Oath to God Shows Contempt for Non-Believers

A lot of people are offended that others believe in God. They say that all mention of God should be eliminated from any public forum. They say that the mention of God “disenfranchises” those who do not believe.

What other forms of the Freedom of Speech do you oppose? If you are offended that I do not choose to hide when I say that I believe in God, the problem is not me – the problem is YOU. Get over yourself.

This American Nation has chosen to elect a believer to the Presidency. While he represents everyone, Obama did not surrender his Freedom of Speech nor his right to believe when he was elected. Listen to his speeches, and you will hear the influence of Christian principles in what he says. Listen and you will hear echos of a cadence and delivery found in the pulpit of black churches across this land. A Barack Obama who was not influenced by his religion would not be the Barack Obama you cast your vote for.

No atheist will get the silence he desires until all Freedom of Speech is dead. Be careful what YOU wish for.

KeirGazelle,

Greetings! Whenever I've proposed this idea, it has gotten people thinking about what separation of church and state means. I have yet to run this past a non-Christian who wanted 'under God' replaced with 'under (other deity).' We all seem to recognize the inherent problem with doing so.

This idea does seem to illuminate the problem for the Christian's I've told it to. It appeals to basic fairness by letting everyone have there day, but then forces people to think about putting the shoe on the other foot.

The judicial system seem to think that 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' are harmless, meaningless ceremonial speech. Maybe a lawsuit demanding not even equal time, but time proportionate to the relative population would force the bench Christians to see the light.

BO’s record to date:

· addicted to nicotine,

· leader of the Immoral Majority taking over for the Clintons,

· invited a preacher to speak at the inaugural who is historically and theologically flawed and who hates mutual masturbation,

· invited another preacher to speak at the inaugural who is also historically and theologically flawed and who is a mutual masturbator,

· nominated Bill Richardson to be Secretary of Commerce. Richardson withdrew because he is being investigated by a federal grand jury for granting illegal state contracts,

· nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury even though Mr. Geithner has filed erroneous tax returns for many years.

What really amazes me is that some people actually think it makes sense to claim that NOT adding extra words to the oath excludes and offends them. What is more amazing is that even some atheists and agnostics agree. This shows just how much underserved respect religious beliefs receive.

I don't have any problem with Barak Obama publicly telling people that he is a Christian. I don't have any problem with him praying for his country in church or in public. I've never heard an atheist saying that religious should be banned from the public sphere despite many claims from Christians attempting to distort things.

But if he is acting in an official capacity as POTUS, he should keep his religion to himself. It has no place in government policies or ceremonies.

The constitution protects everyone's right to practice his or her religion or not to follow a religion at all. The founders of the US realized that only way to do this is to keep religion out of government. Simple and obvious when you think about it.

PART 4:
So is it the right thing to do? No, I don't think so, because turning a state ceremony into a religious ceremony is endorsing a religion. What other purpose could it possibly serve? Anyone who thinks otherwise is being dishonest with themselves. It is particularly wrong when you consider the purpose of the ceremony. Obama is swearing to protect the constitution which expressly forbids the government endorsing any particular religion or religion in general. By turning the ceremony into a religious ceremony he is making a mockery of the oath. I think even Christians should understand this and should realize why it is wrong. As many people pointed out, Christians will understand this point when a Satanist turns the ceremony into a Satanic ritual.

Is it a big issue? I don't think so. I think there are much bigger issues to worry about (e.g. climate change and creationists trying to subvert science education). But it is a good way to raise consciousness about the constitution of the US and the fact that a significant proportion of the US population is not Christian.

PART 3:
So turning the oath ceremony into a quasi-religious ceremony provides no real benefit for the country or Obama's presidency. So what is the point? Who benefits from it? Clearly for Obama it is a way of publicly declaring his loyalty to the Christian faith. Clearly it improves his image with the Christian majority in the US. Also Christians benefit from it because it affirms their culture - it makes them feel good that the president will look after their interests because he is a Christian.

I think it should be clear to anyone who actually thinks rationally about it for even one minute that making the oath ceremony into a Christian ceremony can only benefit Obama and Christians.

PART 2:
Does anyone think that adding the words will actually influence God to help Obama run the country? Perhaps some people do, but again, it never seems to have made any difference to how well presidents have done their job or how well things have gone for the US in the past. I think even most Christians would agree that adding words to the oath will have no influence on God. If God exists and has any influence on the world, He would base His decisions on more important considerations than whether a president added words to an oath (at least I would hope so).

If God exists (and happens to be the Christian God) and Obama is a good Christian, then Obama and God will do the right thing anyway. If Obama is not serious about the oath or the additional words then he will do what he does anyway. It will not make the slightest difference to what happens.

It seems my post was too long.
PART 1:
Why add "So help me God" to the oath? What's the point? What purpose does it serve?

Firstly, what is the purpose of the oath? The purpose is for Obama to make a promise to the people of the US to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Does anyone think it will make Obama more likely to keep his oath than if he didn't add extra words to it? I don't think so. It made no difference for Bush who seems to be a more fervent believer than Obama (and seemingly a personal confidant of God). If Obama has the right character to take his oath seriously then he will take it seriously regardless of whether additional words are added or not.

ThorsChild,
Interesting project, but as a Wiccan I also have a God that is equal to the Goddess. And I would not want to put others in the same position as my Gods and I have been put.

I would rather say:"one nation with equality to all".

If shoving the idea of the Christian god is wrong in the Pledge, then so is putting any of my Gods there. All people should be equal, no matter color, race, gender religion, sexual orientation...etc.

But for your project I would say:
:"one nation under Kali Ma. lol...Now that would make the Christianists scream. LOL..

terra

My thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance and coins:

First preference for both: "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" in the Pledge, just as it was before McCarthyism. "e pluribus unum" on the coins, just as it was before Lincoln gave in to the religious right.

Second preferences: Lets make two list of proposed words (screened for profanity, etc.) to insert where "under God" and "in God we trust" are. Every 10 years (3562 days) we have a census anyway, as part of that census, let every person select one choice from each list to be used. Then any set of proposed words which gets 1/3562 or more of the votes gets one day of representation in the public square and one minting day in the US Mint. That way, if the hard atheists can get 5% of the people to vote with them, there could be 182 days of coins minted with, say 'In God we don't trust' and children in school could be forced to choose to remain silent or recite 'one nation without god.' The same would be true of any other religious minority group. Think of the children's minds being opened up to all of the religious possibilities (my apologies if I misrepresent some of these, individuals, and their religious organizations would, of course, be encouraged to submit their own ideas):

Christian: In God we trust ...
Musilm: In Allah we trust
Jewish: One nation under Yaweh
Wiccan: One nation with the Goddess
Asatru: One nation, by Thor's mighty hammer, indivisible...
UU: One nation, with respect for all religions ...
Jedi: One nation, guided by the Force, ...
The list would go on and on

When confronted with the possibility that *their* children would be compelled to either remain silent or recite submission to a deity not of their choosing, my prediction is that the majority of the US population would want to go back to preference number one.

