a ‘Well, that settles it’ response to Franklin’s quotation of Exodus 18:21.” I did not and I do not deny that the framers had such a response to Franklin’s quotation of Exodus 18:21. To only quote that part of what I wrote is to completely misrepresent my intent, and as intelligent as you are, I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t intentional. It certainly allows you to evade the real point of what I wrote. Following is what
I wrote in its entirety:
“Did any of Franklin’s fellow framers respond by declaring something to the effect that “Well, that settles it then! If it’s not Biblical we’re not doing it!” or “We’ve all agreed that this Constitution is to be based upon Biblical principles, so Exodus 21’s requirements must be included in all leadership requirements.” Of course, you know they didn’t respond in such fashion on this issue or any other issue raised in the convention. Why didn’t they? If they were intending the Constitution to be Biblically based, as you contend, why didn’t they state somewhere something to same effect like what we find, for example, in the following [as found in the Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Compact and in the Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven]….”
I don’t have the time to play word games with you. So either
please address the real issue here or go play cat and mouse with someone else.
When you’ve finished with addressing the real issue in the
paragraph above, it’s time for YOU to acknowledge or reject the implications of material I provided—the other half of the story regarding the test oaths. Merely stating that you’re aware of the contents of my book once again evades the implications of the contents found in the portion of my book quoted above.
Please accept my apologies. I must have overlooked your admission that the quotes which I provided did at least “provide half the story.” I am glad to see you admit this, for it establishes a minimum ground of agreement. We both agree that the founders had the Test Acts of England in mind when they included the religious test clause in the Constitution. The point of contention, therefore, is in regards to what else they may have considered when voting on this clause. I contend that the founders gave additional consideration to the futility of a generic religious oath as well as the danger of such an oath being abused by future generations. Your contention seems to be that the founders desired for deists, atheists and antichrists to hold positions in the new government. Let me take a moment to address the evidence which you provided to support your claim.
Your first line of support consists of two quotes from Amos Singletary and Henry Abbot. The first thing to note about your quotes is the source from you obtained them. According to your footnote, you found both of these quotes in the book “The Godless Constitution.” I am curious as to why you chose to cite a book published without a single footnote in 1996. Had you consulted the original source of these quotes, you would have found them to be much less supportive of your position.
According to the records of the Massachussetts ratifying convention, Mr. Singleton’s statement was very eloquently corrected by none other than the same Mr. Shute that I quoted in my previous comment. Mr. Singleton’s claim is what prompted Mr. Shute to provide his explanation along with several others who rose up to their own statements. Another one of those men was the same Mr. Parsons whose explanation I quoted in my comment on part 5 of your series. In addition to these two men which I have already quoted, the record includes the following statement from Mr. Payson:
“Relying on the candor of this Convention, I shall take the liberty to express my sentiments on the nature of a religious test, and shall endeavor to do it in such propositions as will meet the approbation of every mind. The great object of religion being God supreme, and the seat of religion in man being the heart or conscience, i.e., the reason God has given us, employed on our moral actions, in their most important consequences, as related to the tribunal of God, hence I infer that God alone is the God of the conscience, and, consequently, attempts to erect human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God. Upon these principles, had there been a religious test as a qualification for office, it would in my opinion, have been a great blemish upon the instrument.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=WYxKAAAAYAAJ&&pg=PA120 )
And then there is this statement from Mr. Backus:
“I now beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon some points in the Constitution proposed to us, and I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore, no man or men can impose any religious test, without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ … Some serious minds discover a concern lest, if all religious tests should be excluded, the Congress would hereafter establish Popery, or some other tyrannical way of worship. But it is most certain that no such way of worship can be established without any religious test.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=WYxKAAAAYAAJ&&pg=PA148 )
As you can see, all of these statements are consistent with my claim that the founders had the Test Acts of England in mind as well as additional considerations of the futility of religious tests and the danger of those tests being abused. In fact, the individual who reported these accounts said that those in favor of the religious test clause “represented, in striking colors, the impropriety, and almost impiety, of the requisition of a test, as practised in Great Britain and elsewhere.” Thus, the full record of Mr. Singleton’s objection actually supports my contention instead of yours.
