Government returns to its origins

By Nathan Barton

On 6 June 2019, this story appeared at the website The Political Insider. It seems that the Democratic House of Representatives is booting out God.

Democrats Are Indeed Removing ‘So Help Me God’ From House Committee Oaths

The Democrats in the US House of Representatives have removed “so help me God” from the oaths required of witnesses before Congressional Committees.  This comes despite previous denials of such, and after at least one back-pedaling incident.

The reason?  According to them, God doesn’t belong in Congress.  And to the victors (in the 2018 elections) go the spoils.

Well, I can certainly agree with the first part of that – which may surprise some readers.  But please, read on.

God does not belong in Congress – specifically the US Congress.  Not just the House, but the Senate as well.  Why?

No, it isn’t about “separation of church and state,” but a far more fundamental fact.  Human government: involuntary, mandatory human government exists only because those who created and practice government rebelled against God. Human government, by its very existence, is rebellion against God. To think that someone belongs in an institution which exists because people rebelled against them is ludicrous. No matter what the Republicans (and some Democrats, I admit) claim and say.

Or for those who wish to ignore Him, let me restate it.  Coercive, human, mandatory, involuntary government is a violation of the laws of nature. This institution exists in defiance of the natural order of things: that people, humans, are to have liberty, to be free.

Despite all the claims to the contrary over the millennia, and especially all those claims in Congress for the last 245 years (counting the Continental Congress). Despite those words “In God We Trust” on all the (now-phony) money. Despite all those stirring words, those bravely-taken oaths and pledges, those “humble” supplications before the various meetings, and in times of trouble.

Being a follower of Christ Jesus myself, I can’t really argue the point as an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist might.  I’m not really going to try.  (And it is a moot point: libertarians (lovers of liberty) who come from a non-theistic point of view towards human liberty end up at the same place as those who are believers in, and followers of, the God revealed in the Bible, who created humankind and gave us liberty.)

Still, this event should give us pause.  The United States of America was theoretically founded as a federal republic.  A republic which was a union of thirteen sovereign republics.  Perhaps the key feature of a republic is the recognition that government is accountable to a higher power and therefore is limited in scope and power.

In 1776 and 1787, that higher power was seen in two different, but connected, ways.  As the Constitution states, “We, the People” established the federal union (acting through their agents, the various States). But the implication is clear, and expressed well in several State mottos: “Under God, the people rule.” The idea was simple but revolutionary: the People had to answer to Someone, just as their rulers had to answer to the people. It was not some religious organization: some church or order or brotherhood.  It was not preachers or priests who represented God, either. Any more than it had been kings and potentates “by the grace of God.” Rather, it was the people, each listening to the voice of God. And therefore, of necessity, a matter more of consensus – agreeing in general and setting aside human opinions that caused religious divisions, as well as human hierarchies and clericalism. But based on a general understanding of God as Creator and Author of Liberty: a general understanding of moral behavior, and a recognition of each human as a creature of God responsible to their Creator and endowed with certain unalienable rights.

Clearly, it was an error, as they failed to recognize that ANY human government is a rejection of the authority of the Creator. Now, nearly 250 years later, we suffer grievously from their failure.  But for decades, the myth of being subject to God was honored to some degree: basic human liberties, essential human morality, the idea that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

It was honored, perhaps more in the breech than not, but still, attempted.

But now, ALL of these things have been rejected by the Democrats in Congress and their ilk elsewhere: the transnational “progressives” who are more and more socialist in every way. A democracy “in the name of the People” but which is totalitarian. Which is without limits on its power, without restraints on its appetites and actions.

So it makes perfect sense that the Democrats in Congress would go ahead and be done with the hypocrisy.  They figure that they no longer need it.  They no longer need God, nor even the myth of God.

But, with them in power – and with their allies of whatever political persuasion they claim there with them – it is WE (the people) who need Him more than ever.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Government returns to its origins

  1. Darkwing says:

    According to the US Constitution: “There shall be no religious test to hold public office”. Saying “So help me god” is a religious test. MY OPINION


    • TPOL Nathan says:

      Darkwing, you are right, and I agree with you. But that is not my point in the article, as I am sure you understand. And technically, the oath taking that Congress indulges in is NOT “a test to hold public office” – as just being a witness is NOT a “public office.”
      So I appreciate your comment.
      Indeed, this is something I left out of the commentary in the interests of brevity.
      I do not “take oaths” at all – with or without invoking God (or any other entity or object). Why? Because it is against my religious belief. I am to let my yes be yes and my no be no. I night “affirm” something, but I do not swear to anything. And I certainly do not try to “make God my witness” or such other nonsense. So it is a violation of my rights – AND of the constitution, if I am required to take an oath of any kind, public office or not.
      Not that Congress cares – Dim or Reck.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s