How come my last post didn't appear? The message said it had been "refered to a moderator". Was it the length of the post, or was it something I said earlier?

Terra, Terra, Terra,

Check CDC's abortion statistics.

Inaugurations happen. They don't change the fact that BO already has two strikes i.e. he is a nicotine addict and he is the new leader of the Immoral Majority formerly led by the Clintons.

Bun Bun...or Muffin poo...as the case may be...

I wish Obama had Gods and Goddesses...lol. But he only has one God. But what is important is that we have an honest man, a man that cares aboutr the laws of this land and sincerely cares about all the people.

Bun Bun, you really need to rant about something different...Change has come and those divisive mewings are passe. Start careing more about families...start careing about helping them to be prosperous so that every child will be wanted and loved. You rag on about abortion, but have you called your Politician to pass SChip or to make possible jobs for everyday people and not golden parachutes for CEO's? Muffin, you are a one note wonder...change your tune, Change has come.

Do you know that STD's have gone up...unmarried pregnancies have gone up...so abortions have gone up since Bush and his One Note sounded.

Bun Bun or Muffie...like Obama has said..we need to come together to perfect our union...Christian or Pagan, Pro Choice or Anti Choice...we need to do all in our power to ensure all Americans are cared for.

terra

Obviously, in a country which claims to be secular clergy do not belong at inaugurations. Enough said.

The far more important issue, one which OnFaith has yet to take up, is whether religion-based tax exemptions should be ended. Again and again, as is frequently evidenced on this blog, organized religions seek to interfere with political processes in blatant violation of the requirements for tax exempt status.

Time to ask the tough question, Ms. Quinn.

Back before Christmas I was out shopping with my daughter...she happens to be Christian, though I am not. I saw a plastic Jesus action doll. Now as a polytheist I would never do that to one of my Gods...oh my I can not believe anyone that calls themselves Christian would make such a thing or buy it. That is sacreligious and makeing, what the majority calls God, something petty, small and cheap. I mean a plastic jesus bobble head action doll?! And believers do that?

Would a plastic Jesus qualify as an idol? Just wondering.
But Christians will act like they are better then others because they are (what they believe) special.Christian. But they will go out and buy a bobble head Jesus.

terra

BO's "gods" and "goddesses" comprise the Immoral Majority i.e. his 70 + million voting "mothers and fathers" of 35+ million aborted babies slaughtered since 1973 at a rate of ~one million/year. The added shame begins in three days.

I happen to be Wiccan and Obama swearing "so help me God" does not bother me..there is a saying in Wicca..."give your oath rarely but when you do make it like iron". When we make an oath we do it before our Gods..it is expected that we would not lie to our Gods.

Now some folks have no idea what they are swearing to. Bush has said over and over again that he swore to protect the American people...no. he. did. not. He swore to protect the Constitution of the United States..in other words, " the laws". Bush did not swear before his god..there was no "so help me god" to his oath. He did not take it seriously enough to know what he put his hand on the bible for.

I really do not care that Obama will take his oath seriously enough to call on his God to witness it. It makes me more sure of him, because he is an honerable man, that he will to the very best of his ability defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Something the last Prez had no understanding of.

What I care about is that a Wiccan, or a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Hindu would not be elected, but if by miracle they were, there would be no Wiccan Priestess, a Buddhist monk, a Jewish Rabbi, to invoke deity...to bless the new President. Christians seem to think if they are limited in any way it is a slam on their religion...but they would grab stakes and the torches if someone like Starhawk was going to afficiate at a inauguration.

But what makes me really happy and I wish they would show it, but they won't..on the 19th people from all faiths will converge on the Jefferson memorial...Witches and other Earth Centered folks will have brooms at ready and they are going to sweep the "malfeasance, deceit and partisanship of the last eight years" away and bless the city to prepare it for the new administration. Then there will be a Drum Jam... Our presence will be there...a gay Christian Priest and a bunch of Witches will be invoking before Rick Warren will.
http://www.paganreligiousrights.org/
I do not want to stop anyone from calling on their God...I just want the right to call on my own.
3days...whooo hoooo!
Terra

Volkmare,

With all due respect, you haven't answered the question. It was requested that you provide documentary evidence of your claim that the US was founded on belief in God. The Constitution of the US is the founding document of the US Government, and it contains no references to God. Your assertion needs more than repetition to make it a valid argument.

But is it the god of mythical Moroni or the god of mythical Gabriel???

But is the god of mythical Moroni or the god of mythical Gabriel???

PIERREJC2 :

The constitution is a code of conduct of our government.
Do you really think that one document proves your position?

Like I said:
“This country is founded on belief in God. Like it or not, it is a documented fact.”
Many documents confirm that position.
My faith has nothing to do with it.

Mark
ALWAYS seek the truth!

Sally wrote this about God:

"God is an idea. God is a sense of the divine. God is the embodiment of the sacred. God is the father, the son the holy ghost. God is someone who loves us and watches over us. God is the forgiver of our sins. God is good. God is scary. God punishes those who don't believe in him. God is all powerful and all knowing yet God is not responsible for human suffering or evil. We are responsible for evil because of our own free will which God has given us. The devil is responsible for evil. God is in a constant battle with the Devil for our souls. God is our savior."

This summary of God is both accurate and beautifully written. It demonstrates that in describing God, there is no consensus of opinion, even among people who would seem to believe similarly. If there is no consensus on what God is, then argument's about God's existence do not mean much.

Sally,

The first amendment indicates that congress will make no law establishing a national religion, or prohibiting the free practice of religion. Are you referring to a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when you cite that the founders established this separation? Key to this argument is that the letter by Jefferson in 1802 points out that religion “lies solely between Man & his God.” Therefore if President Obama, a professed Christian, wishes to take the oath with, “So help me God,” in its context it is not a violation of others rights, but a protection of his.