The same could be said for the statement by Mr. Abbot. If you had taken the time to verify the original of this source, you would have noted that Mr. Abbot was not conveying his own opinion in the above quoted statement. On the contrary, he was claiming to be unconvinced by an opinion which had been expressed by other members of the North Carolina convention. Here is his statement without all the creative editing:
“Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties … Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is bay many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required — whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society, Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then delcare my opinion against the Constitution.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=ccfZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192 )
Here we see that Mr. Abbot asked for those objecting to the religious test clause to present their case, and he promised that, if he found it to be valid, he would vote against the Constitution. It is obvious from the records that Mr. Abbot did not find their case to be very convincing for he is recorded as voting in favor of the Constitution ( http://books.google.com/books?id=ccfZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA250 ). To claim that Mr. Abbot presented his statement as a warning of the dangers of the religious test clause is to display a grave ignorance of the original source material. But let’s take a look at some of the responses that Mr. Abbot received.
James Iredell, who was later to become one of our first Supreme Court Justices and whom you also quoted, spoke immediately after Mr. Abbot and said:
“I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religiuos tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other…
Were we to judge from the examples of religious tests in other countries, we should be persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church … The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices but the members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification. It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one…
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude and set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.”
Gov. Johnston rose to speak after Mr. Iredell, and your quotation of a summary of his response is nothing more than a very poor caricature of what he actually said. Here is his statement in full:
“I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk, could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.
But great apprehensions have been raised as to the influence of the Eastern States. When you attend to circumstances, this will have no weight. I know but two or three states where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachussetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. in New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pensylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects; you all know what their religious sentiments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.”
After Gov. Johnston’s speech there was an objection made to the religious test clause by Mr. Caldwell who desired to prevent non-Christians from immigrating to America. He said that:
“Those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the eastern hemisphere.”
In response to this, Mr. Spencer also voiced his opinion on the matter:
“Gentlemen urge that the want of a test admits the most vicious characters to offices. I desire to know what test could bind them. If they were of such principles, it would not keep them from enjoying those offices. On the other hand, it would exclude from offices conscientious and truly religious people, though equally capable as others. Conscientious persons would not take such an oath, and would be therefore excluded. this would be a great cause of objection to a religious test. But in this case, as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority; and no kind of oppression can take place. I confess it strikes me so. I am sorry to differ from the worthy gentleman. I cannot object to this part of the Constitution.”
Gov. Johnston then spoke again, and his comment ended the discussion of this issue. Here is the record of his statement:
“He admitted a possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States; yet, he said, they could not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who should come from other countries; that, in all probability, the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this, with the rapid population of the United States, their zeal for religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress of the Christian religion among us.”
As you can see, the statements from the North Carolina ratifying convention all seem to fit nicely with the understanding of the religious test clause that I have advocated, and there is nothing in these comments to indicate that the founding fathers included this clause with the intent “to pave the way for deists, atheists, and even antichrists to hold public office” as you claim. Additionally, Gov. Johnston’s closing argument leads directly into a consideration of you statements regarding James Madison, for just as Gov. Johnston argued in favor of allowing non-Christians to emigrate so that their Children could receive the gospel and add to the progress of Christianity, so also Madison voiced his objection to the bill by Patrick Henry’s “Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Madison wrote the following explanation for his objection:
“The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominion of false religions, and how small is the former! Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No: it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of Revelation from coming into the region of it: countenances, by example, the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=f9AMr1LmG1MC&pg=PA10 )
Thus, it is clear that Madison did not oppose this bill out of any desire to see atheists and antichrists hold public office, but rather because he viewed this bill as detrimental to the spread of the gospel. Having read Patrick Henry’s bill, I am inclined to agree with Madison as did the vast majority of the churches of Virginia. In fact, it was the uprising of the churches against this bill which ultimately caused its defeat. The Baptists churches in particular have always taken a strong stand against any limitations on the freedom of religion, and this bill was no exception to that opposition.
