Why Aren't These Guys in Jail?

In a story at "Talk to Action", http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/5/165221/5311 , Kathryn Joyce reports:

"United States Senate Chaplain Barry Black announced on Thursday that he was canceling an appearance and speech at a March conference of religious right leaders, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference," which will feature speakers including Rev. D. James Kennedy, anti-abortion activist Frank Pavone, anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Ann Coulter, with whom Black was pictured in a brochure promoting the conference. Black received a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State arguing that the conference was at odds with the necessarily "non-sectarian, non-partisan nature of Black's office and the religiously diverse constituency he must serve," and warning him that James Kennedy's followers believe "that certain types of Christians -- those who agree with [Kennedy's] interpretation of the Bible -- are the rightful owners of the country and that the nation must be 'reclaimed.'"

Joyce goes on to add that "Black later told Reclaiming America organizers that the partisan nature of the conference conflicted with his duties as Senate chaplain."

Three cheers for Black.

Jeff Sharlet points out that Black's predecessor, Richard Halverson, "was for decades also one of the two leaders of the Fellowship, a group that doesn't believe separation of church and state really exists.", and asks, "How come this wasn't a problem for a man on the gov't payroll?"

Good question, Jeff.

And I have another, somewhat related question:

When it comes to Dominionists serving in government positions, why aren't these guys being brought up on charges?

Dominionists define "reclaiming America" as taking over the government, abolishing democracy, and replacing the Constitution with Mosaic Law. Last time I heard, that would be considered treason.

So why are we allowing members of a group whose avowed goal is the destruction of the United States Constitution, to hold public office in the first place?

I believe we have an oath that civil servants must take, in order to prevent just this sort of thing: Every officer in the executive branch (and indeed all employees in the federal government, save a few rare instances that are Constitutionally or otherwise statutorily differentiated -- i.e. the President, and Supreme Court justices) recites the following oath:

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Of course the Dominionists excuse lying for a "good cause" by referring to the Biblical story of "Rahab's Lie", but the part in the oath about "mental reservation or purpose of evasion" pretty much closes that loophole. What Dominionists are attempting is treason, in no uncertain terms, and they have no qualms about perjuring themselves by swearing to defend the Constitution of the United States.

R. J. Rushdoony maintained that treason implies disobedience to an oath. In Dominionistland, that would be a stoning offense.

Personally, I think that life in prison would be sufficient.