Madeleine Pennington reflects on Biden's Presidential Oath

There's an interesting article that appears on the U.K. based 'Theos' website with the title, So Help Me God: Faith, Politics, Integrity and an Inauguration. 

A taste:

After all, this [the 'so help me God' tagline] is an explicitly religious exhortation which is markedly absent from the version of the Oath prescribed by the Constitution itself, but which has traditionally been included in practice – in the first instance, as a nod to George Washington, who (legend has it) spontaneously included it as he swore his own Oath to become the first American President in 1789. This would have been all the more notable given Washington’s role in presiding over the Constitutional Convention.

In this sense, ‘the faith bit’ is at once constitutionally excluded and culturally obliged – which is, of course, how much of the relationship between faith and politics in America has proceeded since the nation was born. 

Potential reasons for leaving it out to start with only serve to bolster this image. Obviously, its exclusion enables the non–religious to swear the full Oath in good faith – and so to take the highest public office in the nation. This fulfils Article Six of the Constitution against religious tests for public office. Yet, unsurprisingly for America, some have also suggested a religious motivation for the omission: that it was intended to appease the significant Quaker population of nascent America, given that Quakers refuse oath–taking on principle (taking Matthew 5.33–37 in its literal sense). In the words of the Quaker William Penn: “It is vain and insolent, to think that a man, when he pleaseth, can make the great God of heaven a witness or judge in any matter … to help or forsake him, as the truth or falseness of his oath requires, when he saith ‘So help me God.’”

Simply let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

To be clear, this is speculation – just as the tales of Washington’s impromptu show of piety are themselves historically dubious. But the cultural layering associated with the phrase remains either way – and serves to remind us just how far America’s theoretical secularism has been entangled with religious principle from the start.

Why Didn't the 250th Anniversary of the Start of the Revolutionary War Get More Attention?

If you spend time regularly on this blog, you likely know that April 19 was the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. If you live in Massachusetts, I'm sure you marked the anniversary appropriately. But for the rest of the country...

Crickets.

That's how it seems to me. 

For those who may not know what I'm talking about, this past Saturday was April 19, 2025. That was the 250th anniversary of the shot heard 'round the world! It was the 250th anniversary of the opening of the American Revolution. 

I wrote an article about Lexington over on Medium. You can read it here...

In Case Anyone Cares, the American Revolution Began 250 Years Ago Today

Very few people read it. Of course, given the socio-political leanings of most of Medium's readership, I wasn't surprised. Sad, but not surprised. 

I wish I could get in front of the American people collectively and get right in their faces and demand an explanation for their apathy and indifference. But since I can't do that, I decided to ask ChatGPT. I asked ChatGPT why the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolutionary War went by with such little fanfare. This is its answer.

You're correct in observing that the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolution, marked on April 19, 2025, didn't receive the widespread national attention one might expect for such a significant milestone. Several factors contributed to this subdued commemoration:

---

🇺🇸 1. Localized Celebrations Over National Spotlight

While national media coverage was limited, certain communities, particularly in Massachusetts, held extensive commemorations. Lexington and Concord hosted reenactments, parades, and ceremonies that attracted thousands of attendees, including military performances and community events . Similarly, Virginia initiated events recognizing its Revolutionary history, such as commemorations of the Fincastle Resolutions . However, these events were primarily regional and didn't translate into a cohesive national observance.​Boston.com+1AP News+1VA250

---

🏛️ 2. Political Divisions and Debates Over Historical Narratives

The current polarized political climate has influenced how historical events are commemorated. Discussions around the Revolution's legacy have become entangled with contemporary debates on race, inclusion, and national identity. Some advocate for a more inclusive retelling that acknowledges the roles of women, enslaved individuals, and Indigenous peoples, while others prefer traditional narratives focusing on the Founding Fathers . This lack of consensus has made organizing unified national commemorations challenging.​PBS: Public Broadcasting ServiceWikipedia+1AASLH+1

---

💸 3. Federal Funding Cuts Impacting Commemorative Efforts

Significant budget reductions under the Trump administration have affected preparations for the 250th anniversary. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) faced substantial cuts, with 80% of its staff placed on administrative leave. This led to the cancellation of grants intended for state humanities councils, which were planning various community events and educational programs for the anniversary . These financial constraints have limited the scope and reach of commemorative activities.​Axios+1AP News+1AP News+1Axios+1