Speaking of Madison, let me point out that neither Federalist No. 51 nor 56 mentions the religious test clause. The quote which you cited once again from the book The Godless Constitution was actually taken from Federalist No. 52. In this instance, Madison did not expound on his statement at all. He simply stated it as fact and moved on to other considerations. Thus, this statement is of no use at all in determining why this door was left open in the manner in which it was.
In regards to the letter by Luther Martin, it should be noted that he does not say that the members who voted for the religious test clause were “unconcerned regarding the pluralistic implications” of it. In fact, he did not mention anything at all about either the attitude or the philosophy of those who voted in favor of this clause. He only mentioned the thoughts which were held by some of those who opposed it. Therefore, his letter cannot be used to explain why this clause was added to the Constitution.
Your reference to the letter from Jonas Phillips is very interesting, for in this section of your book you argue very strongly against allowing Jews to hold government offices. This is very curious. Didn’t God allow the Jews to hold office in their own government which was established directly by Him? Didn’t Paul apologize for speaking out against the High Priest because of God’s command for Jews not to speak evil of their rulers? I am at a complete loss for an explanation of your view in this regard. Where in the pages of Scripture do you find a command that no one of the Jewish religion is to be allowed to participate in the government?
Now, all of this has brought to mind an additional question that I hope you can answer for me. You have argued very strongly for the use of lots as a method for determining exactly who God wants to be in any government position for which there is more than one viable candidate. The assumption is that God would use the casting of lots to always reveal the correct man for the position. If casting lots really shows us that the man chosen is God’s choice, then why should that man be required to take an oath of fealty to your religious beliefs before he assumes the office for which God has obviously chosen him?
In regards to Franklin’s reference to Exodus 18:21, let me restate my previous comment without truncating your quote. You said:
“Did any of Franklin’s fellow framers respond by declaring something to the effect that ‘Well, that settles it then! If it’s not Biblical we’re not doing it!’ or ‘We’ve all agreed that this Constitution is to be based upon Biblical principles, so Exodus 21’s requirements must be included in all leadership requirements.’ Of course, you know they didn’t respond in such fashion on this issue or any other issue raised in the convention.”
This is a flawed statement. Madison’s records of the convention reveal to us that the delegates did have a response along the lines of “‘Well, that settles it then! If it’s not Biblical we’re not doing it!’ or ‘We’ve all agreed that this Constitution is to be based upon Biblical principles, so Exodus 21’s requirements must be included in all leadership requirements.'” The debate over whether the representatives should be subjected to a minimum wealth requirement was one of the most vigorous discussions of the convention, but when Franklin quoted the Bible, all debate on that topic immediately ceased, and the delegates voted in favor of the biblical model.
“Your contention seems to be that the founders desired for deists, atheists and antichrists to hold positions in the new government.”
Mr. Fortenberry, with all due respect, you are quite presumptuous in attributing thoughts to Mr. Weiland that you could have no possible way of knowing. I could just as easily say concerning you, that “you desire Christians who hold pronomian views to be forbidden from holding positions in government”. Mr. Weiland has clearly stated that, in abandoning Holy Writ, the founders erected a form of government that in no way PROHIBITED such from taking office. The two are not the same.
Eddie, thank you for coming to my defense. However, I actually did make such a statement in “BL vs. USC,” and which Mr. Fortenberry has correctly pointed out overstates the facts. Stay tuned, I’m working on a response to Mr. Fortenberry that will include more on this.
Bill, apology accepted and appreciated.
Proverbs 27:17 declares “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” You have sharpened me and for that I thank you. I agree with you that the following sentence “The ban on the religious test clause was issued, not because a federal test was deemed unnecessary in light of the States’ constitutions, but, instead, TO pave the way for deists, atheists, and even antichrists to hold public office.” overstates the case. It would have been more accurate to say, “The ban on the religious test clause was issued … instead in part to open the door to deists, atheists, and even antichrists to full citizenship, which invariably would lead to these same people holding public office.” In the next addition of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution,” I will make the appropriate changes.
