The Issues in "The Test Oath Case"

Raising New Issues

KEY ISSUES IN THIS CASE

The issues in my case seem simple to me, but they are difficult to explain; we are all the products of the myth of the "separation of church and state."

There are two independent issues:

The Test Oath: Oaths are an act of Religious Worship, made in the Name of God

The Support Oath: A Christian's Highest Allegiance is Totally to God.

The Test Oath

Oaths used to be made in God's Name. An oath is a statement made in the presence of God. At the time the Constitution was ratified, atheists and "infidels" were not allowed to take an oath, because they didn't believe in God. Sounds reasonable to me.

The Bible requires that all leaders be Christians. It is a sin to vote for a Baal-worshiper. It is a sin to support laws which allow Baal-worshippers to hold public offices.

I know, I know: this means I'm against "pluralism." But the Bible says that a nation is made great and protected from destruction by worshipping God with a whole heart, not by worshipping God with part of one's heart and worshipping Baal with another part. Non-Christians have more freedoms and blessings in a Christian nation than they do in a non-Christian nation. That's why so many have come to this Christian nation.

Prior to the Constitution, all of the states required that public leaders be Christians.

Oaths today are officially secular.

The U.S. Supreme Court now says that all laws banning atheists from public office and from taking an oath are "unconstitutional."
Atheists have logically challenged the phrase "so help me, God," but courts been reluctant to face public outcry by declaring the phrase "unconstitutional," so instead they have left the phrase in oaths but have said that the phrase does not refer to the God of the Bible, and is merely an instance of "ceremonial deism."
Back before the Court was secularized, it declared that "deism" was the same as unbelief, and was contrary to the laws of a Christian nation like ours.

Using the Name of God in a context which is officially secular or non-theological is a violation of the Third Commandment. Christians cannot engage in the rituals of "ceremonial deism."

I asked the State Bar to permit me to add the words of the oath of office required in the 1776 Delaware Constitution:

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration." Delaware Constitution, 1776

Although Government agencies routinely modify oaths for Quakers, Native Americans, New Agers, and others, the State Bar would not permit me to take a modified Trinitarian oath.

The "Support Oath"

The Supreme Court has said that "The test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." Although every state at one time had them, they were declared "unconstitutional" in 1961. Those who seek to take one are not favored.

The myth of the "separation of church and state" is so basic to modern Constitutional Law that those who oppose it are suspect; their basic loyalty to the system is questioned. Those whose loyalty to God is higher than their loyalty to the modern State cannot take the oath to "support the Constitution." The Court holds that those who will not kill their brother for the New World Order cannot take the "support" oath "in good faith." That is to say, they would be lying if they did. Clyde Summers wanted to be an attorney in Illinois, but was barred on this basis. Based on the Summers case, the Federal District Court gratuitously declared that I could not be permitted to take the "support oath."

Since the U.S. Supreme Court has held that radical Christians cannot take the oath to "support the Constitution," I asked the California State Bar to permit me to take a Trinitarian oath in which I substituted the following lines for the phrase "support the Constitution":

I am "dedicated to the peaceful and reasoned settlement of disputes between men, and between a man and his government" (language of the U.S. Supreme Court)

I am committed to dissuading others from resorting to force or violence (another Supreme Court case)

I am not loyal to any foreign State. (A concern of many cases.)

No Court would even hear my case. I will not be an attorney in California. But I believe others can win this case.

One of the biggest reasons America is in such a mess is because we don't even know how much of a mess we are in. We don't realize how Biblical things were 250 years ago, and we think anyone who wants to follow the Bible that fanatically is "un-American."

History of this Litigation

Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975). See also T. Skillman, The Constitutions of All the States According to the Latest Amendments, 181 (1817). [Back to text] [Atheists Should Not Hold Public Office]

Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[V&FT Home Page]