Obama has asked to say 'so help me God' at swearing-in

Source: CNN

President-elect Barack Obama has requested that the words “so help me God” be added to the end of the oath of office to be administered by Chief Justice John Roberts on Inauguration Day.

That confirmation came in an affidavit filed today by Roberts' court counselor in a pending lawsuit by an atheist opposed to any mention of God in the inaugural ceremonies. Roberts said he would abide by Obama’s wishes.

The Constitution has specific language on what has to be said when swearing in the president, but the “so help me God” phrase has traditionally been added at the end of the required oath, starting with George Washington in 1789.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/09/obama-t... /

Unbelievers and Quakers can still affirm instead of swear.

Jesus said, "But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5:33-37

I don't understand why Christians make such a fuss about taking an oath in God's name!

probably since the church wanted the extra fillip of having the king swear before them rather than having his simple word be his bond.

Most believers have never read the bible.

in my estimation. As a quaker, I don't swear when asked to tell the truth etc in a court of law. But in the case of the inauguration, it seems to me one needs all help available, and praying that God help you makes good sense to me.

making a show of adding religious words to an oath that is in the Constitution, word for word, is a lot more more political than sincere prayer.

he's just fed up with the people who keep saying he's Muslim(and therefore to their thinking a terrorist). Maybe he just wants to shut up that nonsense for once and for all?

But if we are going to keep track of every disappointment and shortcoming we're just going to be miserable wretches! Obama has come closer to articulating my hopes for the future than any other politician. I'd rather stay hopeful than be miserable if possible.

I've always understood that to be a metaphor, instructing prayer to be sincere rather than to advertise one's belief.

Does this mean that I should read that passage literally...?

to a judge in a court of law, should you ever have to testify!!

It's all about control and it sucks Obama wants to give them that kind of control.

If he wants to say it himself, as all the others (I'm pretty sure of this) have, then that's fine. But to have the Chief Justice say the words is to literally change the law with no consultation whatsoever. Sure, Article One talks about Congress not making such laws, but there is still no authority for an official to CHANGE THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION. To do so is to endorse the concept that there is a supreme being, and this is NOT part of the Constitution.

Why is it that so many believers have such a pathetic and shaky faith that they need to require everyone else around them to buttress their guess? It is taken as an attack for anyone to be getting in the way of anyone reminding us that THERE DEFINITELY IS A GOD AND WE, AS A GROUP AGREE TO THIS. That is privilege, aristocracy, bigotry, and untold other forms of exclusivity, and it is against the very soul of democratic populism.

It would be illegal. The Chief Justice is to administer the oath as written.

Who does Obama think he is that he can just pick and choose with his obedience to THE LAW?

What he says after the oath doesn't matter in a legal sense at all. And the fact that EVERY president has said it, what does it really matter? If an atheist becomes President someday, I'm sure that they will not ask for it to be added. What's the big deal?

it does NOT however prevent the Justice from adding more sentences after the oath if so requested. The Constitution states the minimum qualification, not an absolute.

deliberately, either in the oath or anywhere else.

is 3/5 a person. It was taken back, but it's still there, a stain for all of history. Lots of things outside the constitution threaten democracy a lot less than the things included in--or done in the name of--that constitution.

The Constitution doesn't even require the Chief Justice to administer the oath.

LBJ, for example, was sworn in by a district judge.

contemporary source mentioned that he added words to the oath as set forth in the Constitution. I mention him bc the myth is that he did so and everyone after him did the same. Neither part of that statement appears to be true, however. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Pierce did not and we don't know, one way or the other, about some of them, including Washington. However, with the Constitution being in the news then, it seems unlikely that Washington took it upon himself to add words and no one noticed or commented on it at the time. (Washington was the one who had written the cover letter to transmit the Constitution.)

When Obama tries to make Christianity the federal religion, then I'll start to worry--but as long as we are free to worship (or not worship) whatever deity we choose, the same should go for the President-elect.

may may say "so help me God". is such a gross violation of the Consititution he must be thrown out of office now. This man must never serve because he may actually believe that a god exists. This is criminal. Even Bush in his most pathetitic administration never came so close to absolute criminal behavior.
Just think, we may have elected a President that actually believes in god. No we cannot have that, remove this man fromoffice before he can taint the rest of our beloved contitutional society.