In the Supreme Court decision Engel v Vitale, which is commonly referenced to support a total separation of all religion from state ceremonies, specified that state or federal agencies could not force, in this case school children, to recite a school board published prayer. Since the new President is the only one taking the oath, and he is OK with its context, why should there be an objection? The massed audience will not be forced to recite it.

Because some citizens do not believe in any religion or God they should not have the right to infringe on others right to the “free exercise thereof.” Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from dispensing your duties as a public official? As long as you do not force your beliefs on others why can you not let others know you are a person of a certain faith? I am sure the founding fathers never imagined a day that all public servants had to be devoid of any personal faith in order to serve. If that is what your will continue to defend then even the founding fathers, the establishers of this country, did not follow it.

And to summarize yesterday's commentaries:

Thomas "The Moses of the NT" Baum continues to hallucinate, Spidermean2 somehow was again blessed by a "voodooer of the hoodoo" and BO continues to be the new leader of the Immoral Majority.

Well, if no one else will, I'll say the obvious. Atheists don't get elected! What does that tell you!?

Bush's "stupidity" is actually not his. It came from lots of people surrounding him like Colin Powell. One of the idiocy of Powell is contemplating to allow gays to lead our brave young soldiers.

Who would want to serve in the Army if their general is carrying a make-up kit coz he is more comfortable with it than his side arm?

We just don't know the other stupid advises Bush gets. It's tough to be President I guess. It makes them age twice as fast.

So far I like what Obama is doing especially concerning the economy. What I don't understand is why the Senate is blocking the release of the other half of the bailout package.

We have a money crunch and the best thing to do is let all the money flow.

Barack apparently feels compelled to "prove" his Christianity, which, unfortunately, can't be done as one would assume by behaving as Christ would have us behave. How could Christians then differentiate between him and a good person of another faith or of no faith? No, he can only prove himself by violating the US Constitution, a singularly Christian act in America, especially popular among the law and order crowd.

To dupontjay: well if a satanist president is ever elected then America deserves a "so help me Satan" invocation. What's wrong with that? By then your kind would have thrived and that will be the normal thing to say, let's say 1500 years from now? But you insult your country too much, even your fellow atheists.

spidermean2 wrote "We usually don't give freedom to stupidity, do we?"

Yes you do. You voted for Bush.

That way, atheists will be stripped of the right to sue.

Enemyofthestate wrote "Just leave me alone to drink."

Actually, it's the atheists who are bothering believers not to name their God. Why won't the atheists just let Warren pray as he wishes. You drink while he pray.

Will his praying suppress your drinking or whatever beliefs atheists have? If you guys want the First Ammendment to continue, try not to abuse it.

True Christianity means freedom and it was the true Christians who fought for the First Ammendment. There might come a time that we'll "ammend" that ammendment to not include atheists coz atheism is actually STUPIDITY. We usually don't give freedom to stupidity, do we?

To spidermeanz: you're right!!! Every one has the right to invoke his own God. Why are the atheists crying like babies? They are babies.They want to be treated like one. I want this...I want that...O God. oooopsss

To TWMATTHEWS: I'm sorry but I was referring to the entire planet of course. But I sure do hope you're right about America.

RE:"This country is founded on belief in God. Like it or not, it is a documented fact."
===============================
I'm no expert on the founding of the country, but I can tell you that my B.S. meter goes nuts whenever I hear someone assert - always with confidence - that something is a 'documented fact.'

OK - I'll bite. Other than a few vague pc references to a non-denominational 'Creator' here and there, what is the documentation you're referring to?

I thought the founding of the republic had at least as much to do with breaking with England and repressive taxation as it did with religious freedom.

The country was not meant to be a theocracy, which even a cursory reading of the Constitution will confirm.

SALLY QUINN

God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, as in Love is God's Very Being not as in Love being an attribute of God since you asked, I take it that you would like to know, I have met God and God is also a Trinity.

Also God is not a He, a She or an It even tho God-Incarnate was a Male.

We are all made in God's Image and if Love shines thru in what we do then God's Image is shining thru if not, then it isn't.

God is not the ego-maniac that some would have others think.

You wrote, "Pascal's wager never made sense to me.".

I have only recently heard of Pascal's wager and if I understand it right, it is a crock.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

My two cents (0.00025, adjusted for inflation):

The real crux of this whole argument isn't what non-believers think, because there is no purported consequence for believers if I choose not to believe (except, I suppose, the smug belief that I will burn in hell).

Believers, on the other hand, usually (not always) go to great lengths to condemn and vilify those who don't believe as they do. I know, because at one time I was one of them. So, as a result of this near-universal condemnation, non-believers feel they must react strongly to any suggestion that they may at some future time be coerced into accepting a particular belief.

For my part, I could care less about what anyone else believes.

Just leave me alone to drink.

Peace.

PHNTSM wtites: My last argument is that atheism is a belief. Atheists believe there is no God. Having atheists try to remove reference to God from the public is no different than having God on the money.

I take issue with this definition of atheism. We can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell God, so there is no way of establishing proof of God's (or any other deity's) existence. The only reason many of us are using "God" in this back and forth at all is because God was what was presented to us when we were growing up, as opposed to Allah, earth spirits, multiple gods, reincarnation, witchcraft, etc. What people believe is very subjective.
One of the definitions of faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. Those who believe tend to say their belief is all the proof that's necessary and they put the onus on nonbelievers to prove that God *doesn't* exist, which is both illogical and unfair. Atheism is a conclusion one reaches in the face of no hard evidence of the existence of God, it is not just a random belief.

I think this is another case of WaPo having someone assigned to a post for which they simply are not prepared or equipped.

This is not my inauguration nor is it Sally Quinn's inauguration. It is Barack Obama's inauguration and if he chooses to acknowledge God in HIS oath of office Sally and the rest of the unbelieving or non-believing world need to just take a deep breath and shut up about it.

The problem isn't his. The problem belongs to the Sally Quinn's of the world who overplay their own view of themselves, their self-importance and the weight they ascribe to their ideas. I personally could care less what Sally Quinn believes. I could care less what any atheist "claims" is an affront to them in some way. In the same vein, I sincerely doubt they care what I believe. Bottom line: If they have a chance to swear oath, they can choose their own way. Until then, they should just shut up and stop whining about not getting their way.

No matter how much unbelief exists, the history of our nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage is what it is. We do not have a state religion, but neither should we create a vacuum where any mention of religion, God, or the values they represent should be excluded.

Those of us who believe have just as much right to believe as the fringe minority has to object.
It is sad that somewhere along the way the fringe minority always seems to think THEY are victimized when they mostly just need to get over their unjustly inflated views of themselves.