You have also convinced me that the quotations I used regarding Mr. Abbot misrepresented him. I will be making appropriate changes in this regard, as well. That said, whether the sentiments were Mr. Abbot’s or others does not change the fact that what they feared as a consequence has come upon us. And, why have their fears been realized? Because, with the elimination of the Christian tests, the way WAS paved for Jews, Muslims, etc. to rule over Christians. I don’t think even you would debate this fact. In fact, you quote the very same quote from James Iredell that I employed “But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mohametans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to EXCLUDE ANY SET OF MEN [meaning the pagans and Mohametans he just cited], without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?” Thus, it is also incontestable that certain Biblical qualifications were also thrown out with the test oaths that made it possible for Mohametans, pagans, and other non-Christian and antichristians to be “admitted into [public] offices.”
You said you were curious as to why I would have a problem
with Jews ruling over Christians. In light of the fact that we live under the New Covenant and passages such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 John 1:7-11; Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, I’m alarmed that you would even ask such a question. There are no special privileges under the New Covenant for today’s Jewish people, particularly being that the vast majority of them are not even Israelites (see the first sentence of Chapter 1 “Identity Crisis” of the 1980 “Jewish Almanac,” and all of their older Encyclopedias for evidence of this fact). Even if they were Israelites, they still would not be excused for their rejection of Christ and Yahweh’s moral laws.
Regarding your question as to why, with my belief about the
use of lots, I would require a man to take an oath of fealty: I wouldn’t. My argument against Article 6’s ban of the test oaths is not on behalf of the oaths (an oath alone accomplishes nothing), but instead against the banning of the only thing that represented some of the Biblical qualifications and that threw out the bulk of the other qualifications as well.
Lastly, quoting me without truncating what I said about Franklin and Exodus 18:21 and then answering in the same fashion as before does not accomplish anything. The only way you can prove your point is by providing actual statements akin to the ones I provided as examples. Without them your “straining at gnats” again.
Okay, we seem to be making some progress here. We seem to have come to an agreement that a religious test is an oath of fealty to the doctrines of a particular religion. You also seem to have admitted that a ban on religious tests is not the same as a ban on biblical qualifications. This admission can be seen in your statement that the prohibition against the use of religious tests was a ban against “the only thing that represented some of the Biblical qualifications and that threw out the bulk of the other qualifications as well.” If you viewed the term “religious test” as fully synonymous with the phrase “biblical qualifications,” then you would not have used the words “some” and “bulk.” The use of these words reveals your knowledge that even with the religious test clause in place, the founders were still at liberty to implement at least some biblical qualifications for the leaders of our nation. I agree with this conclusion. Under the religious test clause, the founders still could have implemented at least some biblical qualifications. The only question that remains is which biblical qualifications does the religious test clause prohibit and which of those qualifications does it still permit? Would you mind providing us with a list of the qualifications that the Bible requires and identifying which ones are prohibited by the ban on religious tests and which ones are not?
Now, in regards to Exodus 18:21, you seem to be of the opinion that the only way to prove that the founders had a “Well that settles it” response to Fanklin’s reference to this passage would be to provide a quote from one of the founders expressing that very sentiment in words. This is a flawed opinion. Men do not communicate in words alone but also in deeds. I have provided evidence that the founders responded to Franklin’s statement with actions that communicate a submission to the Word of God. You have not questioned this action. You have only objected that the action was not expressed in words that we can read today. This is an irrelevant objection. Madison did not record every word which was uttered at the convention. He frequently encompassed lengthy speeches in just a few sentences. Thus, we cannot know whether the founders expressed their agreement with Franklin in words, but we can know and, in fact, we do know that they evidenced that agreement with their actions.
