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

[DeepModem Mom]

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-to-asked-to-say-so-help-me-god-at-swearing-in/

[Warpy]

1. So? He's a believer.

Unbelievers and Quakers can still affirm instead of swear.

[LeighAnn]

34. All the reason more not to say it

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!

[Warpy]

63. I don't either, but they do

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.

[LiberalFighter]

65. Especially considering how many still lie under oath.

[willing dwarf]

95. More a prayer than a swear

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.

[No Elephants]

115. Obama is free to pray silently all he wishes. And the bible says to pray in a closet. Seems 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.

[willing dwarf]

149. Yeah that's a good point but maybe

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.

[LanternWaste]

194. I've always understood that to be a metaphor...

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...?

[JanusAscending]

112. Try telling that .....

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

[Strathos]

169. They have to be reassured of they fall apart

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

[PurityOfEssence]

51. This is ABSOLUTELY wrong and ILLEGAL

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?

[merwin]

101. He's not changing any words. He's saying the full oath.

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?

[Scooter24]

105. The Constitution instructs the Chief Justice to give an oath as stated,

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.

[No Elephants]

117. That is your theory. Mine is that the Constitution does not mention God very

deliberately, either in the oath or anywhere else.

[spoony]

179. It also very deliberately says that someone like Obama

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.

[jberryhill]

161. Uhm... the Constitution doesn't instruct the Chief Justice to do diddly

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

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

[No Elephants]

116. All the others have not. said it. That is a myth. As to George Washington, not one

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.)

[Arkana]

155. Yeah, I'm an atheist and I really don't have a problem with this.

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.

[Thothmes]

174. Its obvious, this man must be impeached. To think that he

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.

[rangersmith82]

176. Whey do we feel the need to sit around and question his wishes??

???

[No Elephants]

114. You mean, "He says he's a believer." Neither the affirmation nor the swearing is necessary. The

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.

[Zhade]

2. Still a violation of the First Amendment.

NT!

[Deja Q]

6. Recursive irony; he still has the right to say it.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. HE has the right to say it, but the Chief Justice DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IT

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?

[Kittycat]

64. He's yielding to Obama to express his own right to say what he wants.

[PurityOfEssence]

76. He's yielding to Obama's desire to break the law because he doesn't like the law either

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.

[merwin]

102. He's taking an oath to protect the constitution, and setting himself personally responsible to

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?

[No Elephants]

123. And he needs to do this aloud while taking official federal action why? And to put the CJ of the

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.

[No Elephants]

124. Saying he has the right assumes the conclusion.

[marasinghe]

89. don't expend energy, reasoning with emotion-driven life-forms.

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)

[PurityOfEssence]

93. Another example of the type of believer who expects to have special privilege

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...

[No Elephants]

118. Neither of them should say it. The oath of office, being required by and

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.

[HamdenRice]

185. "Why is Barack Obama so hell-bent to make this a theocracy?"

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

DON'T YOU GET IT!!11

IMPEACH HIM ALREADY111!!1


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[nsd]

187. Obama is not asking Roberts to do anything that has not been done in the past.

You're wrong if you think chief justices have not recited the "so help me God" part at past swearing-in ceremonies. For example, http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=carter swearing in&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv">here is Warren Burger saying "so help me God" as he swears in Jimmy Carter in 1977.

[No Elephants]

120. Based on what? The Constitution did not make it part of the oath.

[John Kerry VonErich]

168. Off Topic.... Mike Nesmith???

I thought I was the only Monkees fan here. LOL

[Raskolnik]

12. Nope, it really isn't. n/t

[Alexander]

21. It's not a law. You're wrong.

[PurityOfEssence]

96. You are COMPLETELY wrong. It specifically IS the law.

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.

[Scooter24]

106. The addition of "so help me god" is not meant to be part of the oath.

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.

[create.peace]

107. just as your mama told you n/t

[No Elephants]

119. Bad analogy. Clean underwear is not a matter of religious belief inserted into a government

action.

[Scooter24]

156. That government action doesn't impose nor sanction any religious belief onto anyone

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.

[No Elephants]

184. The personal request to the CJ is inappropriate and cynical. If he adds worth to the oath, then

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.

[Alexander]

109. He will take the oath. Adding extra words doesn't change that.

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

[jberryhill]

162. Where did you get your JD?

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.