People. Please.

This is not about separation of church and state.

This is not about "religious ceremony."

The fact is that Mr. Obama apparently believes in God, and intends to state, publicly, his reliance upon that belief, after completing his oath of office as defined in the Constitution.

He has every Constitutional right to hold that belief and to express it publicly.

Get over it.

To Ms. Quinn and others: please focus your considerable intellectual talents on more worthy topics.

If I'm eatng a meal at a resturant and I say a prayer prior to eating am I insulting any non-believers who may be seating nearby? As far as the oath goes it is only at the end that the phase 'So help me God' is said. This is an affamation of the individuals intent to follow the previous statements of the oath. If some day a Muslim is elected president then I expect he would take the same oath on a Koran and say 'So help me Allah' if he wanted to.

It's Obama's inauguration, not the non-believers. He is a Christian and as such he can put his hand on the Bible and say "So help me God" whether you think it's disrepectful to non-believers or not.

Now I have contempt for Sally Quinn.

I can't believe we are having this conversation. Clearly it is much ado about absolutely nothing. Perhaps to please Sally and the atheists Obama could say....."So help me God, or whatever the case may be."

sux123 :
PHNTSM wtites: My last argument is that atheism is a belief. Atheists believe there is no God. Having atheists try to remove reference to God from the public is no different than having God on the money.

-------------------------
SUX123 writes: How do you figure?? Having no reference to God on public money is in no way the same as having it say "It no Gods we trust". The Theists are claiming a faith for all of us that some of us do not have. Having no reference does not imply that there is no God. See the difference??

----------------------------
I agree that no reference does not imply that there is no God. But, if you don't believe what do you care? Do you think that having God on the money is choosing your faith for you, or having God anywhere is forcing you to believe anything? If you don't believe then it's just words.

My argument was that atheism is a belief and you haven't refuted that. I also argued that trying to remove something based on a belief is the same as having it there based on a belief. Do >you

This is a totally contrived controversy, manufactured by people who insist on wearing their nerve endings on the skin surface.

I'm not one for throwing one's faith in the face of others, but excluding "under God" from such occasions amounts to forcing the will of "unbelievers" on the "believers." I think we all need to suck it up, keep our traps shut and worship in out own ways -- or not..

Human beings have an innate understanding of power--what it is, who's in charge at any given moment, how powerful someone is. We therefore seem to need the idea that something is out there that is bigger than we are, has it all figured out, is as obsessed with us as we are with ourselves and controls every detail of our lives, has a "plan". There isn't such a being. We have only ourselves. We also have each other--if only we would realize how valuable and important that is. Obama doesn't need to say, "So help me God." He has himself, his Cabinet and all of us.

Sally,

I hope the defenders of "so help me God" are up to the task of defending "Praise be to Allah" when it is finally uttered at a Presidential inauguration.

It stands to reason that with this first election of an African American that there will someday be another first, that of a Muslim.

Those that decry that we are a Christian nation are absolutely incorrect. We are a nation of many religions and it is fair to limit the Presidency to only those that are Christian?

Some will say we can't officially declare the Presidency a Christian position but it will stay that way as long Christians are a majority, but didn't they say the same thing about African Americans?

Instead of believers forcing on the President-elect that he must say the oath or non-believers forcing on the President-elect he mustn't, it would be prudent to allow the President-elect to decide. By doing so it offers choice and I do not believe it will facilitate a slipper-slope scenario where every US institution henceforth must or or mustn't say the G word.

In my recent work on a universal ethics site called WisdomCommons.org, I have been bumping across the term, "Open Source Spirituality." This term fits lots of other data about how young people are drawing elements of culture and identity from many sources. "God" definitions are becoming more and more ideosyncratic. Used publically, the term "god" has a tremendous amount of pretense in it because as Sally Quinn has pointed out, there is no agreed upon definition. It is a placeholder for some personal sense of the sacred.

Whether the term should be allowed/mandated in a presidential oath is one question, and my views are well articulated by Sally. Another relevant question though, is whether it's time to start exposing how low integrity it is to use such terms in the public square. A politician who makes pubic appeals to gods takes advantage of the loose definition--counting on the fact that a broad range of individual listeners will will perceive more commonality than actually exists.

Clinton got in trouble for playing with the definition of sex--but his word play was peanuts compared to this.

"non-believers who feel shut out"

I would ask whether non-believers are really shut out or whether this is just defensiveness in the face of alien forms of behavior. If we give this oath the same treatment we give incidents of conflict of interest, we would say that the appearance of favoring one church over others is the only relevant consideration. Does this justify defensiveness? Yes, if opportunity in the community is assigned based on membership in this church. If not, these words are simply a matter of art and nothing to be concerned about.

While I can appreciate the simple annoyance of invoking God for those who do not believe, I am dumbfounded by Ms. Quinn's simplistic appeal to a public square devoid of belief (or should it be ritual?). If belief is invalid in the public square, what do we have left? Surely the issue is how to deal with multiple and competing beliefs WITHIN a shared space. Anything else is sheer fantasy and conceptually bankrupt. What Ms. Quinn must account for is her predetermined framework--including the very category of religion itself. Who gets to decide what is religious, and hence illegitimate in public, and what is not?

volkmare writes

"This country is founded on belief in God. Like it or not, it is a documented fact."
===========

Documented fact? I'm not ever sure what "This country is founded on belief in God." means. You're making one of these off the cuff claims that doesn't have any particular meaning if you look at it closely.

I can make an easier argument that this country was founded on the belief in indentured servitude.

There are a whole host of reasons why various people came to the colonies. The Puritans wanted their freedom of religion, but not necessarily freedom for other religions. Some came over under indentured servitude, some came over to escape famine or the military draft and some came over to make a lot of money with or without slaves. You could reasonably partition the many immigrants into one of two groups. Group A was running away from something; Group B came for greed.

Because the large majority were "believers" doesn't translate to "founded on belief in God". The vast majority believed in eating breakfast, can we say the country founded on a belief in breakfast?

Like Quinn states, I would not go as far as to bring this issue to a lawsuit. There are plenty of examples of the state's establishment of Christianity that should be brought to the courts, however.

And, to be honest, it is Christians who should be protesting, not just the nonbelievers. If you want to see the corrupting power of state endorsement of religion, look at the Taliban. Look at Iran. These theocracies taint the image and reputation of Islam, effectively making the religion an agent of the state.

Christians should be as wary of this as other stewards of religious freedom. Government can do terrible things to a religion.