Frankly, Bill, I don’t think we’re making any progress at all—any significant progress, that is. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that you are so intent on protecting your idol that you avoid the weightier issues by nitpicking (gnat straining) the insignificant. Case in point: Your first paragraph. I will agree with you that I could have provided a more comprehensive definition, especially knowing you would probably try to pick it apart. However, everyone knows that the test oaths were oaths of fealty. THAT is understood and thus I didn’t think it was necessary to state the obvious. However, within the extant State oaths was found at least one Biblical qualification (faith in Christ) that was eliminated when they were banned. Furthermore, the wording in Article 6 is “ANY religious test,” and, therefore, while aimed particularly at
the State oaths, was inclusive of anything else religious (Biblical or otherwise) that might be used as a test for leadership qualification. This closed the door to any other Biblical qualification (such as only those whom Yahweh chooses, which automatically incorporates all of the other Biblical qualifications) being used to determine who would lead the nation.
While it would seem that most of the framers preferred Christians to lead the nation, that they made allowances for non-Christians and even antichrists is abominable and further proves the Constitution a seditious document to Yahweh and His kingdom. Of course, it’s this point (among others), it would seem, that you don’t want to address because to do so is to admit the Constitution is not the Biblical document you have tried so hard to make it.
In my opinion, your idol has blinded you and, therefore, I see little point in you and I continuing to chase each other around “shrubs.” Case in point: Your second paragraph. The only reason I would inclined to continue is that with nearly every post you only expose yourself that much more for the “gnat strainer” you are. However, I think you have already done a sufficient job of demonstrating that. I have no evil intent toward you, I just cannot justify the time to continue arguing the trivial while the significant issues are ignored.
Well, Ted, I’m not entirely sure what to say to that. In your very first response to me on this page, you said: “with the term ‘religious test,’ I’m referring to those things specifically required as qualifications of civil and religious leaders as provided in the Bible.” In the discussion of part 5 of your series, you said: “The framers banned Christian tests (and thereby Biblical qualifications) for federal officials.” Our entire discussion of this topic has been over your claim that the religious test clause banned the use of any biblical qualifications for federal officials. Even in your most recent comment you insisted that this clause “closed the door to any other Biblical qualification (such as only those whom Yahweh chooses, which automatically incorporates all of the other Biblical qualifications) being used to determine who would lead the nation.” And yet, when your position was compared with a detailed analysis of the facts, you found it necessary to change your statement to incorporate the words “some” and “bulk” in place of “any” and “all.”
Now, you appear to be upset with me simply because I pointed out this change in your position, or perhaps you are upset because you feel that I somehow forced you into it. In either case, your anger is unwarranted. I used neither force nor trickery to cause you to change your statement. All I did was point out the facts which disagreed with you. You made the decision to change all on your own. If you misspoke, and you still hold to the position that the religious test clause banned the use of any and all biblical qualifications for holding office, then all you have to do is admit that you misspoke and then explain how that is consistent with the evidence that I presented. If, on the other hand, you realize that your initial position was overreaching, and you want to retain your new position that the religious test clause only banned some of the biblical qualifications, then it is incumbent upon you to answer my question by identifying which of those qualifications are prohibited and which are not. Neither of these options is all that difficult — unless, of course, your position is fatally flawed.
If you have complied with God’s command to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” and His admonition that “The heart of the righteous studieth to answer,” then surely you are “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh.” If your position is true, then it cannot suffer from a detailed comparison with facts. You accuse me of straining at gnats, but if you cannot stand up and defend yourself against a bunch of lowly gnats, then why should anyone accept your claims as valid?
Offended, angry, Bill? Did I say I was offended or angry with you? Not in the least? What I said was that I can not justify the time required for you and I to chase each other around “bushes.” You’ve given me no reason to believe that any more time invested in this discussion is going to produce anything but more of the same. There’s only so much time in the day for which we are responsible for employing judiciously. I have merely determined that my time is better spent on other things.
Why is it that you only come to such conclusions after I demonstrate a flaw in your position? You did the same thing in our discussion on part 5. You were willing to devote a great deal of time into the discussion as long as you thought that you had the upper hand, but when I took your own admissions and demonstrated that they were inconsistent with your claims, all of a sudden, you were too busy to do anything more than call me an idolater. Now, you’ve done the same thing here. I’ve noted an inconsistency in your claims, and I’ve asked for clarification. You have chosen to respond to that request with charges of idolatry and excuses for why you cannot discuss the issue any further. I think that you are simply afraid that further discussion will cause your entire house of cards to come tumbling down, and I challenge you to stand up like a man and prove me wrong. You’ve thrown down the gauntlet, and I’ve picked it up. Now, you need to stand your ground and fight instead of running away from your own challenge.