???

Constitution spells out the oath verbatim. All the PE has to do is say it as it is written. But, Obama is going one step further than adding words. He is asking Roberts to add them. That is a very cynical move, to say the least, especially when cases are pending in lower courts.

NT!

Is that clear? The Chief Justice has a duty to administer the oath as it is written in the Constitution, period. If the president wants to add his beatific little flourish, he's perfectly welcome to it, and that's apparently been enough for the last 43 of them. Apparently, it's not enough for Barack Obama; apparently he wants to bring the rest of us to heel and rub our nose in the reminder that this country is wholly owned by Religion Incorporated, and fuck anyone who dares to disagree.

What's the problem here? Why is Barack Obama so hell-bent to make this a theocracy? Don't we have enough encroachment by the gods-on-earth of sanctified religion? They pay no taxes. We endorse their guess on our currency. We pay them salaries in Congress and the Military. We dump untold dollars into their coffers under the guise of Faith-Based Charities.

The question is not about what Obama says, the question is what the Chief Justice, representing the pinnacle of our law, is saying. If he's willing to OBVIOUSLY violate the law because of his fealty to a "higher power", then he should be impeached immediately for traitorously undermining the very office he's invited to uphold.

Fuck this privilege shit. Religion is not, by nature, "good", and those who demand us to turn a blind eye toward its excesses and imperial domination are commiting a crime against the Constitution of the United States. I don't just mean the hard-and-fast letter of the law, but the spirit of the whole enterprise. Got it?

The very oath is to preserve the Constitution, and he's asking him to have the voice of the United States endorse the existence of God. The oath is the oath is the oath. You can't add and subtract things from it as you damned well see fit; it doesn't work like that in a constituent republic. The law is the fucking law, period.

What if Obama wanted to add "as a sovereign Christian Republic" to the end of the oath, because he damned-well saw fit? Is that his "choice", too? I would balk at having him say such a thing, and I would absolutely fight having him have the Cheif Justice say those words for him to repeat.

Fine, let Obama add his own little embellishment as the others have done, but to have the Cheif Justice ask him to repeat those words is ILLEGAL. It is not within the Chief Justice's power to REWRITE THE OATH AS HE SEES FIT, and if he's asking him to repeat those words, HE'S REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION BY PERSONAL WHIM. That should be obvious as hell if anyone understands anything at all about consent.

the God that he believes in to uphold the constitution.

A good page that sums up what the "so help me god" part means:
"In simple form, an oath is a promise. More particularly, an oath or promise is simply an agreement entered into between one person and another whereby the one taking the oath (1) explicitly or implicitly appeals to God to witness and sanction what he has said or committed himself to, and (2) calls God to judge and avenge His name if what he said is false or what he committed to do never comes to pass."

As his duty is to uphold the constitution, which does include separation of church and state, he is holding HIMSELF personally responsible to God to separate church and state.

Or am I reading something wrong?

SCOTUS in this position while cases on this very issue are pending in lower courts why? Not because of the Bible. This is a cynical political move if I ever saw one. And I say this as someone who has donated to Obama since December 2007. I did not stop until he chose Warren for the invocation.

notice that - not a one addressed your logical assertion, that the c-j has no right to change the prescribed phrasing of a constitutional oath?

your proposition is ignored, mostly to tout the argument of the p-e's free-speech rights; which, as you plainly state, is irrelevant in this case.

another reason why humankind is, in all probability, fated to go down the extinction worm-hole in due course.

(disclosure: buddhist; hence atheist)

Yes, it IS rather transparent, isn't it?

The law isn't just a convenience, it's something we ALL have to obey. This simply reinforces one of my principal problems with most religions: the aristocratic demand to be above the law and get special privileges. It ain't right.

What's also disturbing is that Obama's a Constitutional Scholar. He can hardly plead ignorance to the issue at hand here, so it's obvious that he wants special consideration.

What's next? Mr. Obama seems to think he's emperor, not merely a king. Why doesn't he just pull a Napoleon and administer the oath to himself? Whatever HE says seems to be law, after all...

specified in, the Constitution, is very much a government ceremony, but not merely ceremonial, because it is required. As an offical government act, words of religion have no place in it whatever.