Well, as Ms. Quinn has discovered in her interviews concerning a concrect definition of God, there is no concrete universally accepted definition, beyond some metaphorical image concerning what is expected of us acompassionate and moral beings. Therefore, it God is merely f As long as Jesus is left out of it, why can't we live with the metaphor?

This whole issue will be clarified when we elect our first Satanist president.

The day a President appends a "So help me, Satan" to the oath of office will be the day everyone understands why it is wrong to inject religious trappings into a secular US government ceremony.

Sally is probably correct, but not right, from the prospective of the vast majority of U S citizens.This nation was founded by "believers". Many were fleeing the European persecutors of religious freedom.Many became that which they had fled.We still are. There is as much religious intolerance & ignorance in our country as there ever was, mostly due to the refusal of folk to read that with which they disagree.Our children are still ridiculed in many parts of our country if they do not participate in religious events in public schools.When will we get over this? When we recognize that everone's idea of God, or not, has validity & basis, & none of us, & none of the preachers, have"THE" answer. It will come. Meanwhile,be tolerant of all our "idiot"syncrasies.This is still the greatest nation in the known universe. Example: OUR NEW PRESIDENT-ELECT!!!

As an Indian living in US I think you guys are going overboard with this. It is not like Obama is preaching anything by this. On the occassion of taking over an important task everybody asks for strength and lot of people derives strength from god. I am not sure how it is offensive to others when somebody believes in something. By the way my religion is hinduism and it will not bother me somebody says their god's name. Like someone send a message as long as people do not belittle another person's belief ( including the non-believer) it should not matter. As an aside even in India leaders take oath in god's name. usually they use a word Ishwar which translates to God or workld like almighty. The communist party leaders when taking oath do that on constitution. As long as they take their job seriously why should it matter

Reply to BJAMESWI:See, there's the issue. The Constitution's establishment clause prevents government from *establishing* a religion. But it also protects my right to free speech in public space. Your statement above shows that you want to shut my expression down; you don't want me to be able to use public space to "demonstrate" my belief. That's a fatal flaw in your position in this country.
----------------------------------
You misunderstood what I meant. It's not my intent to restrict your ability to speak or demonstrate or what-have-you concerning your own beliefs...of course I support that. I disagree with the god ideology being placed in print, defined in symbol, or required to be recognized by our public servants in the public domain. It's that simple. Youc can go out and sing a song about Hitler on the steps of the capitol building for all I care, and I'll support your right to do it. It's when you put a swastika on our money that has me bothered.

Nice try, but a pretty weak attempt at making atheists look like PC thugs. I hope this clears things up.

"So help me God" is not part of the oath that is explicitly prescribed by the Constitution. It is a superstitious tradition which in a better world would be omitted.

elife1975 said:
"You're more than welcome to express yourself, pray, bow down, attend church, and any number of other acts that you feel necessary. We're simply stating that you can't use our tax dollars and our public spaces (supported by OUR tax dollars) as a soap box to demonstrate your beliefs."

See, there's the issue. The Constitution's establishment clause prevents government from *establishing* a religion. But it also protects my right to free speech in public space. Your statement above shows that you want to shut my expression down; you don't want me to be able to use public space to "demonstrate" my belief. That's a fatal flaw in your position in this country.

The right to free speech enables members of the KKK to rally at the state capitol with bullhorns, spewing white supremacist nonsense. The Constitution's guarantees against discrimination that have been interpreted (correctly) as a prohibition against racist actions cannot be used to silence the KKK. Their 1st Amendment rights permit them to speak, demonstrating their particular worldview, regardless of the opinions held by those who are in earshot. The sole recourse of those who don't want to hear it, is to move away. Provided the speakers break no law, they can speak unhindered.

As a religious American, I insist that my freedom of self-expression in public spaces be just as protected.

"...but there are many, many atheists and theists who will not tolerate you plastering it all over our parks and courthouses."

And I'm one of those theists. The place where we differ is what constitutes "plastering it all over". Judging from the expressed opinions here, and those I encounter in my daily life, there's a strong sentiment among the atheist contingent that see *any* expression as being too much. That's not acceptable.

"You've already forced it on to our currency and in to our pledge of allegiance (something that needs to be corrected, mind you). Print your own money and you can put whatever you want on it, just don't expect me to accept it."

The additions to American currency and the Pledge happened before my time, and I happen to agree that they need to be removed. I'm just not as belligerent about it as you are.

Volkmare:
If our country were founded on belief in God, then God would be mentioned in our founding document, the Constitution of the United States.
But you, apparently, haven't bothered to read our great Constitution, because then you'd know that God is mentioned NOWHERE in it.
Why do you Christians so proudly display your pathetic ignorance? Why can't you be bothered to gain just a tiny bit of knowledge before spouting off like spoiled brats?

I have to align more with Quinn than Meacham here. Our country is multicultural and becoming more so daily. Meacham says we shouldn't try to separate religion from state, but the whole history of the country - freedom for all religions, live and let live, etc. - suggests that we should. I don't have freedom of religion if something I don't believe is embedded into fundamental concepts to which I am expected to subscribe as a citizen.

For that reason, I find "under God" particularly offensive in the pledge of allegiance. If we're going to have a pledge (again, for ALL citizens) it must bring all beliefs under the same tent. This country is NOT "under God;" that implies a theocracy and puts us in the same company as Iran and other states that identify nationality and statehood with a particular religion. Many "good Christians" in this country rail against such states - when they are Islamic!

Sally,

If you truly “believe” all that you said in your article, then you are in a distinct minority.

This country is founded on belief in God. Like it or not, it is a documented fact.

Tour Washington and see how many religious symbols are there, you will find yourself surrounded.

“Separation of church and state” is a rule that does not include denial of each others existence.

I don’t like Obama, I didn’t vote for him, but he is my president.
If he chooses to put his hand on the bible and say “so help me god”, that is his personal choice, not yours. It has nothing to do with merging church and state.

If anyone is offended by that, they are in a distinct minority and they need to “get a life”.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I've never understood why the President (and all other elected Federal officials, for that matter) is not required to place his/her right hand on the Constitution of the United States, because that is what (s)he is swearing to. If Mr. Obama had not declared that he was a Christian he would not have made it past Iowa in the Primaries. That's the pathetic fact in this so-called "free" country. Just once I'd like to see a president swear on a stack of Druid verses, or transcripts of Native American creation stories, or a coconut, or whatever. The crapstorm that would follow, including motions for impeachment, marches, etc. would be the best entertainment since Gillegan's Island.

