"So help me God"

[dilettante]

I saw this in the news today. It's often been noted that, at least in the US, the general population tends to take a dim view of self-proclaimed "atheists." I suspect that things like this are responsible for that dim view.

It should be noted that adding "so help me God" to the end of the oath of office and the use of a Bible in the swearing in ceremony are not required by law. The practice is traditional, but left entirely to the choice of the president-elect.


Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.

...

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion.
Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit.

...

Newdow said religious references in the inauguration ceremony send a message to non-believers.

"The message here is, we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans," he said.

Newdow said it's unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good.

He acknowledged that his suit is unlikely to be successful.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/?iref=hpmostpop

[partofme]

I think what would help the view of atheists in this country is if many people who are not believers came out of the closet and where more open about it. I don't think lawsuits like this help because it gives the religious something to rally against and makes it look like they are under attack. I think people like me should be as open about our lack of belief as religious people are about their belief so that a human face is put on it rather than being painted as some boogy man that wants to take away Christmas. If atheists want to have less influence in society they should support secular institutions that offer social and moral alternatives. That's what I do at least. :)

[partofme]

I think what would help the view of atheists in this country is if many people who are not believers came out of the closet and where more open about it. I don't think lawsuits like this help because it gives the religious something to rally against and makes it look like they are under attack. I think people like me should be as open about our lack of belief as religious people are about their belief so that a human face is put on it rather than being painted as some boogy man that wants to take away Christmas. If atheists want to have less influence in society they should support secular institutions that offer social and moral alternatives. That's what I do at least. :)

I meant to say more influence.

[Michael]

I'm an atheist and strongly in favor of 'separation of church and state'. I generally hold the same view of this issue as I do of the "In God We Trust" stamped on the money.

That is to say, vague expressions about "God" do not constitute "religion", either by preference or by establishment.

Thus, I see no reason to object to such expressions. They are simply rhetorical, symbolic or artistic flourishes. Just like the way politicians often close their speeches with the expression "God Bless" or "God Bless America". These are not expressions of establishment of any religion and thus, are not worthy of objection.

Indeed, I'd suggest that any 'official' objection to these expressions is evidence of intolerance.

[Dominick]

I saw this in the news today. It's often been noted that, at least in the US, the general population tends to take a dim view of self-proclaimed "atheists." I suspect that things like this are responsible for that dim view.

It should be noted that adding "so help me God" to the end of the oath of office and the use of a Bible in the swearing in ceremony are not required by law. The practice is traditional, but left entirely to the choice of the president-elect.
Such a statement has no place in a state that claims to have separation of state and church. Just imagine that a president would add 'so help me the rich', or 'so help me the Banks', or 'so help me the White people' or 'so help me Lenin'.

Each of these statements, including the one in subject, indicates that there will be preferential treatment of a section of the populace while the head of state is supposed to represent all of the people.

The christian-democrats of Europe tried to sneak a similar statement into the proposed EU constitution. It's not one of the least reasons it got rejected in several countries.

Such an exclusivist statement would suit me fine though. It would crush any legitimacy the institution that makes the statement would claim.

[partofme]

Such a statement has no place in a state that claims to have separation of state and church. Just imagine that a president would add 'so help me the rich', or 'so help me the Banks', or 'so help me the White people' or 'so help me Lenin'.

Each of these statements, including the one in subject, indicates that there will be preferential treatment of a section of the populace while the head of state is supposed to represent all of the people.

The christian-democrats of Europe tried to sneak a similar statement into the proposed EU constitution. It's not one of the least reasons it got rejected in several countries.

Such an exclusivist statement would suit me fine though. It would crush any legitimacy the institution that makes the statement would claim.

My personal preference is to not have it said but that is just my preference. To actively fight it is a battle that will only make atheists look like bad guys trying to take something away from the majority and isn't beneficial for their long term acceptance. Christianity is strongly ingrained and it isn't going to go away over night and not because of a court battle which only rallies the religious. I'm an atheist and I would love to have a more secular society but I know that is something that will happen naturally as time progresses and forcing it does not help move that process along at all.

[Michael]

Such a statement has no place in a state that claims to have separation of state and church. Just imagine that a president would add 'so help me the rich', or 'so help me the Banks', or 'so help me the White people' or 'so help me Lenin'.

