Comments on: Atheists Sue Over the Inauguration

By: NateIsRight

NateIsRight — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:06:21 +0000

How to end the oath: Instead of “shmg”, say “This I promise to my fellow Americans”

How’s that?

By: Racje

Racje — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:41:41 +0000

Beyond the Constitutional requirements for the oath, It’s clear that “so help me God” and putting a hand on a Bible are NOT part of a legal requirement, but are chosen at the discretion of the person being sworn in as President of the USA. Barack Obama gets to choose.

Article II, section 1, clause 8 of the US Constitution requires the President to say : “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.” No mention or religion at all.

According to some traditions, “So help me God” was spontaneously added by George Washington at the first inaugural, although there is no contemporary evidence of this. (It would be interesting to know when the first mention of this tradition was.) Many subsequent Presidents have said it, apparently as a matter of choice or custom, not law, including all since Franklin D Roosevelt.

I would like to know whether and when the “So help me God” bit has been included as part of the prompt given by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and whether and when it’s been left for the incoming President to say without a prompt.

“Affirming” an oath without reference to God or sacred works is an option the founding fathers provided for in the Constitution to protect the rights of atheists, agnostics, and religious groups like Quakers who believe in a single standard of truth. Franklin Pierce chose to “affirm” rather than “swear;” all other Presidents have chosen to “swear,” except possibly Herbert Hoover, a practicing Quaker–the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies says he “affirmed,” but other sources say he “swore.”

In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the oath using a law book (some say it was the Constitution) rather than a Bible. Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in 1901 but did use one in 1905. For those who think the Constitution is preferable to the Bible because slavery is endorsed in the Bible, I suggest reading the Constitution, Article I, section 2.

The oath prescribed by the Constitution, which includes no mention of God or religion or religious books, is what is required by law. The First Amendment’s “No establishment” clause means that Presidents taking office can’t be compelled to use any particular or general reference to religion. The “Free exercise” clause means they may choose to do so.

Barack Obama gets to choose whether or not to ask for God’s help, and whether to put his hand on a Bible, and whether to “swear” or “affirm.” I am not disposed to take away to his right to publicly ask for help from God, hope, love, reason, or any other entity he feels he needs.

If he asked me for advice, I’d suggest that he tell Chief Justice John Roberts that he doesn’t want or need to be prompted to say “so help me God” after the legal oath; then, if Obama wants to call on God’s help, he could go ahead and do so. That would make it clear what is part of the legal oath and what is a personal exercise of religion. It would also separate John Roberts’ theology from Barack Obama’s.

But he hasn’t asked….

By: Alex L.

Alex L. — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:21:38 +0000

I voted for Obama because I thought he was somewhat more rational than Bush. For O. to begin his presidency with a chat with an imaginary being does not bode well for the nation. Considering that human pathogenesis is a core belief of his faith (a belief akin to Athena springing fully armed from the brow of Zeus) I am really worried about what other nonsense we can expect from our new president.

By: DaOptimist

DaOptimist — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:07:07 +0000

Someone asked what we would do if we were being sworn into office. I recently was sworn in to work with the Census Bureau and when it came time to take the oath, I noticed that it had me “swearing”…..”so help me God.” I quickly spoke up and asked what oath that an atheist can take and I was allowed to “affirm” my oath to uphold the Constitution and I was also allowed to cross out (and not say) the “so help me God” part. I am glad that they did not discriminate against me and they were all very respectful to me. What bothers me though, was the fact that the “so help me God” was even in there as the default version of the oath……and that others did not even question it. As far as the inauguration, I don’t think that swearing an oath under god should be a default part of any government ceremony….HOWEVER, if someone wanted to do so, personally, they should be allowed to do so. If Obama really wants to swear an oath under god, that should be his choice….although we are the citizens, he is the one taking the office and if he wants to swear to Allah or God or Shiva or the Spaghetti Monster or Santa or anyone, he should be able to make that choice….it is HIS oath (promise to uphold). If he wants to put his hand on a Bible or a copy of Breakfast of Champions or a box of Ding-Dongs, I don’t care….those choices don’t affect me….it’s HIS oath. If he were to demand that we had to take an oath and swear to god, THEN I would speak up. Just as if I wanted to swear on my father’s grave, I should be allowed to do so. I don’t think that there should be prayer offered at an inauguration, but the choice of how to be sworn in should be up to the swear-ee. Just my $5.00 (two-bits has gone up in these economic times).

By: David B

David B — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0000

James Bunyan. I am an American and an Atheist as well. I was once Christian, AND I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT THEN EITHER.

By: james bunyan

james bunyan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:08:00 +0000

im british and atheist and i cant understand a country that states religion and politics must remain seperate, then lets it invade evry part of their life, and do nothing, obviously the law suit should go ahead and all refrence to religion should be removed from public places and money, and court houses etc, religion is a personal thing so keep it in the home and in places of worship you choose to visit, not in the face of evry one that passes, that meens billboards too, and as for the word god, i prefer the term invisable freind, as its more factual, so no more “so help me invisable freind”, and no more “in our invisable freind we trust” just my thoughts on it.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:45:06 +0000

Why do they say “and other atheists”? It’s http://www.ffrf.org that’s doing it. I’m tired of seeing American Atheists not mention FFRF. There’s no reason to be in competition here. We are all atheists. Stop with this subtle bullshit.

By: PJR

PJR — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:36:01 +0000

If we must remove any belief system from the inauguration then anyone who is an atheist cannot be involved (it’s a belief system), that also eliminated all other religions. Maybe we will have to cancel the inauguration just to insure that no one might be offended that everyone involved are not atheist or Baptist or Muslims, or…..
I think the inmates have taken over the asylum.

By: Paul LaClair

Paul LaClair — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:45:01 +0000

Mr. Girnau, the greater fool is the one who imagines that even if there was a God, he/she would send someone to hell for a sincerely held belief, which just always happens to be what someone else believes. It is the person who cannot see beyond the projection of his own ego. Have you ever considered the possibility that God might not appreciate you thinking that he would torment his children, and that you’re the one with the problem?

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:47:45 +0000

Patriot St,
You start your comment with a suggestion to murder someone, and finish it with “GOD BLESS.” I wonder whether that interesting juxtaposition says something not very flattering about your religion or about your character.

In the middle you dismiss Newdow’s efforts as twisted rants and the minority opinion.

Keep in mind that every opinion you hold, safe and apparently smug in your comfortable majority, was once a minority opinion. Every assumption you take for granted was once seen as a radical, even dangerous idea. The founding fathers understood this, because they were crafting a radical, even dangerous idea, that of true and total freedom of and from religion. They remembered clearly the horrors of religion and state power corrupting each other, because for them it had not been long ago. As time has passed, people have forgotten how ugly and evil that combination can be, and people have become sloppy about it. Newdow and others are trying to restore the degraded separation that protects us all. Assuming that you are a theist, you should be very much in favor of keeping church and state out of each others’ beds. I’m sure you’d not like the result if they co-mingled any further than they have already in this country. When have you ever seen the government handle something really important completely to your liking? If this trend continues, then the “religious persecution” you mention will not come from the likes of Newdow, but from your own beloved government.

I consider myself a patriot as well, because I support and protect the principles of freedom and integrity that are the foundation of the Constitution. Supporting whatever is the majority opinion and the established power structure at the time, regardless of what it is doing is not patriotism. That is just blind and complacent obedience.