I am not a religious person. The term atheist is a bit to absolutist to describe me. I don't care if Obama or any other President invokes the name of God. I just really hate it when the various religious groups pronounce me amoral or having no morals at all. I believe good morals are the way to least chaos. I am all for peace and contentment. So, say God, Allah, or whoever you choose. I'm too blissed out to care.

I have been thinking about this, and I have changed my mind. I (an atheist) thought it was up to Obama if he wanted to add "so help me God" or not. I don't think that anymore. As many have pointed out, that phrase it between him and his God, and it should stay that way. It shouldn't be uttered in public, and there should be no invocation.

If Obama needs to confirm his oath with something religious, he should have a private sermon.

But I suppose the US has forgotten that it's supposed to be secular, and that the invocation hasn't been there forever. To an outsider, America looks hysterically religious with non-believers more or less hiding in the corners, and it seems politically impossible to become president without being a confessing Christian - no matter how good and smart you are.

This is perhaps tangential, but I am devoted to Article Eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli:

Frank Lambert, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America
Pnncetou University Press, 2003, pages 238 and 239
Just how radical the Founders' religious settlement was became apparent in 1797 when the United States declared emphatically to the world that it was not a "Christian" state. On Monday, June 26, the lead story in the Boston Price-Current and Marine Intelligencer was that of the "Treaty With Tripoli," running under the heading "Important State Papers" and prominently located at the head of the first column of the front page. Because many of the paper's subscribers were involved in Boston's shipping industry, which sent vessels to the Mediterranean, any news about that region was of interest, especially matters bearing on the pirates from the Barbary States. Indeed, since losing the protection of the British navy following the American War of Independence, American ships were regularly seized and tribute demanded of their owners. Thus, with more than a little attention, Boston's merchants and investors read the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary." The second of the twelve articles told the good news: "If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them." Article 11, however, told news of a different sort. It contained a pledge from the United States that must have brought up short some readers whose forefathers had planted the "City upon a Hill":
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Jerry Davidoff, Norwalk, CT

To: Sally Quinn
Re: contempt for non-believers.
Simply put,speaking the phrase, 'so help me God,' is between Obama and his God, albeit, for all to hear. Not a request of yours or of mine. It is really none of our business if he chooses to include God in his oath. Indeed, to hide such a supplication since he believes in what he is asking would be the contemptuous act.

As for the issue of separation of church and state: Jefferson was moved to contemplate this need, not from the concerns of interference of the church in the matters of government, but by his contemporary concerns regarding the oppression by the powerful (those whom the parishes depended on for revenue for their 'operating budgets') to dictate to parish preachers what they could and could not say. The evolution of the need for separation of church and state takes many turns but to lose sight of its origins is a mistake.

As for me, I believe that one cannot separate one's character, which is reflected in one's deeds, from one's beliefs. So, the character of this president is to be reflected in his deeds - past, present and future. Wait, watch and wonder the meaning it will have on changes in the character of the nation - pray to someone, even if it is only to your readers, that it will be good.

Regarding you concluding sentence, "So help me God," I wish to say that cynicism is destructive; it offers nothing towards overcoming obstacles, offers nothing in regard to the formation of solutions. In this crossroads of our world's future it cannot be encouraged. I am inclined to call it a 'sin'.

AGAPN9:

If atheism is "intellectually indefensible" then so is theism. Scientists like Richard Dawkins do not even go so far as to say that God definitely does not exist, but that the existence of a supreme being is highly improbable. Of course you could always call that an atheist-leaning agnosticism, which is where I suppose I land on the spectrum. So anyway, read his books, ignore his reasoning, and accuse his arguments of being "indefensible" as you likely will. You probably believe that 5,000 years ago there was a giant boat filled with 2 of every animal. I did until I was about 12, and that's when it started to unravel for me. Like most atheists or agnostics, I didn't arrive at this "to be different." In fact, it's something I avoid discussing publicly or with family, which is why forums like this are so great. Based on the comments you see here, I would say that the number of doubters is higher than anyone realizes, but we're kept in the closet by fear (especially in the South).

To get back to the subject of this article, I think Obama can say whatever he wants. He's a Christian who came to his religion later in life, does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but believes in the message. Guess what, so do I. I can believe in the value of Jesus' teachings without believing that he was a supernatural being.

Sally,

The last three paragraphs summarized your point beautifully.

Yes, it should not be a REQUIREMENT for the "official part of the ceremony".

But the President-Elect should have the right to use those words, if that is his choice.

Too many atheists, or non-believers merely want to impose THEIR choices on everyone else.

It seems everywhere in New York City these days, one can't miss ads for the vodka brand Ciroc and its pitchman, P. Diddy.

Trying to exude power and elegance, Diddy is wearing a tuxedo and shades. The tagline is - I Am King. Perhaps, rather than "One Nation Under God", Sally would prefer "One Nation Under Diddy."

I think the two sides are confusing the arguments. The theists believe the atheistic group wants to restrict the presidents right to affirm his personal belief, which should not be the case. He is free to say whatever he pleases as far as I'm concerned. The atheists are arguing that the theists are pushing their agenda during the innaguration by expecting/making him include "so help me god", which I'm not sure is the case either.

I'm sorry, but I believe y'all have it all wrong (how's that for some flame-bait).

I agree that the Constitution excludes the phrase from the oath, but I don't consider it to be a part of the oath. Rather, I consider it an affirmation of this (any any) particular President that the oath is sacred _to them_. If we end up electing a President of another religion or none at all, then I am perfectly content with whatever phrase they may add, or not.

At the same time, I have no patience with this latest round of whining from some agitated group of atheists that they're being disrespected, or injured, or however they phrase it. These words in this case are indeed "mere" words. They don't initiate or prohibit actions or rights in any way. We spend so much time figuring out not to offend some outlying opinion, that the whole exercise becomes all-consuming and counter-productive.

Reply to BJAMESWI: The non-believers want every mention of religion expunged from the public space. No prayers, no invocations. No religious-based art, nothing. Not only do they want this complete erasure to occur, they want it to be celebrated, supported, and above all, not resisted. And finally, they do not wish to criticized for their position.

They are more than willing to offer me, a believer, the same treatment they want for themselves, but they fail to recognize that where they would find the treatment a positive uplifting experience, I would find it to be the exact opposite. My beliefs are very dear to me, and while I do not in any way ask that those beliefs be worked into law or public policy, I would like to be able to express myself using words and forms that are based in my belief, without fear of ridicule, violence, or having another's beliefs shoved down my throat.