Each of these statements, including the one in subject, indicates that there will be preferential treatment of a section of the populace while the head of state is supposed to represent all of the people.
And what if the President said, "so long as my wife and family help me"?

The President's appeal to "God" to help him fulfill the requirements of office does not violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, nor does it violate the principle of separation of church and state.

Indeed, the removal of that phrase changes/adds NOTHING to the Presidential oath of office. It is entirely a rhetorical issue.

Such an exclusivist statement would suit me fine though. It would crush any legitimacy the institution that makes the statement would claim.
No doubt you'd have to refuse any payment in US currency too then since it mentions "In God We Trust".

As for legitimacy, God has been invoked for just about every political regime on the planet.

[Dominick]

And what if the President said, "so long as my wife and family help me"?
That's not a wedge issue and as such not similar. What if he said 'so help me the unborn babies', or the Lenin example ?


The President's appeal to "God" to help him fulfill the requirements of office does not violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, nor does it violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Well, I don't know -or care- about the laws but it's pretty obvious that when a head of state utters such a statement that to him/her non-theists are not going to be represented.
Other than that, though it's only from a debatable source such as Wiki, the phrase appears to be mandatory for a whole range of other offices. That's nothing less than blatant discrimination. I don't see any difference between 'keine Jude', 'nir vir blankes' and 'only believers'.


Indeed, the removal of that phrase changes/adds NOTHING to the Presidential oath of office. It is entirely a rhetorical issue.
Uhm, it adds 'so help me God'. The implied meaning is that the presidency will be shadowed by religious interests. That is a breach of the separation of state and church. At least of a serious one. The more I read about it, the more it seems that in practice no such separation actually exists in the US.


No doubt you'd have to refuse any payment in US currency too then since it mentions "In God We Trust".
I've never used US$ so I'm in the clear here.


As for legitimacy, God has been invoked for just about every political regime on the planet.Indeed. And ? The Taliban, the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition are amongst those. Hardly a reference.

[Greendruid]

Canadian money has a similar phrase inherited but changed from the Brits. "Dei Gratia Rex/Regina" meaning, "By the grace of God, King/Queen". It is currently abbreviated D.G. Regina. The British version was originally "Dei gratia rex/regina fidei defensor" which is "By the grace of God King/Queen and defender of the faith". There are other versions of this but by numismatic nerdiness is sufficiently presented here :lol:

[dilettante]

Uhm, it adds 'so help me God'. The implied meaning is that the presidency will be shadowed by religious interests. That is a breach of the separation of state and church. At least of a serious one. The more I read about it, the more it seems that in practice no such separation actually exists in the US.

"Shadowed by religious interests"?

If taken literally it means (at most) that the president is requesting the aid of a supreme Being in defending the US Constitution. In common usage, however, "so help me God" is just a poetic way of saying "And I really, really mean it." Kind of like "I cross my heart."

What's the alternative for the president? That he be legally forbidden from adding the phrase to his oath if he wants to because it has the word "God" in it?

It sounds like paranoia to say that adding a traditional (and most would say "quaint") phrase to the end of the oath means that "non-theists are not going to be represented." Atheism gets such a bad rap precisely because the loudest atheists are those who seem viciously determine to expunge every mention of religion, no matter how harmless, empty or voluntary, from any public place.

[Dominick]

"Shadowed by religious interests"?

If taken literally it means (at most) that the president is requesting the aid of a supreme Being in defending the US Constitution. In common usage, however, "so help me God" is just a poetic way of saying "And I really, really mean it." Kind of like "I cross my heart."
It's a poetic way of saying so for religious folks. I can't imagine American non-theists to use such a phrase.


What's the alternative for the president? That he be legally forbidden from adding the phrase to his oath if he wants to because it has the word "God" in it?
Yes. That's the only possibility in a genuinely pluralistic society. It's a matter of reversibility. Just imagine how the hardcore Christians would react if someone would add Inch'Allah (by the will of God) to the oath of a public office. That's what separation of state and church are all about. Let me add that it's of course only in the actual execution of that very public office that it matters. What the president or anyone else holding public office says outside of it is irrelevant.


