Barton Says The Founding Fathers 'Tied Religion To The Constitution To Give It Strength' Through Oath Requirements | Right Wing Watch

There are two slight problems with Barton's assertion:

1. The constitution does not require anyone to swear an oath. In every instance in the Constitution in which it requires an oath, that terms is followed by “or affirmation,” which is a non-religious promise.
2. The only instance where a specific oath is given, in Article II, Section 1, it says (note: no “So help me God” at the end):

”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

On yesterday's program, Barton explained that that the Constitution’s requirement that members of Congress and the president take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" was the Founding Fathers' way of infusing religion into the document since an oath is a "direct appeal to God" to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions and "there is no such thing as a secular oath."

Any oath that is not made to God, Barton said, must instead rely on "the goodness of man and there's not a whole lot in me that says the goodness of man is great. Just look back across the Twentieth Century and the one hundred and fifty million lives that were lost because Stalin wasn't good and Hitler wasn't good and Tojo wasn't good and Pol Pot wasn't good."

The Founders knew this, Barton said, and so they "tied religion to the Constitution to give it strength" through these oath requirements, asserting that any attempt to implement the Constitution without religion is like trying to breathe on the moon.

Barton Says The Founding Fathers 'Tied Religion To The Constitution To Give It Strength' Through Oath Requirements | Right Wing Watch