You're more than welcome to express yourself, pray, bow down, attend church, and any number of other acts that you feel necessary. We're simply stating that you can't use our tax dollars and our public spaces (supported by OUR tax dollars) as a soap box to demonstrate your beliefs. There's not an atheist out there that wants to prohibit you from your belief in a god, but there are many, many atheists and theists who will not tolerate you plastering it all over our parks and courthouses. Can you see the difference? You've already forced it on to our currency and in to our pledge of allegiance (something that needs to be corrected, mind you). Print your own money and you can put whatever you want on it, just don't expect me to accept it.

Ms. Quinn,

Please get your facts straight. You say: The good news is that the founders did insist on the separation of church and state and I will do everything in my power to continue reminding people of that fact.

The founding fathers did no such thing. Their concern was that the federal government would impose a national religion. Such a prohibition did not extend to the states (the state of Rhode Island paid church official upto the 1830's).

Please try to avoid using sweeping statements of dubious accuracy, it does nothing to advance your arguement.

No Sally, the problem is you want to be offended so you can gripe about it. It's typical pc madness, "i'm offended, hear me grieve." This is much ado about nothing, wake me when there's a real issue.

America is not a Christian nation no matter how hard Christians try to pretend it is,we are and hopefully always will be a secular nation. The phrase so help me god doesn't specify any certain god so it can be said but if Obama said so help me Jesus that would not be allowed. There is nothing in the Constitution that says whatever religion has the most followers has the right to inject their religion into public government functions. Will Christians always act like they are being persecuted for some unknown reason even when they aren't, they'll act like they are being left out, that our country will suffer if we don't say Christians prayers in every public place. I don't see other religions always complaining about how they are left out, that everyone in America needs to hear more of their prayers in public places. America has freedom of religion and freedom to worship as we please. This is a free country and our laws and Constitution were written specifically to keep religion out of politics because the founding fathers knew what can happen if religion is allowed to have more power than the government or be the government. If only Christians would be happy to pray in their churchs and let the rest of us be happy with our beliefs.

While I agree about seperation. I sure believe in God Almighty, Jehovah. Giving credit to God shows humility and intelligence. Regardless to what a person believes, there is a Supreme Being. We are part of his creation. I pray at home, I don't need anyone's permission to pray. I don't feel, there should be these religious people in attendance, giving their words to something political in nature. I do trust in God, however, I understand the need for seperation. I say this as a Christian, who has faith. Since God is the Creator, He isn't going to back one nation over another. We are all His creation.

As a religious American, I can only offer an observation: the respect that non-believers seem to want is the exact reverse of the respect they are willing to offer. And they defend that position vehemently.

The non-believers want every mention of religion expunged from the public space. No prayers, no invocations. No religious-based art, nothing. Not only do they want this complete erasure to occur, they want it to be celebrated, supported, and above all, not resisted. And finally, they do not wish to criticized for their position.

They are more than willing to offer me, a believer, the same treatment they want for themselves, but they fail to recognize that where they would find the treatment a positive uplifting experience, I would find it to be the exact opposite. My beliefs are very dear to me, and while I do not in any way ask that those beliefs be worked into law or public policy, I would like to be able to express myself using words and forms that are based in my belief, without fear of ridicule, violence, or having another's beliefs shoved down my throat.

Interesting, isn't it? The very things they complain about being done to them, they would visit on those of us who believe, and they would wrap themselves in the flag while doing it.

As a final comment to the readers who are undoubtedly working themselves in a righteous rage at my words, and preparing the usual litany of venomous remarks to use in response... the ones about how "me and my kind" have been responsible for any number of outrages throughout history... you might take a moment to note that nowhere in this message have I stated what my beliefs are, or to what creed I subscribe. So if you're going to try to attack my comments using any specific religion for a toehold, be aware you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

PHNTSM wtites: My last argument is that atheism is a belief. Atheists believe there is no God. Having atheists try to remove reference to God from the public is no different than having God on the money.

-------------------------
How do you figure?? Having no reference to God on public money is in no way the same as having it say "It no Gods we trust". The Theists are claiming a faith for all of us that some of us do not have. Having no reference does not imply that there is no God. See the difference??

Certainly, no one in this country wants an official religion to the exclusion of all others (including atheism). But what do we want our government to be like?

Jesus of Nazareth said, "God is spirit." His apostle, Paul, in his letter to the Galations said, "the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... ."

Do we want our government to have these kinds of characteristics or do we want it to be coldly indifferent to our needs? Do we want it to be merely ethical or to have a deeper sense of right and wrong? Do we want our President to be coldly rational or do we want him to have some fire in his veins and to recognize that nothing is simply black or white.

I think we want our government to be like most of us: touched by religion but not overly immersed in it.

The president-elect becomes president upon concluding the oath prescribed in the constitution. That happens before he chooses whether to say "so help me god". The "god" language is no part of the oath, and is entirely superfluous as a matter of law. It has no legal significance.

Yet, presidents have said "so help me god" voluntarily, out of their own personal faith. It is not objectionable; in fact I prefer that oaths in general be based not only on law, but on their personal faith as well.

Presidents in the future who wish to delete the phrase (consistent with their own personal beliefs) remain free to do so.

let us put this matter to rest and get busy helping the president elect!

Of course it shows contempt for non-believers, but try and tell a Theist that.

But when has ANY religion shown ANY respect for non-believers?

Why must MY government support YOUR religion?

Absolutely correct. Swearing on a copy of the Declaration should be enough.

oh jezus maria pleeze lets do away with all this hokus/pokus , religion is a scam a total fraud, who need this bs????

Same significance as swearing on the Grimm Brothers 'Hansel @ Gretel'.
Scary indeed when the most powerful man in the world has an imaginary friend in the clouds.

If BO says "So help me god" he really is saying "So help me Immoral Majority" i.e. the 70+million voting bloc of mothers and fathers who aborted their babies since Roe vs Wade was passed in 1973 at an average rate of one million babies/year.

I would like to point out that Barack Obama is the closest I think we'll ever have to an atheist president. He was not raised religious, his family had diverse religious and cultural beliefs.

I would love to see Barack Obama pay homage to this diverse background and simply affirm to uphold the office he was elected by the people to occupy.

I am an atheist and I am one of those people.

I wonder how religious America would feel about having on the back of paper money "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" as on London bus ads.

Or perhaps the money should say "In Reason We Trust"

Or perhaps an invocation Hitchens.