It sounds like paranoia to say that adding a traditional (and most would say "quaint") phrase to the end of the oath means that "non-theists are not going to be represented." Atheism gets such a bad rap precisely because the loudest atheists are those who seem viciously determine to expunge every mention of religion, no matter how harmless, empty or voluntary, from any public place.
It's not paranoia when they're really after you :D All kidding aside, I grew up in a time and place where religion was forceably, even manu militari indoctrinated. The resulting aversion is so strong it'll last a lifetime and then some. If the religious folks want some leeway in the future, they'll have to prove they can coexist in a pluralistic society first.
It's not really about religion though. It's about its unilateralism. Non-theists wouldn't have that much of a problem with religion if the diverse religions were capable to tolerate each other to begin with. Which is not the case.

[dilettante]

Yes. That's the only possibility in a genuinely pluralistic society.

How is it pluralistic to legally forbid any expression of non-secular belief? He isn't forcing anyone else to accept his belief, he's just choosing to express his own in the form of a voluntary prayer for assistance. You would have the law forbid that and call it "pluralism"? It sounds more like the essence of intolerance.

It's a matter of reversibility. Just imagine how the hardcore Christians would react if someone would add Inch'Allah (by the will of God) to the oath of a public office. That's what separation of state and church are all about. Let me add that it's of course only in the actual execution of that very public office that it matters. What the president or anyone else holding public office says outside of it is irrelevant.

Doubtless the "hardcore Christian" would be greatly disturbed that he/she had elected a Muslim, but that doesn't give them the right to forbid the elected official from expressing his beliefs. Choosing to say "So help me God" (or "Inch'Allah") infringes on no one's rights, and forces religion on no one. The president elect can say "yubba-dubba-do!" at the end of his oath if he wants to.


It's not paranoia when they're really after you :D All kidding aside, I grew up in a time and place where religion was forceably, even manu militari indoctrinated. The resulting aversion is so strong it'll last a lifetime and then some. If the religious folks want some leeway in the future, they'll have to prove they can coexist in a pluralistic society first.

I'm truly sorry that you had such a bad experience. But to forbid that others (even those whom we've elected) express their own personal beliefs just because some people have an aversion to those beliefs is not the path to pluralism.

Atheism earns enemies when it stops simply saying "Do whatever you want as long as your religion isn't forced on me" and starts saying "You must be secular, regardless of whether it impacts me or not!" The pluralistic Christian and the pluralistic atheist should both accept that the president-elect can say "So help me God" or "Inch'Allah" or "By the power of Ra!" or nothing at the end of his oath (though they may prefer one alternative); such little phrases have no impact on them. Both the Christian and the atheist become intolerant when they demand that their preferred alternative be accepted, regardless of the oath-taker's personal beliefs or feelings.

[partofme]

The president elect can say "yubba-dubba-do!" at the end of his oath if he wants to.





I would absolutely love it if he said that at the end of the oath. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Michael]

That's not a wedge issue and as such not similar. What if he said 'so help me the unborn babies', or the Lenin example ?


Well, I don't know -or care- about the laws but it's pretty obvious that when a head of state utters such a statement that to him/her non-theists are not going to be represented.
Are you aware that 99% of all political speeches in the USA end with "God Bless America"? (Including the SOTU address)

It is clearly rhetorical and heavily 'cultural' expression. I doubt if anyone except an atheist would even notice the prevailance of these cultural God-markers in US society - particularly in politics.

Personally, I'm much more troubled by the official prayers at Congress or prayer meetings on Capitol Hill. Or High School football coaches pushing religion onto players in 'official prayer circles' on the game field. This of course is public funded.

US culture is completely and thoroughly 'saturated' with religion in a way I've never seen religion in any other western country. Nothing comes close (except Iran or India I guess - but I've never been there).

[SMadsen]

I will certainly hope it's rhetorical! :D

[partofme]

Are you aware that 99% of all political speeches in the USA end with "God Bless America"? (Including the SOTU address)

It is clearly rhetorical and heavily 'cultural' expression. I doubt if anyone except an atheist would even notice the prevailance of these cultural God-markers in US society - particularly in politics.

