Christian Leader: It’s “Troubling” That Mayor Took Oath of Office on Constitution Instead of Bible December 19, 2015

Christian Leader: It’s “Troubling” That Mayor Took Oath of Office on Constitution Instead of Bible

Last week, the new mayor of Franklin, North Carolina, Bob Scott, took his oath of office on a Constitution instead of a Bible. He told the American Humanist Association that he made the decision because “there is so much controversy surrounding separation of church and state. I am a firm believer in keeping religion and government separate.”

Good for him! You’d hope other politicians would follow suit, regardless of their theological views, since they’re being elected to uphold our Constitution, not one specific religion’s holy book.

But Rev. Mark H. Creech, Executive Director of North Carolina’s Christian Action League, says Scott’s decision is “troubling.”

I repeat: Creech is upset that a politician took his oath of office on the Constitution instead of Creech’s preferred brand of mythology.

The woeful ignorance of Scott’s view is breathtaking. You can no more separate our nation’s form of government from the Christian religion than you can separate smoke from fire or water from ice.

Mayor Scott certainly has the right to reject putting his hand on the Bible when taking his oath of office, but his choice sends a dangerous message that places every citizen at risk. His actions declare the erroneous notion that our rights come from the state — not God.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Because if our politicians take the Constitution this seriously, it means the terrorists have won.

You can believe all the lies you want about how our nation is really a Christian theocracy at its core, but this notion that pledging allegiance to the Constitution is “dangerous,” risky, or “troubling” is absolutely appalling.

There are members of Congress who have sworn in on the Constitution — and even the Qur’an — and our nation is doing no better or worse than if they had sworn in on a Bible. If anything, the Constitution is the most neutral option you can take since it’s the one document every politician takes seriously. (Or claims to, anyway.) You’d think Christians leaders would applaud those who promise to preserve our freedoms.

(Thanks to Brian for the link. Portions of this article were published earlier)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!