---

🎯 4. Focus on the Upcoming 2026 Semiquincentennial

Many organizations are directing their resources and attention toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026. This upcoming milestone is perceived as a more unifying national event, leading to a strategic decision to prioritize it over the 2025 commemorations of the Revolution's onset .​Reuters+3The Heritage Foundation+3America250+3

---

🧭 5. Challenges in Coordinated National Planning

Efforts to organize a cohesive national commemoration have faced obstacles, including leadership changes and differing visions for the anniversary's tone and content. Disagreements over whether to present the Revolution as a celebratory event or a moment for critical reflection have hindered unified planning .​past@present

---

In summary, while there were meaningful local commemorations of the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution's start, a combination of political polarization, funding challenges, and strategic focus on future events contributed to the lack of a prominent national observance.

********

What do you think? Do you agree with ChatGPT?

Here's my fear. I wonder how many people will notice next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence? Given how divided and unpatriotic these days we (as a people -- collectively) are, I think I know the answer. 

Thank you for reading!
✍️ Follow me on Medium for more of my writing
📖 Check out my latest book: Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Ancient Commandment We Dare Not Break
📢 Connect with me on Substack

Do We Respect the Constitution?

Since Donald Trump came down that elevator and entered national politics, there has been a lot of talk about the Constitution and American democracy. That talk has only intensified during Trump 2.0.

I don't want to wade too much into contemporary politics with this article. I'm sure everyone here (like everyone in the country) has strong opinions about Donald Trump. Feel free to vent your opinions in the comments, but I would ask that we keep our main focus on the following question...

Regardless of how much Donald Trump may or may not respect the Constitution of the United States...

Do we?

Do we respect the American Constitution?

First, have you read it? If so, how many times? Could you pass a high school social studies test on the Constitution? 

Have you read about or studied the context in which the Constitution was written and ratified? Have you read The Federalist Papers (at least some of them)? 

Before you say, "Yeah, I studied all that in school" and leave it at that, consider how long ago that was. Have you brushed up on early American history since? Would you want your doctor to never look at a medical textbook again after medical school?

One last thing...

Some of the people ranting today about Donald Trump undermining or not respecting the Constitution have been the very same voices that have denigrated the American Founding Fathers. You can't have it both ways. You can't, in one conversation, hold up the Constitution as a good thing, but in the very next conversation, condemn the United States as being rotten to the very core of its founding!

For years... YEARS! ... I have blogged about the nobility and honor of America's Founders, especially George Washington. Often, my praises of the Founding Fathers have been met with attacks on the Founders for all their sins and imperfections. Yes...newsflash...the Founders were human. They didn't get everything right. It amazes me how this is supposed to be seen as (pardon the pun) revolutionary.

It's fine to point out the areas in which the American Founders fell short. That's called learning from history. But it's quite another to argue that the American Founding was hopelessly corrupt and therefore the United States of America is irredeemably evil. If that's your view, then please don't criticize Donald Trump for undermining the Constitution. 

It's understandable, even commendable, that our hearts be broken over the sins of our past. But it's nauseatingly hypocritical to expect any American today, including our President, to respect what you don't. And, let's be clear, if you don't respect the American Founders, then don't tell me you respect their handiwork: the United States of America and its Constitution.

However you vote and whatever your feelings are regarding Trump 2.0...

I hope that this period of American history will serve as an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the importance of our Constitution and the value of what our Founding Fathers gave us. 

Burr is a Founding Father

Over the years, we delved very deeply into the "were America's founders Christians or Deists?" debate and one issue is "are all founders created equal?" (Because a disproportionate number of the religiously heterodox thinkers occupied prominent positions, and are termed "key founders," intimating their positions should be held with higher regard, as we will discuss more below.)

Firstly, we must establish "what is a founder?" That definition is up for debate. Certainly, all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (but do its five authors have more weight?). And those at the Constitutional Convention. Well 39 out of the 55 delegates signed the document. What about the 16, like Patrick Henry, who did not? (Because he "smelt a rat.") Well, those Anti-Federalists played an important role in helping to deliver the Bill of Rights.

The "key Founders" -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin and a few others -- get most of the attention. And we also debate who are the "few others" who are entitled to this "first tier status"?

But should there even be a "first tier status"? That is, it's been argued that if one qualifies as a "founder" then they are entitled to some kind of equal status with regards to their authority as the others.

This is something that struck me: As much attention as we've paid to various founders, even those who don't qualify as "key founders," there are all sorts of ones that we've ignored.

