U.S. Constitution
Rejects Religious Test Oath
Under Guise of Religious Freedom

Many Christians deny the obvious threat to religious freedom In Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution. But more often than not, its dangerous implications are simply ignored or misunderstood.

Like a snake in the grass, the ban of religious tests lies hidden, but coiled to strike at the heart of biblical civil government. Like a corrosive cancer it spreads its malignancy silently within the body politic. Appearing as an angel of light, it is Satanic in its effect.

No Religious Test

“No religious test shall ever be required for any office or public trust under these United States.” (Art. VI, Sec. 3)

This is a rejection of all the blessings of religious freedom in a society that insists on liberty under law. The harsh reality is the U.S. Constitution rejected any oath requiring a civil leader to govern by the 10 commandments.

But didn't Article VI of the U.S. Constitution simply mean that none of the state churches established in the colonies was to take precedence over any of the others at the national level? Thus, it really isn’t an attack on religious freedom.

No Denominational Preference

This is the view popularized by Christian authors such as John Eidsmoe, Peter Marshall, David Barton (WallBuilders) and D. J. Kennedy. It's also the common excuse and the rationale that some of the convention delegates used to justify this rebellion in their own eyes.

The problem is that there is no neutrality with God; and if we are not for Him we are against Him. If we are against Him, we have tossed religious freedom to the wind.

The anti-Federalists certainly took it to mean that, so it's not just the modern skeptic who has given it that twist. For example, Isaac Kramnick, writing in the New York Times makes this observation:

“In 1787, when the Framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Its opponents challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, drawing special attention to the stipulation in Article VI, Section 3: "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

He went on to note, "An anti-Federalist in North Carolina wrote: "The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic...Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain office among us." This will lead inexorably to a denial of religious freedom.

So what we find is that the Federalists used their specious interpretation of Article VI as an excuse to justify their rebellion against God. However, this rationale was challenged by many of the anti-Federalists and Christians during the debates in the state ratifying conventions.

An Act Of Religious Treason

To help you grasp the enormity of what they did, suppose Moses had come down off Mt. Sinai and said, "I know that each of the 12 tribes has different opinions about religion and you each have your own established church and I certainly don't want to create any divisions among the tribes. Furthermore, I don't want any one tribe to take precedence over the others at the Sinai level.

“So I've decided to delegate all religious matters to you tribes and I'm going to remain officially neutral. I'm going to allow the 10 Commandments of Jehovah to compete in the free-market place of ideas, but I'm not going to give Him any special preference. If He's as great as He says He is, the truth will out, but I'm not going to give preferential treatment to any one sect or tribe or to the 10 Commandments.”

What do you think God's response would have been to Moses at this point? By delegating this critical issue to the states and refusing to deal with it, the founders were in effect breaking the national covenant with God. Religious freedom means the freedom to do what we know is right.

According to the principle of separation of church and state the two institutions are separate institutionally, but united in cooperation and commitment to God and His Word for the governance of their respective affairs. It is entirely possible to have a civil government that is committed to governing according to the Bible and not have a state church.

No Violation Of Conscience

But doesn't the religious test oath violate freedom of conscience? That's a straw man. This has nothing to do with the government trying to dictate to the conscience of all of it's citizens. It has everything to do with civil magistrates swearing allegiance to God and promising to govern according to the 10 Commandments.

That is the only formula for true religious liberty, liberty under God's law. If the magistrate doesn't rule according to the law of God – the 10 Commandments -- he will rule according to the law of man. The 20th century alone has revealed what kind of tyranny that produces.

On the contrary, it is God dictating to a would-be ruler that if he aspires to rule under God, He is going to have to swear allegiance to God and to govern according to the 10 Commandments. There are numerous examples of this in scripture such as Joshua 24, Jonah 3, II Kings 23.

Was that a violation of freedom of conscience? Was that a violation of religious liberty? Rather than jeopardizing liberty, the religious test oath guarantees it.