BECAUSE HE'S HITLER AND PAT ROBERTSON ROLLED INTO ONE!!111!!

DON'T YOU GET IT!!11

IMPEACH HIM ALREADY111!!1

You're wrong if you think chief justices have not recited the "so help me God" part at past swearing-in ceremonies. For example, here is Warren Burger saying "so help me God" as he swears in Jimmy Carter in 1977.

I thought I was the only Monkees fan here. LOL

The Constitution states that the president is to do this:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:

"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."

That is the oath. If he's asked to repeat the oath by a legal official, that's the oath he's to be asked to repeat.

The Constitution is the law; if it is to be changed, it has to be amended. There's a way to do that, but it involves THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES.

What's ironic and laughable about this is that he's hardly PRESERVING, PROTECTING AND DEFENDING the Constitution by amending it without the proper actions being taken.

The oath is said in its entirety. It's spoken word from word. He could ask the justice to recite "And I promise to wear clean underwear everyday" afterward and it still will not change nor negate the Constitutional oath.

action.

because it's not an official part of the oath. The addition is a personal request from the President-elect to the Chief Justice. The government action ends when the final word of the oath is said. The addition of sentences or words following the oath is merely a personal choice and he has that right.

government action ends with the last word of the oath, which would be "God." Saying it is "merely a personal choice and he has that right" merely states the conclusion you'd like a court to reach in deciding a Constitutional challenge. It is not an argument to support the conclusion. You have not supported the conclusion you would like to see reached.

You are really off your rocker on this one. Slow day?

Is Obama not going to say the oath? No.

Seriously, in what state are you licensed as an attorney?

If a witness were taking the stand who believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and one of their beliefs was that they are not bound to tell the truth unless they swore, "...by the tentacles of his noodly appendages", then I would require that witness to say those words when sworn in.

It is a personal statement of and unto himself. That's all. It does not convey meaning onto the government nor does the government convey meaning unto it.

As would be "so help me, Satan."

Or, in my case, "so help me, whatever."

it would be.."So help me the forces of Good." But, that's just me.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...Constitution, fine. I seriously don't fucking care if he swears to each and every one of the Thundercats and Mrs. Pacman- as long as he does it...I don't give a shit.

PB

For upholding the constitution.

PB

following Lincoln and the rest. I don't care if he wants to honor tradition. As long as he follows with upholding the Constitution I will be happy.

You seriously do NOT want to piss off Mrs. Pacman by taking her name in vain!!

That's some serious sh*t and they're already dead!

David

I don't care of he dances naked and twirls nipple pastie tassles while singing 'Blowin' In The Wind". We need Bush out and Obama in ASAP.

Weird, huh? He could pray to the damn spaghetti monster as long as he what he is swearing to do.

a good idea or not or whether it is lawful or not.

Like, say, Chief Justice Roberts and Barack Obama.

I'm willing to bet they know the law better than you do.

On edit: I mention numbers because Obama is a politician. And a politician is always going to appeal to the majority, especially on small things like a stupid, meaningless pledge.

And NO, I don't mean all Atheists. Most will shrug and get on with their lives.

And it's up to Obama, so don't blame me.

AND how do you know I'm not a Atheist, hmm?

There's pro-religion, anti-religion, and religion-neutral. I've NEVER heard of any of these atheistic killjoys demanding the voicing of "anti-religion", all I ever hear is for required, endorsed statements and acts of pro-religion to not be allowed.

It's not about what the president says, it's about what the Chief Justice, speaking for the law of the land, says.

The concept of "ceremonial deism" is bullshit. Religion does not play fair; it doesn't have to because it's better than the rest of us peons and filth. The Lincoln Administration added God to our money and the oaths of office for Congress because they were fighting a public relations battle at a time of war. They never went away. Now, these phrases are used as proof for further encroachment.

It's just plain ugly the way those who DEMAND that their bigotry hold sway repeatedly abuse those of us who simply want the subject not to be raised. What FIENDS we are to not want to hear your propaganda. How would you like it if I wanted to require crucifixes with red circles and a slash through them to be posted in public areas? THAT'S anti-religion. I only want to see religion-neutrality expressed in government, that's all.

