“I’ve heard it all before. First opponents boldly declare that there is no invocation, then there is a humbled concession that yes, the word LORD does appear in the US Constitution BUTTTTTTT!!!!!… .it really isn’t an invocation at all but a way of dating.

“I’ll give Mr. McLoughlin credit. He has used the best argument to support his position and he supports his objection with some information that rarely accompanies this particular “defense” but as anyone can see, it falls short. The LORD is invoked.”
———-
I have the following objections to what Mr. Chacon implicitly writes about me:

First, I dislike his implicit categorisation of me as an opponent. Precisely of *what* I am supposed to be an opponent he does not say, but I am offended by his presumption in any case.

Second, Mr. Chacon apparently does not understand what I wrote. There is NO “humbled concession” in anything I said.

On the contrary, I simply point out the obvious – that the phrase “In the Year of our Lord” is NOT an invocation; it’s just the English for ‘Anno Domini.’

More fundamentally – and I say this with no intent to be rude – there are some people who do not seem to comprehend what an invocation is.

By definition, an invocation INVOKES. “Invoke” is from the Latin “invocare,” meaning “to call upon. (Root infinitive, “vocare” meaning “to call” — hence the priesthood is a “vocation,” because you are “called” to it).

So, THIS is an invocation: “Our father which art in heaven …” because you’re calling upon the person known as “our father”

And THIS is an invocation: “Baal! We cry to thee!” because you’re calling upon Baal, or whichever god or goddess you might worship (or not).

And THIS is an invocation: “Holy Mary, Mother of G-d! Pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our death.” You’re calling upon Mary to actually do something for you.

The foregoing are DIRECT invocations, because they are directly address to the pertinent deity, saint, etc. Invocations can also be indirect:

This is an INDIRECT invocation: “Vaya con Dios!” (May G-d go with you.) It’s an indirect invocation of G-d’s protection.

And THIS is an indirect invocation: “May the Great Mother watch over your going out and your coming in, from this day until forever.”

And THIS is an indirect invocation: “I swear on my mother’s grave, I did not make Mrs. O’Leary’s cow kick over that lantern.” This illustrates a common type of invocation than spiritual invocations.

THIS, however, is NOT an invocation: “Jesu Maria! WHAT’s your problem NOW?”

And THIS is NOT an invocation: “Land o’ Goshen! What was that noise?”

And THIS is NOT an invocation: “A.D. 2005.” Even if you spell out the abbreviation, “Anno Domini 2005″; and even if you translate it to English “In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five” — it is NOT an invocation.

In all three cases, there is no intent to directly or indirectly invoke anything. The first two are examples of interjections that follow the form of an invocation. The third one does not even do that, but there is no direct or indirect invocation at all.

That is not to say the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not have certain religious principles in mind when they produced the document. But to say there is any invocation of any deity or religious principle within the document is non sens – it just isn’t there in the language.

And I can give you two very good reasons why the framers of the Constitution did NOT invoke “the LORD” – blasphemy and states’ rights.

Prior to the late twentieth century, and especially before the Civil War, American national values were very firmly rooted in Calvinist theology (typically called “Puritan” in English tradition). The U.S. Constitution was written in the days when the vast majority of Americans still considered it a Papist blasphemy to celebrate Christmas (Massachusetts even made it a criminal offence to celebrate Christmas for a while). An actual invocation of G-d in the U.S. Constitution would not have been wise, because many Americans of the day would have considered it a blasphemy.

More importantly, the states that got together and wrote the Constitution would have been *very* leery of any invocation of G-d in the federal constitution out of fear that doing so might set a precedent for a federally established religion that might displace the rights of states to establish their own official religions.

At the time the Constitution was produced, many states had their own official religions. The last thing they wanted was for the federal government to usurp their authority on religious matters. Thus, the First Amendment was adopted to prevent the federal government from doing that.

In the 1930′s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the several states. So, as of the 1930′s, not *state* government has been able to establish an official religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. It was something of a moot point. By that time, the few states that had ever established religions had long since disestablished them.

In any case, the basic purpose of the religion clauses of the First Amendment is to keep religion out of the business of government in order to ensure that government stays out of the business of religion.

Otherwise, I noticed Mr. Chacon uses a phrase – “clearly drafted constitutional legislation.” “Constitutional legislation” is an inherently conflictory term. Constitutions are not legislation; they are the legal authority for legislation. As such, in Anglophone tradition, constitutions operate as replacements of the monarch.