[Fearless]

24. No it isn't.

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.

[damntexdem]

38. No, a personal choice.

As would be "so help me, Satan."

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

[Cha]

98. In my case

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

[timtom]

53. Know your Constitution

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.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Well, I'm an atheist but if he wants to swear to his god he's going to uphold the...

...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

[NashVegas]

5. I'm An Agnostic, And Will Take All the Help We Can Get

For upholding the constitution.

[Poll_Blind]

7. (high five) Amen!

:)

PB

[Xipe Totec]

11. I'm on the fence on this one...

:yoiks:

[ShadesOfGrey]

17. Ditto! nt

[roguevalley]

45. I don't care. He's working out a traditional historical innaugeration

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.

[No Elephants]

125. Making this request of the CJ is not a good indication that he is going to follow the Constitution.

[democrat2thecore]

197. Oh, please. -nt

[Critters2]

69. If he swore by Mrs. Pacman, you'd know he meant it.

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

[4_Legs_Good]

85. You see what she does to ghosts after all!

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

David

[maseman]

82. Spot on my friend

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.

[merwin]

103. As a Christian, my feelings are exactly the same as yours.

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

[No Elephants]

122. And the fact that you don't care means only that you don't care. It does not go to whether this is

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

[jberryhill]

164. Lawful? Hmmm... Mebbe they should get someone who knows law

Like, say, Chief Justice Roberts and Barack Obama.

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

[onehandle]

4. Here come the outraged atheists, otherwise known as 3% to 5% of the population. (edited)

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?

[Deja Q]

9. And if one of them becomes president, (s)he needn't say the G-word either.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. And probably won't demand the Chief Justice to endorse his worldview

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.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Jews are 2% of the population

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

[onehandle]

15. I believe Jews have a God.

And Warren is another subject.

And a prick.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Belief in a Deity is not a Jewish requirement

Ask Karl Marx!

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

[No Elephants]

127. Either all of us have a God or none of us does. Beliefs do not affect the

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.

[No Elephants]

126. He may not, given all the flap over him. Without it, he may well have, though. That is why

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.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[laconicsax]

20. Of course we don't, just like every other minority group.

[Raskolnik]

25. How does this affect atheists in any way whatsoever? n/t

[AlbertCat]

39. How does this affect atheists in any way whatsoever?

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.

[Raskolnik]

46. Nothing in what you wrote answers my question.

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.

[AlbertCat]

70. Do you religious people not understand a public event from a private one?

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.

[JanusAscending]

111. The Constitution..............

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"?????:shrug: 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!

[No Elephants]

129. Appreciate your view, but the SCOTUS has said people have a right to be free from religion in

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.

[JanusAscending]

190. Like I said ,

"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!!

[prostock69]

75. You forgot "Elohim, Yahweh, and my favorite, "I am what I am"

[No Elephants]

128. Please stop assuming that only atheists object to this.

[eShirl]

22. way to generalize all athiests

good going

[onehandle]

27. I didn't say all.

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

[eShirl]

29. ok then, what percentage of the population are the non-outraged athiests?

since you gave a percentage for the outraged athiests

[onehandle]

33. I combined two statements.

Didn't mean it that way.

I'll edit.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. This here non-outraged atheist

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.

[No Elephants]

130. There is no evidence that it began with Washington. That is a myth. And while many Presidents

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

[Tangerine LaBamba]

167. Really?

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

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

[spoony]

180. Look around in this thread.

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.

[LiberalHeart]

56. I'm not outraged, I'm not shrugging, but I'm an atheist. I want God out of politics.

[robcon]

86. God will ALWAYS be in politics. That's perfectly ok.

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

[No Elephants]

131. The oath, being Constitutionally required, is part of government. Obama's

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.

[robcon]

172. Gee, you've accused a politician, Barack Obama, of practicing politics.

Shocking behavior. :sarcasm:

[onehandle]

88. I want God out of Government.

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.

[Terran]

28. regardless of the issue, what do their numbers have to do with

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

[superconnected]

37. I think that person was pointing out that a lot of atheists will be outraged.

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.

[Terran]

49. I understand that--which is why I said "regardless of the issue"

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.

[No Elephants]

136. A MUCH truer point: Those who believe in strict separation of church and state may well object to

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.