It's somehow the right of many believers to shove their beliefs down other's throats, and ANY attempt to get in their way is some kind of persecution.

and we would be offended if he used "In Jesus Name" as Rick Warren will certainly do in his idiotic invocation.

And Warren is another subject.

And a prick.

Ask Karl Marx!

Besides, it is a violation of the Ten Commandments to believe that Jesus is a god.

existence (or not) of God. However, that is not the point. The point is that religious words are not supposed to be used during an official government activity. That is what the oath is. Either it is constitutional to use them aloud in governing or it isn't. If it isn't, then using them while swearing to uphold the Constitution is a joke. But, Obama has gone beyond that. He has put the CJ of the SCOTUS on the spot. That is more cynical than making a big show of a flag pin, which he himself condemned. If his religion is really that important to him, he can pray silently. This is a lot more about politics and the Constitution than it is about sincere religious belief.

raising voices is good. It may not work the first time, but it does have an impact on those who depend on the public, be it for donations or for votes or, in Obama's case, for both.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How does leaving it off affect religionists in any way?


...leaving it of course, you get into WHICH god he wants to so help him. Is it Jehovah or Jesus or Allah? After all he's a Arab!

See how religion just muddies up everything, because no one can agree on it? Best to just leave it out. Then go home and pray or dance around or cut yourselves or whatever your particular god requires in private.

You don't have to like religion, you don't have to practice religion, and the government certainly can't require you to do either. You do not, however, have a right to remain free from exposure to any quasi-religious sentiment that offends your sensibilities.

Obama ending his oath with "so help me god" doesn't change those facts a bit.

Stop acting dumb. You know perfectly well saying "under god" does NOT represent everyone. But saying nothing IS inclusive. It avoids problems and doesn't deter from the constitution in any way. Common sense says it's a good idea. Except we have Christians(in this case)waving their arms yelling "Look at me! Everyone (worth acknowledging) is JUST LIKE ME!"

Evoking a generic god is he? Are Hindus listening invited to think he means Vishnu? He means "his" god.... which we may assume is....Allah if your a neocon.

You see the problem plainly. Why do you pretend it's not there?

It effects us because it LEAVES US OUT.

promises Freedom of religion, not freedom "from" religion. Close your ears when the oath is given if it bothers you that much. Don't they say "if it doesn't kill ya, it makes you stronger"????? We are given certain personal freedoms in this country, and it is PE Obama's personal freedom that you want to stifle???? Come on, get real!

government. No one has a right to have churches removed from their town, but they do have a right to have prayer removed from their schools, where they or their children attend by virtue of tax dollars. The oath is constitutionally mandated and therefore an official government action. People have a right to be free of it.

"Tell that to a Judge in a court trial" when you have to testify sometime ! And consider the source..SCOTUS?? Those who put GW into office, etc. etc.?????PLEASE!!

good going

I said outraged. Most will shrug and get on with their lives.

since you gave a percentage for the outraged athiests

Didn't mean it that way.

I'll edit.

likes the idea of President-Elect Obama continuing a tradition that began with George Washington. I like that he is taking his rightful place in that pantheon and I like that he's honoring the tradition.

What he believes is his business. I don't see it as a religious thing, just as Xmas isn't much of a religious holiday for most people. It's a tradition, and I want my President Obama to be right in there with Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln and FDR.

Good for him, so help me god.

Elect have added it (maybe they believed the myth too, not all have.

So, who didn't add it? What's your source?

This is fascinating. I'd like to know more.

Most people of whatever background don't consider this an earth-shattering matter. You'd think from the elevated BPs of some people here that he was going to swear his allegiance to a nazi flag or something.

God cannot be in government... that's all the fist amendment states.

insistence on adding so help me God is pure politics. His attempt to get Roberts to say it first is cynical politics. O for 3.

Shocking behavior.

I don't like it in Politics either, but politics is a non-government thing. Like the Inauguration, which is ceremonial politics for the most part.

The oath is in the Constitution, but does not prohibit adding anything on. President Washington supposedly added the words "so help me God." And so will Obama.

anything? If you're in a group that's less than, say, 10% of the population, nothing you say matters? How incredibly fucked up.

A true point, most likely.