For example, the British Constitution is only partly written; most of it is oral. The Queen is the personal representative of the British Constitution, especially that part of it which is oral tradition (which is *very* firmly established in Britain, or it wouldn’t work). In that capacity, the Queen represents the legal authority for the existence of Tony Blair’s government; and, indeed, for Parliament’s right to pass legislation. Note this important distinction: The Queen *represents* the legal authority, but she herself is NOT the authority; the abstract concept known as “The Crown” *is* the actual authority which the Queen personally represents.

In America, we do not have personal monarchs –though some presidents and governors occasionally try to claim otherwise, as when the Truman administration argued in the Steel Company Seizure Cases that the President had the same powers that King George III had, except for those powers that had been taken away by the U.S. Constitution. (Truman lost that argument – quelle surprise!) Instead of personal monarchs, we have paper monarchs in the form of state and federal constitutions. They are the legal authorities for the existence of any legislation. For that reason, constitutions themselves cannot be “legislation” so a term like “constitutional legislation” meaning “constitutional provision” is inappropriate.

-Dr. Micheal McLoughlin, San Francisco

George Washington was a surveyor, farmer and soldier who became the first president of the United States of America. After commanding the colonial forces in the Revolutionary War, he retired to his farm in 1783. A popular general in the war, in 1789 W…

You raise an interesting point Kim. How is it that you know what “Jesus” looks like to be able to positively identify him? How does anyone? I get the impression that most Christians just assume that if he appeared they would recognize him.

Perhaps now you may get a sense of why it is so important that sworn constitutional officers be required to officially recognize who exactly the LORD invoked in the US Constitution is before they swear an oath to uphold and defend that constitution.

If members of Congress, The Senate, CIA agents etc. were unable or unwilling to recognize the US President, George W. Bush would just be another Texas businessman.

If it is as you say, that the authority of Christ cannot be disputed, those wishing to avoid or remove themselves from the lawful scope of that authority might opt to dispute his identity instead.

There are certain logistical considerations to a legitimate “second coming” that clergy and congregations (both secular and liturgical) might want to seriously consider.

It would be a darn shame if shortsighted zealots aided in prosecuting and crucifying the wrong guy… again.

I’d be interested to hear about how the United States should look on the ground from your perspective. I can’t be a public school teacher unless I’m Christian because then I can’t lead mandated school prayers. The army will be used to conquor and take the resources of non-Christians if necessary (oops – already happening). And Jews and Muslims will meet in city catacombs, I mean sewers, to hold worship services because many local governments have banned non-Christian religous uses under their local zoning codes. Sounds like a blast.

I believe that Jefferson wrote this letter but was in Paris when the constitution was written and therefore was not a “framer of the Constitution”.

The first amendment article does not do anything but prevent the congress or any other legislature from making gods or religions. Therefore the legislators cannot create corporate entities or deem “government” to be divine.

That doesn’t sound exactly right Peter. I think I know what you meant but let’s be careful about how we present this.

Here is the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There is no prohibition on “establishments of religion” There is however, a Constitutional prohibition imposed upon Congress against making any “laws “respecting” establishments of religion”

Because Congress is clearly prohibited from making laws respecting establishments of religion, I think that the people should be demanding an explanation as to exactly where The Justices believe they are deriving the LAWFUL authority to make rulings such as the one issued this week. It would appear that there is a major lack of jurisdiction because this issue most certainly concerns an establishment of religion (The Ten Commandments) that dates back about 4000 years. If no laws can be made respecting establishments of religion, what laws exactly are the Justices upholding?

At the time the 1st amendment was adopted, it is certain that the intent was to prevent Congress from dictating policy and practice to any one or all Christian Churches long “established” in the Colonies, the Confederation and eventually the US States. It was not English bureaucrats but English Christians who took the leap of faith to cross the treacherous Atlantic to successfully colonize and build a homeland with the intent to worship as Christians absent the tyrannous religious persecution of the King of England.

What brutal, murderous, capitalist, political zealots falsely claiming to be Christians did subsequently cannot be blamed on GOD, Christ, good Christians, their good religions or the US Constitution. History proves that tyrants and zealots will say and do anything to impose their oppressive rule upon others and US history proves conclusively that powerful men claiming to be Christians have done little more than behave treacherously and defiant of all that the Commandments command and all that good Christianity stands for.