[AlbertCat]

31. Here come the outraged atheists, otherwise known as 3% to 5% of the population. nt

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.

[onehandle]

40. Who says I'm not an atheist? nt

[AlbertCat]

71. Who says I'm not an atheist?

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

[No Elephants]

121. I am not an atheist. Believing that strict separation of church and state is best for both does

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.

[damntexdem]

41. The percentage is irrelevant. As is the percentage of agnostics -- like me.

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.

[Bluebear]

44. Nice, a pre-emptively dismissive post.

:eyes:

[soulcore]

52. non-believers make up more like 15% of the population. eom.

[prostock69]

80. I would bet that number is higher. There are a lot of non-believers who

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.

[No Elephants]

137. Mother Teresa wrote that she did not believe in God most of her life.

[onehandle]

83. Atheists like to claim Agnostics. Not the same thing.

Surveys hover around 3 to 5 percent for Atheists.

[Fumesucker]

99. Actually you can be both atheist and agnostic at the same time..

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.

[No Elephants]

132. No. Atheists are certain there is no God. They may or may not be correct, but they

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

[Fumesucker]

135. Gosh, you know my own mind better than I know it myself..

I'm amazed at your perspicacity. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

138. No, I don't know your mind at all. I know the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" though.

[Fumesucker]

145. There are multiple definitions of both words.

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.

[No Elephants]

146. An atheist believes that a God does not exist. An agnostic is not sure if

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.

[Fumesucker]

147. Go argue with the Wiki pages...

Those are commonly accepted definitions I quoted.

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

[No Elephants]

148. Wiki is never authoritative, but especially when it specifies "citation needed."

[Fumesucker]

150. Are you absolutely positive that everything you believe is 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/0,8599,1655415,00.html

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?

[No Elephants]

151. Are you? And, again, the key words are "at the same time." You cannot be certain that there is no

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.

[Fumesucker]

152. We aren't debating religion

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?

[No Elephants]

154. No difference. You linked to a source that is not aurhtoritative that said "citation needed." That

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.

[Fumesucker]

186. Funny how the most infinitesimal scintilla of doubt makes an atheist into an agnostic

While even major doubts don't make a theist into an agnostic.

I guess a double standard is better than no standard at all.

[onehandle]

159. No. It's two different things.

Are you an omnivore vegan too?

[Fumesucker]

183. Humans are omivores, some choose not to eat animal products..

That doesn't make them not omivores, just omnivores that don't eat animal products.

Agnosticism is about knowledge and not being absolutely sure of one's opinion.

Theism and atheism are about the opinion.

[dcindian]

67. ah here come the blacks they are only......

Your one sad puppy.

[Book Lover]

104. Here comes the smartass, thinking her/his comments are cute

Saying shit to get a rise out of people because it makes them feel smarmy. Congrats on that onehandle!

[Bicoastal]

8. I believe EVERY President says "so help me God," so why is this news?

Did anyone think Barack Obama was going to say "so help the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "so praise Allah?"

[No Elephants]

139. Every President did not say it. And, even if they did, that does not make it

Constitutional. There is a Constitutional issue and this is a Constitutional law professor.

Besides, this thread is not about Obama's saying it and no more. It is about his asking CJ Roberts to read it to him. And, he has asked the CJ to read the oath to him that way, which prior Presidents have not done. And at a time when cases on adding those words to the oath are pending in the courts.

If not unconstitutional, this is distasteful.

[nsd]

178. Prior Presidents have had the Chief Justice recite the "So help me God" part.

For example, http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=carter swearing in&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv">here is Jimmy Carter's swearing-in in 1977. Note that Chief Justice Burger does add "So help me God" to the end of the oath.

[WI_DEM]

14. I really couldn't care less, I think every president has said it.

[No Elephants]

140. No, but what difference would it make, even if that were correct?

[superconnected]

16. Dear President Obama,

Thank you for not committing political suicide.

[IndianaGreen]

19. More of the change we can believe in

I can't hardly wait for his next LGBT initiative.

[NashVegas]

36. Over Something Like This

When you could commit political suicide over, say, enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act.

[JuniperLea]

23. He's a believer...

If it more firmly and morally binds him to the oath of upholding our Constitution, so be it.

I still don't like the idea of a prayer, though.