If they actually meant "outraged atheists" then they've probably been hanging on du too long and have been overwhelmed by the number of atheists who are intolerant of others and are as bad as any intolerant religious person.

I know there are plenty here who aren't like that, I was just surprised by how many who are. So I do get why that person would reference them - if that's what that person was referring to. Bigotry is ugly no matter where it comes from - religious or not.

I understand the outrage even if I don't agree with it. But the post implies that *because* they constitute 3-5% of the populace they can safely be ignored. Separate issue.

this. Objecting to something is not always an indication of "outrage," though that is a cheap message board trick to trivialize the objection. And even fundamentalist Christians can and do believe in strict separation of church and state. However, not even all those who believe in strict separation of church and state find adding words to the oath objectionable. For that matter, anyone may object to trying to end run the CJ this way.

And here comes the deluded religionists....waaaay too much of the population. You're not going to torture and kill us this time, are you? It's not like we cause any trouble at all, y'know.

He and you can swear to the nonexistent all you want. It won't make any difference.

No one. Be an atheist. And swear to any nonexistent you want and it STILL won't make any difference.

not mean a person is an atheist. I am a person who loves both my religious beliefs and my Constitution and agrees with Jefferson on this point.

The point is that the line is a personal choice. It doesn't matter whether atheists, agnostics, some Christians (e.g., those who don't approve of oaths), Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, or whatever disapprove -- it's still his personal choice.

are "in the closet" and will not come out due to numerous circumstances. There are numerous ministers, priests, and pastors who do their jobs every Sunday but no longer believe in God. They feel hopelessly trapped and their only support are former ministers, priests, or pastors who are now open atheists. The pressure to be religious and to remain religious in this country is not only overwhelming but ridiculous.

Surveys hover around 3 to 5 percent for Atheists.

I'm an agnostic atheist, I lack a belief in god but I also think it is impossible to know for sure one way or another whether there is a god or not.

It's also possible to be an agnostic theist, a lot of theists think it's not possible to know for sure whether god exists or not.

are certain. An agnostic is uncertain. You can be an atheist and an agnostic, but not during the same instant.

I'm amazed at your perspicacity.

You are choosing a single definition of both words and ignoring the other definitions.

I do not believe in god, any god whatsoever.

That makes me an atheist, literally "without belief in god".

I do not believe it is possible to know with certainty whether or not there is a god.

That makes me an agnostic, literally "without proof or disproof of the existence of god".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,<1> or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Edited for clarity.

a God exists or not. You cannot adhere to both those concepts simultanously. You can certainly be an atheist one minute and an agnostic the next, but you cannot be an atheist and an agnostic AT THE SAME TIME, which is what you claimed originally. If you had not said "at the same time," I would not have taken issue with your statement.

Those are commonly accepted definitions I quoted.

Are you absolutely positive that everything you believe is in fact completely so?

I note you neglected to answer that question I asked before.

It's interesting that Mother Teresa was often tormented by uncertainty/doubt as to the existence of the God she prayed to, did that make her not a theist?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,0...

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith
By David Van Biema Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007

"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

Or was she only a theist in those moments when she had no doubt or uncertainty?

If it is acceptable for theists to entertain uncertainty then why not atheists?

God and uncertain about whether or not god exists at the same time.

Trying to make this about me, instead of about the definitions, indicates you really don't have an argument here that I have not already addressed. The same is true of trying to move the goal post from "atheist and agnostic" at the same time to "theist and agnostic" at the same time. Not necessarily the same dynamic.

The Mother Teresa quote you gave indicates only that Mother Teresa said at one point that saw no evidence of the existence of Jesus. It does not support your position that one can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

But, this thread is about the oath of office. It is not a religion debate thread. And I don't see any solid arguments.

We are debating the definition of atheism, not the same thing.

I have provided links and quotes for my position, you have provided nothing but your unsupported allegations.

Therein lies the difference.

Edited to add: The reason I brought up Mother Teresa was because she was an agnostic theist, she wasn't sure that Jesus or God existed and yet remained a person of faith.

If a theist can be an agnostic then why cannot an atheist also be agnostic?

is not a link to anything that supported your claim. We've already been over this ground, so this now seems to be about having the last word. Be my guest.