Personally, I'm much more troubled by the official prayers at Congress or prayer meetings on Capitol Hill. Or High School football coaches pushing religion onto players in 'official prayer circles' on the game field. This of course is public funded.

US culture is completely and thoroughly 'saturated' with religion in a way I've never seen religion in any other western country. Nothing comes close (except Iran or India I guess - but I've never been there).

The university I went to has a prayer at the graduation ceremony and not only does it bother atheists like myself but we have a large international student population and many are not Christians and have expressed a dislike for it but that hasn't changed anything. If the Islamic students decided they wanted to add a prayer I'm not sure if they would be allowed since it would only be fair but it sure would spark one hell of a controversy.

[SMadsen]

Strictly speaking, I'll have to side with Dominick in that the implication that a particular religious belief may or may not assist in running a public office is, again, strictly speaking, in violation of a stated effort to equally serve the entire populace. It's akin to judges flashing their religions during judicial proceedings, thereby sowing doubt as to partiality.

It may well be that the president can say "yubba-dubba-do!" at the end of his oath but (strictly speaking) he shouldn't say "so help me Yubba-dubba-do".

However, I think a lawsuit like the one filed is ridiculous and serves no other purpose than to make a dividing statement. One that could be made with proper credence, should there at some time during office be actual evidence of inequality where there should be equality due to religious favoritism and prejudice.

[Michael]

Strictly speaking, I'll have to side with Dominick in that the implication that a particular religious belief may or may not assist in running a public office is, again, strictly speaking, in violation of a stated effort to equally serve the entire populace. It's akin to judges flashing their religions during judicial proceedings, thereby sowing doubt as to partiality.

It may well be that the president can say "yubba-dubba-do!" at the end of his oath but (strictly speaking) he shouldn't say "so help me Yubba-dubba-do".

However, I think a lawsuit like the one filed is ridiculous and serves no other purpose than to make a dividing statement. One that could be made with proper credence, should there at some time during office be actual evidence of inequality where there should be equality due to religious favoritism and prejudice.

Are all males by definition biased against all females? Are all white people biased against all non-whites by definition?

Seems to me that you are making this argument here about religious people being biased against ALL non-religious people by definition.

I see people as multi-faceted, not unidimensional.

[SMadsen]

Are all males by definition biased against all females? Are all white people biased against all non-whites by definition?

Seems to me that you are making this argument here about religious people being biased against ALL non-religious people by definition.

I see people as multi-faceted, not unidimensional.
Not at all. I don't need to infer a bias when it's handed on a silver platter :)

I'm making the argument that "so help me God" is literally a blatant declaration of bias. Just as the statements that Dominick mentioned earlier, such as "so help me all the rich", or, I could add myself, "so help me all white people", are equivalent blatant declarations of bias.


That being said, that the particular statement "so help me God" is not actually a statement but a colloquial, culturally born exclamation with a rhetorical justification is why I hinge my agreement with Dominick on the strictest sense, i.e., the literal meaning of the words.

[Michael]

Not at all. I don't need to infer a bias when it's handed on a silver platter :)

I'm making the argument that "so help me God" is literally a blatant declaration of bias. Just as the statements that Dominick mentioned earlier, such as "so help me all the rich", or, I could add myself, "so help me all white people", are equivalent blatant declarations of bias.


That being said, that the particular statement "so help me God" is not actually a statement but a colloquial, culturally born exclamation with a rhetorical justification is why I hinge my agreement with Dominick on the strictest sense, i.e., the literal meaning of the words.
Actually, the phrase is used and serves entirely as an 'affirmation of truth' being spoken.

Btw, following your argument, when Obama starts the pledge with "I Obama Barack..." does that mean that Obama is declaring that he is biased towards himself?

[SMadsen]

Actually, the phrase is used and serves entirely as an 'affirmation of truth' being spoken.
Indeed.

Btw, following your argument, when Obama starts the pledge with "I Obama Barack..." does that mean that Obama is declaring that he is biased towards himself?
I resent the imputation that I totally lack a sense of context :D

[dilettante]

I resent the imputation that I totally lack a sense of context :D

But the entire "so help me God" thing is just as much about context. In the context of the presidential Oath of Office, saying "So help me God" after the oath plainly does not mean "I will privilege theists over non-theists!" It is, and in that context is accepted to be, as Michael said, an 'affirmation of truth'.