[No Elephants]

133. You mean he says he is a believer. I don't really think any of us

knows one way or another. An atheist is unlikely to get elected and Obama wanted to get elected. We can know both those things to a fair degree of certainty. We cannot possibly know what Obama or anyone believes.

"If saying "so help me God" binds him more firmly to the oath of upholding the Constitution..." You forgot to add "aloud." Obama can pray silently all day long, if he so chooses, but that is not what this is about. And that is quite a huge if. For one thing, Dummya said it aloud. So did Cheney. Didn't seem to bind them more clossely to the Constitution. Also, if saying it violates the Constitution, how could saying it possibly help anyone uphold the Constitution? Also, what about trying to hook Roberts into the gambit?

[spoony]

181. Lol

So he's an atheist lying in the cut...okay... Is this that famous atheist rational thought?

[Fumesucker]

192. I'm pretty sure No Elephants is *not* an atheist.. n/t

[BR_Parkway]

26. If it means something to him, I'm all for it - doesn't make it mandatory

for me or any other American to believe what he believes.

[annabanana]

97. yuppers...

It's his call altogether on this one.

[No Elephants]

141. Only if it is a Constitutional call. Besides, asking Roberts to say it has nothing to

do with Obama making a purely personal call.

[No Elephants]

134. And how do you propose we determine what it means to him? Whether it is mandatory

is not the point. In the school prayer cases, the schools let the kids opt out of the prayer, even leave the room. School prayer was still held unconstitutional. There is something called principle; and separation of church and state is a principle worth fighting for, IMO. Time for America to get off the slippery slope Warren and his kind want to push us down. Otherwise, we will never have equal rights for all people or choice. And, btw,the first case leading to Roe v. Wade involved a law that prohibited even doctors from giving education about contraceptives, even to a married couple. That is what the law once was, not to mention laws against miscegnation. All those laws were religously-based. Some of us see that we've been going backwards, teaching only abstinence and the like.

[Oregone]

30. Fuck public displays of "faith"

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

(Mat 6:6 NIV)


Is this society stepping forward or backwards with acts like this, no matter how symbolic?

[Pastiche423]

87. Backwards

Definitely backwards.

[Twinguard]

32. unnecessary,

but whatever.
:shrug:

[Gwendolyn]

35. In God We Trust is on your money.

Every time you buy a stalk of celery you are saying "I trust in God" and so... this bothers you? :)

I don't even believe in God but it sounds good to invoke him whenever I'm making a point.

God dam them typos. Edit.

[AlbertCat]

42. In God We Trust is on your money.

Didn't used to be.

Been trying to get it off for decades.

"Every time you buy a stalk of celery you are saying "I trust in God" "

Hardly. What you mean "we"? The Treasury may trust in god, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could smell him. And it says nothing about god on my credit card.

[Gwendolyn]

55. I don't know... I'm torn.

On the one hand, European countries don't have the blessing of God on their dollars when they spend. But look at us... then look at them... then look at us. rofl:

On the other hand, it's a great conversational piece for people to say, "do ya think I'm blessed?" when you hand over a dollar and mention that God is on money to the sales person at Walmart.

Seriously, I do believe it's an impediment to evolved society and we really should be looking at removing it from money. Christmas protests seem so ridiculous in comparison.

Yeah I'm aware it didn't just arrive with the first boat. Not asking you for details, but guess for my own interest, I will advise myself. In the meantime I'll still be passing out God's money. :)

[monmouth]

43. Jesus Hussein Christ people..Enough! Too damned silly for words IMO...n/t

[LiberalHeart]

61. It's not silly to those of us who see the damage religion does.

We've just had 8 years of President Bush, a guy who's reportedly "deeply religious." We have the religious right fighting gay marriage and women's rights. We have world leaders praying as they make their decisions to bomb the sh*t out of other countries. And we have a God whose goodness we understand, but whose darker acts are explained away by summing them up as simply beyond human understanding. Let people go to their houses of worship to express the so-called spiritual side of themselves, but don't weave it through our government and don't have our president announcing he needs God's help.

[RoccoR5955]

47. I guess that *I* have the right to say...

..."So help me Flying Spaghetti Monster."

[Raskolnik]

48. Of course you do. Has someone told you that you don't?

[superconnected]

57. As long as he doesn't tell us that he's the chosen and God tells him specifically what to do.

[babydollhead]

59. how about, "god HELP me!!!"