There is one notable founder ignored in particular in the sense that he's NEVER cited authoritatively. Though, technically he qualifies as a "founding father." Indeed, arguably he's 2nd tier up there with John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush and others.

His name is Aaron Burr. The guy was, among other things, a Senator and then Vice President of the United States; he WAS a founder whose position "counts." But, again, almost never invoked authoritatively.

On the religious issues, it's been noted that Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were "non orthodox Trinitarian Christians"; we could say "Deists," but that raises another can of worms because all three believed in Providence. And research has arguably demonstrated the term "Providential Deist" is actually NOT a contradiction. (But we may wish to use a different term anyway to describe such for other reasons.)

There are others too who perhaps belong in that heterodox box, though there's not as much evidence. John Marshall, for instance. George Wythe. Also James Madison, George Washington and G. Morris. Though as much scrutiny as we've put Madison and Washington under, there is still some doubt as to which way either of them should be categorized (other than both believing in a warm Providence at minimum).

I think Aaron Burr too was, despite his uber-orthodox family lineage, one of the "not orthodox Christian" types. I think I remember Christian Nationalist David Barton once call him a "Deist." Take this with a grain of salt. I'm going from memory and this was years ago. And Barton has been put through so much scrutiny (much arguably deserved). In fact, it may have been Benedict Arnold that I remember Barton categorizing as a Deist.

But the point is Burr may be presently invoked, but he's NOT cited authoritatively as a "founding father." I DO remember Barton narrating the Burr/Hamilton duel on a video production and when Burr's name was mentioned, the production played ominous music.

In other words, Burr wasn't a "real founder." Rather he was some kind of villainous anti-founder. You could legitimately categorize Benedict Arnold that way. Jacob Duche too (who is often portrayed as some kind of hero according to the Christian Nationalist narrative). Because both of them turned against "the cause."

But not Burr. He was a "real founder." If these bean counting citations matter, there's no reason for him not to score authoritative points for whatever positions or beliefs he held. If what he did to Hamilton could poison his authoritative well, Hamilton's affair could poison his. G. Morris' rampant promiscuous fornication and adultery (he was unmarried but had sex with married women) could poison his, James Wilson landing in debtor's prison could poison his, etc. etc. I haven't looked closely into Burr's religious creed like I have the others. But we may wish to start with this piece from The Saturday Evening Post in 1868 which suggest he was a "freethinker" bucking conventional religious beliefs, but that he had an orthodox Christian death. Which if true would make his faith journey ironically similar to Hamilton's. (I'm convinced with most scholars that Hamilton didn't become a traditional orthodox Christian until after his son died in a duel.) Though the Post piece certainly needs to be "fact checked."

Voegelin View Reviews Waligore's Book on Deism

 Check it out here. A taste:

Joseph Waligore’s The Spirituality of the English and American Deists: How God Became Good marvels at all the possible assumptions of deism by primarily studying identified and unidentified deist scholars during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Waligore prides himself on evaluating nearly six hundred of these scholars as he surrounds his argument into four elements: “deist believed in an inactive deity, the deists’ most fundamental commitment was to reason, they were secularists advocating or moving toward the modern, scientific worldview that explained everything by purely natural processes, and they never prayed because they had no meaningful relationship with their distant and inactive deity.” These elements Waligore bases his argument upon are ultimately constructed from the overarching assumption that God’s distance from mankind automatically makes Him unfair and unjust.

Every deist, no matter what affiliation, held a “deep commitment in God’s fairness and goodness. They often rejected Christian doctrines because these doctrines portrayed God as less than perfectly good and fair, not because the doctrines were irrational.” God’s overarching goodness, to a deist, meant that He is fair to every individual on earth. Waligore, for examination purposes in comparison to deist doctrine, says Christians raise the argument that God strategically targets vulnerable people groups. By contrast, deists “argue that a good and just God would never have ordered the ancient Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and baby of neighboring nations.” God’s overarching goodness now means that He is fair to every individual on earth because He does not discriminate. In the Western world, deists were the first religious group to believe God was totally good, and they tried to convince those around them to partake in this belief. Deists were not anti-divine. Instead, they were spiritual individuals that were safeguarded by a God that truly loved and cared for them.

There is quite a bit to this book. Though I think the chief point is that the notion of a Providential Deist is NOT a contradiction in terms. Yes, the French Deists were less "Christian" than the English and American Deists. But even the French Deists were often Providential. In their case they believed God favored the French Revolutionaries in their cause. 

Here is the URL to the Amazon page.