And, frankly, I'm surprised that anyone here would support making such speech illegal even if it did mean "I will privilege theists over non-theists!".
Should it be a crime for the president to say "I plan to promote the interests of brown-eyed people over those with blue and green eyes!"? I agree that any actually governmental discrimination should be resisted and the perpetrator punished, but personally I've extremely hesitant to support passing laws against what people (even elected official) are allowed to voluntarily say.
If Obama IS a religious bigot who has secret schemes of forcing his own religion on the masses, I would much prefer that he be actively encouraged to tell us so as soon as possible. Legally restraining his expression infringes his rights and (if anything) hinders our ability to evaluate our leaders.

[SMadsen]

But the entire "so help me God" thing is just as much about context. In the context of the presidential Oath of Office, saying "So help me God" after the oath plainly does not mean "I will privilege theists over non-theists!" It is, and in that context is accepted to be, as Michael said, an 'affirmation of truth'.
Indeed.

And, frankly, I'm surprised that anyone here would support making such speech illegal even if it did mean "I will privilege theists over non-theists!".
Should it be a crime for the president to say "I plan to promote the interests of brown-eyed people over those with blue and green eyes!"? I agree that any actually governmental discrimination should be resisted and the perpetrator punished, but personally I've extremely hesitant to support passing laws against what people (even elected official) are allowed to voluntarily say.
If Obama IS a religious bigot who has secret schemes of forcing his own religion on the masses, I would much prefer that he be actively encouraged to tell us so as soon as possible. Legally restraining his expression infringes his rights and (if anything) hinders our ability to evaluate our leaders.
Good point. Or at least it would be if it was part of, say, the inauguration speech and not the oath. The Chief Justice simply requests the words to be spoken as part of the oath.

That's an extension of what is required by your constitution. However, it's not an extension brought on by the personal whim of the President or Vice President but by dictation of the swearing-in officer, thereby reflecting upon the official matters that he's supposed to attend to, namely the Constitution, and not on the person being sworn in.

[SMadsen]

The president elect is already limited in speech if he wants to be President. No constitutional oath, no presidency.

It could be quite funny to see what would actually happen if a president elect would confine his oath to wordings of the Constitution and not repeat the Chief Justice's "so help me God" :)

[partofme]

The president elect is already limited in speech if he wants to be President. No constitutional oath, no presidency.

It could be quite funny to see what would actually happen if a president elect would confine his oath to wordings of the Constitution and not repeat the Chief Justice's "so help me God" :)

All hell would break loose. O'Reilly would use it as proof that the "secular progressives" have him by the balls and people all over the country would yell that the war on Christianity has begun. His poll numbers would fall under Bush levels.

[dilettante]

Indeed.


Good point. Or at least it would be if it was part of, say, the inauguration speech and not the oath. The Chief Justice simply requests the words to be spoken as part of the oath.

That's an extension of what is required by your constitution. However, it's not an extension brought on by the personal whim of the President or Vice President but by dictation of the swearing-in officer, thereby reflecting upon the official matters that he's supposed to attend to, namely the Constitution, and not on the person being sworn in.

The addition of "So help me God" is entirely left to the President-elect. I have no doubt that if Obama asked Roberts not to append those words that Roberts would oblige him.

But even if Roberts added the words anyway, just to tick Obama off, should he be legally prosecuted? Whose rights would that be protecting? Obama's right not to be annoyed by a snarky Chief Justice? I think we should be extremely wary of legalizing what people are allowed to say.

It seems to me that most tolerant, pluralistic system would allow one to express their beliefs if they wanted to or to refrain if they wanted to (or had no such belief to express). Right now we have a situation where the president-elect has that freedom wrt his oath. Why should that freedom be stripped from him? What rights are guarded by restricting his speech?

EDIT:
I should add that if this were just a letter or petition to be sent to Obama requesting that he not have the words in his oath I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. It's the attempt to force the issue legally that irks me.

[Americano]

All hell would break loose. O'Reilly would use it as proof that the "secular progressives" have him by the balls and people all over the country would yell that the war on Christianity has begun. His poll numbers would fall under Bush levels.