[babydollhead]

60. "So? HELP me god!!"

[frebrd]

62. He's been energetically displaying his "faith" ........

ever since he started running. I wouldn't expect anything else at this point.

[Jackpine Radical]

66. This is a change from the Bush oath,

which ended "So help me Cthulhu."

[mikehiggins]

68. And, as we all know, Cthulhu is spelled Cheney, n/t

[Fumesucker]

100. I've been spelling it Ctheney for a long time now.. n/t

[superconnected]

91. Did he really say that?

:rofl:

[AlbertCat]

72. Y'know...I'd be OK with it....

.... if it would shut up talk of god afterward. But it just goes on and on... with bill boards, and the 10 commandments in court houses and parks, and praying for rain in GA, and faith based initiatives I help pay for, and tax exempt status for multi-million(billion) dollar organizations and respect for dreadful people like Swaggard and Robinson and Falwell....and Rev "go Prop 8"..... on and on and on.

Well at least we have science (mostly). What have any of those above things done like science has?

[ComtesseDeSpair]

73. It's annoying, but...

as long as he defends the constitution, I don't care if he says, "So help me Flying Spaghetti Monster." Although that would be way cooler.

[valerief]

74. Life isn't a compromise. It's subjugation. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

77. ".. so help me Cheney?" - or is that the same thing in Bush's eyes

unless he says it like Desi Arnaz - "so help me Lucy..!!!!"

[KoKo]

78. Obama does wear a "Flag Pin" so this isn't surprising in his reach out to the RW American Fundies..

:shrug: Probably a "cool move" publicity wise to head off trouble down the road...

[Libertas1776]

79. So what...

I am an agnostic and could care less. The fact of the matter is that it is not in the constitution but was started (Allegedly) by president numero uno, Washington himself, the original trend setter for political traditions in the U.S.
Every president, save J Q Adams and another, has continued the phrase.
Adams being such a religious man affirmed the oath and swore on a book of law, feeling that religion belonged in the church. (My kinda guy)
Of course, some contest the validity of the claim that Washington said the phrase, instead attributing it to Washington Irving's description of the event. Irving's mostly fictitious biographies of famous people, including Columbus and the idea that people believed the world was flat are fiction, but instead are regarded as truth even to this day.

In the same way that you would have a difficult time convincing people that people in the 1400s did not, for the most part, believe the world was flat, you'll have a difficult time convincing them that Washington probably did not say So help me god. Thanks a lot Irving :sarcasm:

Regardless, this country has much bigger fish to fry, and if Obama wants to continue a tradition carried by virtually every other president before him, then so be it.

[llmart]

81. This country......

is going to hell in a handbasket and dealing with horrendous problems created by Bush/Cheney and Repukes and this is all we can worry about? Who gives a flying f*** about this stuff? I'm a nonbeliever and I don't care what he says as long as he STARTS WORKING IMMEDIATELY! He has a lot of things on his plate. Our country can't tolerate the nitpicking any more.

[No Elephants]

143. One poster's nitpicking is another poster's important Constitutional principle. And people are

perfectly capable of "worrying" over this and the economy and the WOT at the same time. Which is a good thing, bc Obama is apparently worrying over this, too, or he would not have tried to get Roberts to say it first.

[4_Legs_Good]

84. This man is a f*cking genius

He amazes me constantly.

David

[Bluebear]

90. What is genius and amazing about this, David?

[jackpan1260]

92. Freerepublic was outraged that Keith Ellison used the Koran for his swearing in pic

du is outraged that Obama wants to say "so help me God" when he is sworn in. :eyes:

Maybe we aren't as different from the far right as we think.

[No Elephants]

144. Not the same thing at all. Ellison did not read any portion of the Koran aloud at his

swearing in. My objection is not based on favoring my religion to the exclusion of all others, but on my belief that the oath should be said as the Constitution specifies, without alteration, be it addition, deletion or change. And also on my belief that the Constitution contemplates leaving any religion, mine or Ellison's, out of the swearing in.

Also, I think neither Ellison nor Obama should have their hands on ANY holy book while taking the oath. Which one is irrelevant, while that is very relevant to the religious right.

Having your hand on anything is not necessary. If anyone feels it is, I think they should use the Constitution, as Pierce did, for that is what they are swearing to uphold, not the Bible or the Koran. However, I don't know what they have their hands on unless they make a point of telling me. So, I find what they place their hands on less objectionable than what they say aloud.