Poor interpretations of Biblical Law have led to atrocities now unfairly blamed on good Christians. Poor interpretations of Constitutional law will surely be blamed inappropriately on good patriots. Most good Christians do not support the war in Iraq but high ranking political zealots exceeding their authority in both Biblical and Constitutional law have cursed the people of this nation with yet one more abomination to shoulder.

It is also certain but rarely even considered that the original intent of the 1st amendment clause against “prohibiting free exercise” (of religion) was adopted to prevent one Christian church from imposing their brand Christianity upon another. Buddhism, Judaism etc… were not likely even considerations at the time of adoption but have rightly been accepted as falling under the parameters of religious expression.

We all know that freedom of religion under the declared authority of the US Constitution is a myth. You can thank tyrannous political zealots for that. Good examples of this might be the Mormons who continue to be unlawfully prohibited from engaging in polygamy or perhaps those who were persecuted to death for allegedly cavorting with Satan during “the witch-hunts” and let’s not forget the communist witch hunts of the 1950’s.

At the time the US Constitution was adopted, all men were presumed to be “created equal”(at least in legal documents) Clearly drafted constitutional legislation declared equality for “all people” in rights, privileges, protections and immunities yet it is well known that many of “the framers” owned slaves and women were in no way considered equals, politically or otherwise. Go figure!

Now if interpreters of the US Constitution want to “get cute” about what the words in the 1st amendment really mean, I suppose it could be argued that there is no prohibition imposed on Congress against making laws that “disrespect” establishments of religion. Obviously plenty of laws and orders have been made and enforced in the last 227 years that do just that.

I’ve heard it all before. First opponents boldly declare that there is no invocation, then there is a humbled concession that yes, the word LORD does appear in the US Constitution BUTTTTTTT!!!!!…
.it really isn’t an invocation at all but a way of dating.

I’ll give Mr. McLoughlin credit. He has used the best argument to support his position and he supports his objection with some information that rarely accompanies this particular “defense” but as anyone can see, it falls short. The LORD is invoked.

The Framers signed this document into law by invoking “their LORD” and that invocation is just as much a part of the US Constitution as Article III, Article VI, The Bill Of Rights, the subsequent Amendments or the legal signatures of the framers that occur immediately after the invocation in question. The US Constitution begins with the first letter of the first word and ends with the last letter of the last word. From the title and preamble to the very last signature, these are the fixed components of the US Constitution. Sworn officers freely take a solemn oath to uphold and defend that constitution in service of the people, not pick and choose which parts they like and which parts they don’t. Though Mr. McLoughlin seems to make reasonable objections, his argument does a better job of confirming what I have asserted rather than refuting it.

We may for a time disagree about the significance of that invocation but it is most certainly there and no amount of clever rationalization or denial will change that. For some people including many under-informed Christians, this is the first time that they are learning of it.

As to the Ten Commandments, readers may wish to know there are AT LEAST FIVE different versions:
1. The original Jewish “Ten Utterances,” constituting the first 15 of the total 613 Commandments.
2. The Samaritan Ten Commandments, some of which differ markedly from the Jewish originals (e.g., the Samaritan Tenth Commandment concerns the sanctity of Mount Gezerim).
3. The Eastern Orthodox Ten Commandments, which are slightly different from …
4. The Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Ten Commandments, which are slightly different from
5. The Standard Protestant Ten Commandments.

I have not examined whether any of the Eastern Independent Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Iraqi, Ethiopian, Egyptian, etc.) or the Celtic Indepent Church use versions of the Ten Commandments that are different from any of the above.

At any rate, the right to free exercise of religion applies to *individual persons,* not to governments or corporations. A government does not have a constitutional right to express religion – in fact, is forbidden from doing so, because a government expression of religion cannot help but be an endorsement of religion.

A *person* working for a government, by contrast, has a right to express her/his religion without impediment, provided s/he is not doing so as a representative of a government.

In any display of the Ten Commandments on public land that might amount to religious expression by a government, thus amounting to an establishment of religion – the question must arise as to which religion or class of religious denominations the government is operating to establish, based upon which of the five or more distinctly different versions of the Ten Commandments are being displayed.

For example, if the first commandment reads:

“1. I am Ha-Shem, who is your G-d.”

That would be an endorsement of either Judaism or Samaritanism, presumably at the expense of various Christian denominations.