That would mean Palin yet again, so I'm against it.

[partofme]

That would mean Palin yet again, so I'm against it.

She still has her following. I wouldn't count her out for running for president. If Bush can be elected twice then I have no doubt she could.

[Americano]

She still has her following. I wouldn't count her out for running for president. If Bush can be elected twice then I have no doubt she could.

There have been a few wildly successful female fundamentalist media stars, but far more males. As I recall the highest, so far, an open fundamentalist has made it up the political ladder was as a political appointee, Ashcroft comes to mind. Given public mentality, that could change.

[partofme]

There have been a few wildly successful female fundamentalist media stars, but far more males. As I recall the highest, so far, an open fundamentalist has made it up the political ladder was as a political appointee, Ashcroft comes to mind. Given public mentality, that could change.

I think it will change but at a snails crawl. 4-8 years will not make that much of a difference.

[SMadsen]

The addition of "So help me God" is entirely left to the President-elect. I have no doubt that if Obama asked Roberts not to append those words that Roberts would oblige him.
Are you sure about that? I don't mean that the president elect can omit repeating the phrase and, in strict accordance with the Constitution, still become President. But are you sure that he has the ability to make the Chief Justice omit it?


But even if Roberts added the words anyway, just to tick Obama off, should he be legally prosecuted? Whose rights would that be protecting? Obama's right not to be annoyed by a snarky Chief Justice? I think we should be extremely wary of legalizing what people are allowed to say.

It seems to me that most tolerant, pluralistic system would allow one to express their beliefs if they wanted to or to refrain if they wanted to (or had no such belief to express). Right now we have a situation where the president-elect has that freedom wrt his oath. Why should that freedom be stripped from him? What rights are guarded by restricting his speech?

EDIT:
I should add that if this were just a letter or petition to be sent to Obama requesting that he not have the words in his oath I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. It's the attempt to force the issue legally that irks me.
There is no freedom of speech with regard to the inauguration oath. How it is to be spoken word for word is written down in your constitution (under the 2nd article about the President). It's not about rights, it's about the opposite of rights: Duty.

That being said, I think we agree with regard to the lawsuit. I already said what I think about it (it's ridiculous). But, strictly speaking, I do believe there are real issues when referring to religion in the context of addressing the constitution of a country that is built on equality and separation of state and church.

As to the other, non-religious examples it would be a similar problem to declare a bias in the context of addressing the constitution, but only with regard to the first part, equality (which is basically a premise of the other part but that's another discussion).

When the President adresses the people and not the constitution (for example during the inauguration speech) it's a very different matter. Then he can make Fred Phelps his speech writer if he wants to.

[dilettante]

Are you sure about that? I don't mean that the president elect can omit repeating the phrase and, in strict accordance with the Constitution, still become President. But are you sure that he has the ability to make the Chief Justice omit it?

Based on my limited knowledge of Roberts, he has inclination to create a scene over such trivial issues, and would accept whatever Obama wanted wrt to "so help me God."

Of course Obama could always just pick someone else to perform that job if Roberts was uncooperative. Having the Chief Justice administer the oath is, itself, merely a matter of tradition; Obama is Constitutionally free to select someone else.

But again, even if the administer goes wild adding extra phrases at the end of the oath, I would object to their being arrested or legally prosecuted for it. So long as the oath as found in the constitution is the only thing required to assume office, either the administer or the president can babble as much as they want to. Doing so may make one or both of them look like idiots, bigots or buffoons, but I see no reason to make that illegal.


There is no freedom of speech with regard to the inauguration oath. How it is to be spoken word for word is written down in your constitution (under the 2nd article about the President). It's not about rights, it's about the opposite of rights: Duty.

As best I can tell, there is no movement to alter the Constitutional oath or to change what the president must swear to in order to assume office. Presidents have been adding "So help me God" for decades because they wanted to; I see no reason from preventing them to continue to do so in the future if they want to, nor to require it of them if they do not.
Again, once the Constitutional oath is complete, they can say whatever they want; they can say it on their own, one can repeat it to another, or they sing a little duet up there. It's really up to them.


That being said, I think we agree with regard to the lawsuit. I already said what I think about it (it's ridiculous). But, strictly speaking, I do believe there are real issues when referring to religion in the context of addressing the constitution of a country that is built on equality and separation of state and church.