Think what you will. I think most people reading our dialogue will agree that you have completely ignored every significant challenge I’ve put before you and have instead focused on what amounts to the trivial, at least in comparison.
Bill Fortenberry: “If you misspoke,… [i]f, on the other hand, you realize that your initial position was overreaching…”.
This comment to Mr. Weiland is a perfect example of framing the debate within the parameters you choose. This reeks of condescension. You are quite disingenuous in your methodology. You are indeed an intelligent and well read man, but act as if that automatically affords you the superior position in every debate. On the contrary, it can lend itself to deepening pride and arrogance. I know this all to well, as I have been guilty of this same attitude more times than I would care to admit. Though I can not know the inner workings of your heart, I can most certainly judge the fruit of your actions, and they, on the surface, appear lacking in humility. When Mr. Weiland first announced his plans for this series, I wasn’t quite sure where this would lead, but I am thankful for his effort. It is GLARINGLY obvious to those “with eyes to see”, that you have chosen to employ the stratagem of the Pharisees, attempting to entrap Mr. Weiland over seemingly mere semantics (staining at gnats), all the while obfuscating at every turn, your inability to provide ONE SINGLE piece of irrefutable evidence that the framer’s motives were as you claim. You make a grave mistake in dismissing, out of hand, an adversary’s position without consideration of merit. By ignoring the “meat of the matter”, you expose the weakness in your own postulation.
Being a trained musician (drummer and percussionist) well rounded in theory, I’ve always been fascinated by the evidence of our Creator as manifest in the perfect harmonic relationships of our universe. I have studied Johanne Keppler’s “Harmonices Mundi”, as well as Bode’s Law, and their correlation to the physics of music. I state that to say that I had actually read your articles on music, and enjoyed them, though they appeared to be speculative at times. Now having witnessed your subterfuge, I must treat ALL of your material with more diligent scrutiny.
You have been given generous opportunity to proffer a Biblical defense of your untenable position. Yet you have failed to do so at every turn. In part 5 of this series, you responded to a question by Roger Mitchell by stating: “I have never advocated voting for the lesser of two evils. In fact, during the last presidential campaign, I wrote over 30 pages of text and engaged in more than 50 pages of written debate advocating that Christians not vote for the lesser of two evils.” This cuts to the very crux of the matter. Your promulgation
of, and support for, Tom Hoefling and America’s Party, convicts you of advocating that Christians should, indeed, choose the “least of many evils”. That you hold in high esteem one who champions a return to the Constitution, and not Yahweh and His perfect, immutable laws, reveals your true allegiance. Not only does Tom Hoefling seem to worship two masters (God and the Constitution), he reveres Abraham Lincoln. That alone should display his intellectual and historical deficiency. You still suggest to this day that
Christians should participate in the ungodly Constitutional process of electing Biblically unqualified, and frequently, Biblically HOSTILE candidates. You have chosen to ignore the significant influence of the Enlightenment on the framers. You have failed to demonstrate, from the four volumes of notes from the Constitutional Convention, that the framers so much as even prayed over a meal, let alone humbly sought out Divine guidance from Holy Writ. You have failed to
explain how those who denied the Deity of Christ could be considered Christian. You have shown the inability to acknowledge that you could possibly be in error in ANY matter. You make the mistake of not respecting the intellect of your opponent. Your are quite presumptuous in your language, making accusations of
inadequacy in your opponent’s position, only further exposing the Swiss cheese character of your own flawed dogma.
Mr. Fortenberry, alas, I must say that your arguments have been thoroughly vetted, and found woefully wanting. You are very glib, and have a good command of rhetoric. Unfortunately, that skill set fails to compensate for a complete lack of substance. It must be concluded, therefore, that in the matter of attempting to gerrymander Scripture to fit within the confines of the Constitution, you are certainly “straining at gnats” and “swallowing camels”.