[uppityperson]

94. OMG! OMG! OMG!

let's see if anyone gets the joke.

[HughMoran]

108. Well ok

Not a big deal IMO since he is requesting this.

[wolfsbane]

110. This Just In

Just In...

Obama has asked for a light breakfast on inauguration morning. This has traditionally been regarded as "the most important meal of the day," however in recent years it has seemed to be shunned for a light brunch, a combination of breakfast and lunch, and in even more extreme cases replaced in whole by excess sleep and late lunches.

In a highly unpublicized statement, Roberts was quoted as saying "I admire the president-elect's devotion to this time honored tradition, and would be delighted to join his celebration of it with a bowl of Wheaties myself."

Seriously, I'm a huge Obama advocate, but everything he does is not Late Breaking News.

;)

Corndogs

[No Elephants]

142. The Constitution does not say what kind of breakfast the PE should have and no

cases on that issue are currently pending in lower courts and likely to reach CJ Roberts one day. Nor does the Constitution forbid government from establishing nutritional guidelines.

[No Elephants]

113. The business about George Washington is a myth. Besides, even the myth

says George Washington added it himself "defiantly."

This is a very cynical move, sking the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to add it while cases are pending in lower courts. Roberts has to practically decide the case in his own head before deciding to accede to the request or deny it. Yet, no one has briefed it or argued it for Roberts. Obama is a constitutional law professor. Guess I'll email at change.gov again, for all the good it will do.

From wiki, on the oath

"It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."<1> There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance. In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath in full, a report from the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath.<2> The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the event.<3>"

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

[Vinca]

153. Speaking as an atheist, I don't care.

If he believes it, fine. If it's a political move, fine. All I know is if he didn't add it onto his oath, that fact alone would overshadow his entire inauguration. It would be the new media scandal and next thing you know Abe's Bible would be the Koran.

[Ichingcarpenter]

157. As long as he preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

I don't care he swears to Beelzebub or the Flying Spaghetti monster

[cambie]

158. That is a fine strong oath

as specified by the Constitution - until they tack some make-believe god onto it. It gives about the same impression as saying "or whatever" after the oath.

[usregimechange]

160. Ceremonial deism, nothing to see here...

[Endangered Specie]

163. Speaking as an agnostic... big fucking deal...

let the RW get its collective panties in a wad about it. They hate it when our side does it more than we do!

[fascisthunter]

165. trying to out-do the right on religious conformity

I see we have both republicans and democrats trying to out-god the other. Real cheezy...

[Skittles]

166. ugh

[dkofos]

170. I guess he is planning to break his oath too.

SO HELP ME DOG

[robcon]

171. The fact that this newsworthy - with 170 post on DU - is astonishing.

I guess some people care about this stuff. No accounting for taste.

[democrat2thecore]

198. Very telling, isn't it? -nt

[Political Heretic]

173. I think thats fine. It's his Oath. He's a christian. As long as some other president

can also opt not to say it.

[rangersmith82]

175. Good for him

He is our leader now, we should follow his example.

[time_has_come]

177. I find your comment bizarre. Even disturbing.

You said "He is our leader now, we should follow his example."

Obama is a Christian, and wants to say those words. That's perfectly fine.

But the suggestion that we should follow someone's religious example because they are our political leader is misguided, at best.

[ProgressIn2008]

182. Good god, I hope this is satire. nt

[marshall]

188. Why not also add "In Jesus' name, amen"?

Or I guess he can just say it to himself.

[robcon]

195. He could say that, of course.

All he HAS to say is the constitutionally required oath. Other than that he can add: "so help be Kermit the Frog."

[Quantess]

189. Maybe he's doing this to dispel rumors that he is a Muslim.

(Or would that be a MUSLIN!!!1) ;)

[gauguin57]

191. He should probably be saying PLEASE HELP ME, GOD!!!

Since he's inheriting Bush's massive mess.

[harun]

193. Good, he's going to need God's help to clean up this mess.

[lonestarnot]

196. He's going to need ALL the help he can get!

[RCinBrooklyn]

199. I wonder if it is Rick Warren's god? When all fails, he can blame it on god's will.

[classysassy]

200. Every knee will bow

think about that.