As to the other, non-religious examples it would be a similar problem to declare a bias in the context of addressing the constitution, but only with regard to the first part, equality (which is basically a premise of the other part but that's another discussion).

When the President adresses the people and not the constitution (for example during the inauguration speech) it's a very different matter. Then he can make Fred Phelps his speech writer if he wants to.

I don't know what "Address the Constitution" means. The Oath of Office is addressed directly to the people of the United States. It is the president's promise to us that he will execute his office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." If he chooses to request the aid of God (or rich people, or brown-eyed people, or people whose name starts with 'B') in helping him keep that promise, I don't see any problem with that.

[SMadsen]

Again, once the Constitutional oath is complete, they can say whatever they want; they can say it on their own, one can repeat it to another, or they sing a little duet up there. It's really up to them.
That's the issue right there, I think (emphasis mine). Is the Constitutional oath complete when the words in the Constitution have been uttered or when the hand is lowered?

[dilettante]

That's the issue right there, I think (emphasis mine). Is the Constitutional oath complete when the words in the Constitution have been uttered or when the hand is lowered?

I would say that the oath is complete when the incoming president has said "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."
As long as he gets that in there, he's good to go from a legal/official standpoint, hand raised or not, with a Bible or not, with the Chief Justice or not. I don't see any justification for laying additional special requirements or restrictions on what he can or cannot say or do.

[SMadsen]

I would say that the oath is complete when the incoming president has said "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."
As long as he gets that in there, he's good to go from a legal/official standpoint, hand raised or not, with a Bible or not, with the Chief Justice or not. I don't see any justification for laying additional special requirements or restrictions on what he can or cannot say or do.
Fair enough.

I guess I'll just have to wait to see if the extra-constitutional addition is a restriction on what he can or cannot say. Somehow I suspect that no future President will ever dare to test it, though.

[Americano]

Fair enough.

I guess I'll just have to wait to see if the extra-constitutional addition is a restriction on what he can or cannot say. Somehow I suspect that no future President will ever dare to test it, though.

It would instantly alienate the Christian portion of the population, fundies and sinners.

[dilettante]

Fair enough.

I guess I'll just have to wait to see if the extra-constitutional addition is a restriction on what he can or cannot say. Somehow I suspect that no future President will ever dare to test it, though.

Not any time soon, anyway.

[SMadsen]

Not any time soon, anyway.
Right.

Viva libertad de expresión :)

[SMadsen]

Dilettante and Michael, I now have to completely agree with both of you. Today it was shown that the opposition to the "rhetorical, symbolic or artistic" use of a reference to divinity during the inauguration oath was made not only absolutely meaningless, but also totally ridiculous next to the inauguration prayer. I felt like it was an Iranian ceremony I was watching.

Apart from that, congrats with your new President to Dilettante and other Americans on the forum.

[Michael]

Dilettante and Michael, I now have to completely agree with both of you. Today it was shown that the opposition to the "rhetorical, symbolic or artistic" use of a reference to divinity during the inauguration oath was made not only absolutely meaningless, but also totally ridiculous next to the inauguration prayer. I felt like it was an Iranian ceremony I was watching.

Apart from that, congrats with your new President to Dilettante and other Americans on the forum.

Yes, the formal recitation of the Lord's Prayer (practically the 'official prayer' of Christianity itself) during the ceremony was quite prominent and screams out "official state religion".

[dilettante]

Dilettante and Michael, I now have to completely agree with both of you. Today it was shown that the opposition to the "rhetorical, symbolic or artistic" use of a reference to divinity during the inauguration oath was made not only absolutely meaningless, but also totally ridiculous next to the inauguration prayer.

Yeah, that was quite a doozy, wasn't it? I felt rather awkward at that point.

I felt like it was an Iranian ceremony I was watching.

That seems a tad harsh, though. The US gov. may be rife with ceremonial religious practices/symbols, but people are free to mock, scoff at or rail against them (and the religion(s) they reference) without fearing for their lives.


Apart from that, congrats with your new President to Dilettante and other Americans on the forum.


Thanks. It's nice to see Americans feeling interested in and optimistic about their government for a change.