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. However, like many others (including, unfortunately, some Supreme Court justices), you are confusing "church" with "any spiritual reference." What "church" does the words "so help me God" unlawfully promote? Catholic? Lutheran? The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? An argument that any reference whatsoever to any religious or spiritual belief violates the separation of "church" and state demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what that phrase meant to those who wrote it and should mean today.

I would argue that Obama is a Christian and I assume that he believes in God, and in this case is asking God to help him to do a good job. I also don't understand what is so threatening about religion in the public square. No one is even asking anyone to believe in God let alone forcing people. The seperation of church and state was intended to keep us from having a government religeon like the Church of England.

I would say that having God in different places doesn't cause harm, doesn't force anyone to do anything, and doesn't even influence people that much. When was the last time you looked at a dollar and thought "Boy, I better find Jesus?"

My last argument is that atheism is a belief. Atheists believe there is no God. Having atheists try to remove reference to God from the public is no different than having God on the money.

Sally wrote: "I guess you could say that I believe completely in the idea of separation of church and state."

And so do I.

Sally wrote: "I don't think he should [swear an oath to God]. Nor do I think that he should have clerics lead prayers at the ceremony, in this case two Christian ministers. I also do not believe that "under God" has any place in the Pledge of Allegiance, that "In God We Trust" belongs on our coins or that we should have chaplains in the Senate."

I agree with you on the pledge and God on money. Chaplains I am on the fence since no one seems to have an issue with chaplains in the military and so if the Senate wants them, then I have no issue as long as the chaplain is non-denominational.

But the swearing in ceremony is very different. It is required that the new president swear the oath. The Constitution only says what the new president must say before s/he takes office. It does not make any references to what the new president cannot say or who can be there or what other people there can say. So, if Obama wanted, he could swear the oath out of public view, without the supreme court justice present, without swearing to any diety, without others making speaches religious or not. He could swear on a Koran and swear to Allah and have mullahs present. What he does during the inauguration is external to government except that he MUST say the words in the oath. Adding "so help me " does not change the meaning, and so should be allowed IF Obama wishes. Everything else is just a party.

By your logic Sally the president should not go to church. But I would imagine you think that is ok since it is personal time. After the new president finishes his oath he can say whatever he wants, including "so help me God", since at that point he is on his own time.

I do find it interesting that as someone who is not Catholic but took Catholic communion, when she was told this was against Catholic policy and would be seen as an affront to Catholics, you would take stands on what lines can be drawn when it comes to religious expression. I'm not Catholic but when I heard you ignored the wishes of the Catholic church you lost any respect from me on issues of religion. I cannot respect the views of someone who does not respect religions on their own turf.

I am an atheist, but I don't care what Obama does with regard to the oath. If he needs or wants to supplement the actual oath with some personal superaffirmation, then so be it. He's the one doing the swearing/affirming. Were I the one being inaugurated, I would hold the Constitution and say the oath as written - it would be me doing the swearing.

Now, if Chief Justice Roberts leads Obama to say 'so help me God', then we have establishment of religion and that is not acceptable.

This is an oath taken by one person who swears by what is most important to them. It's their promise, not ours, reflecting their own personal belief and that's what it should do.

You said: The last time they learned about God was when they were nine years old. As a result they have a nine-year-old's understanding of God.

I'd argue that you'd have to have the mentality of a nine year old to continue to argue the concept.

RE"I wonder what would happen if a non-christian president-elect happened to replace those few words with a few words about a pagan god, or no god."
==============================
A non-Christian president? Not in my lifetime, but it's a nice thought.

Sally Quinn, you're an idiot!

because you are a yenta, i will explain in really simple terms that your yenta brain can kinda maybe understand, let the unbelievers get over it.

Ms. Quinn,

Great column. The best I have read in "On Faith".

Like it or not, the people who founded this country believed in a God despite the hypocricy of many of their actions. Most Americans are Christians and still do, and most people all over the world still recognize some form of power or deity that is suppose to be greater than themselves and affects their daily lives. I don't care if it's a rock god. It's not about religion. It's about spirituality. Because they believed in divine providence, they wanted to recognize it in pieces and parts of their government and the military , which guards "heaven's gates", in order to set themselves apart from the atheist communists of the time and exhibit themselves as having a higher sense of morality even amongst those who claimed they were Christians. We always do something that sets us apart. Most do believe in a God of some sort so, atheists through whatever their own reasoning (good or bad), have decided to set themselves apart from the mainstream.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there currently is and has been a number of politicians that would admit to a more flexible or lax belief in a higher power were it not for the believers who would spitefully and defensively refrain from voting for them strictly because of that fact. How many times has Obama attended church services since the election? Because his priority is to the service of the people and his country, not to some sky fairy.

As an agnostic, "One who holds the view that ultimate reality(as God) is unknown and probably unknowable", according to Merriam Webster, I agree with your position. That's why agnostics are amused by the need of human beings to worship a god or gods. It's rather like never growing up beyond the need to please, fear and respect mom and/or dad.

Yet, it's a position held by millions, and therefore shouldn't and can't be dispensed with.

Why not have two ceremonies? One would be in a place of worship, complete with the elected's religious text of choice and almighty of choice, "So help me ____(Multiple Choice).

Another would be on the Capital steps, complete with raised right hand, and left hand over the heart, with the electorate's oath of choice, the pledge to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, "So help me citizens of this land".

God didn't threaten to impeach Nixon and run him out of office. The citizens of this land did.

Then, of course, we'd have to fight over which ceremony came first, and whether the first or the second, or final, was the more important. Shades of the shape of the negotiating table in Korea.

By the way, thanks for the history lesson. Didn't know that God had not been invoked until recently. Then again, if Barack is going to use Lincoln's Bible, Lincoln must have believed that it's use was an implicit recognition of God.

The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, but says nothing about recognition of religion.

Atheism as opposed to agnosticism is not an intellectually defensible position. Therefore, the majority of Americans, thank God, are not willing to accept the outcries of its adherrents seriously.
Retreat back to a more defensible position or be considered irrelevant. Atheism is a belief system based on choice not on fundamental intellectual insight. While many atheists are quite intelligent and astute at defending themselves not one of them has been able to come up with an intelligible argument for God's non-existence.
Come up with an argument akin to Aquinas cosmological or teleological argument that shows God doesn't exist or even Anselm's ontological argument. See if it holds water. If it doesn't then consider that your position might be wrong. If an intelligible argument can't be constructed that rings true - has serious validity - then quit quaaking.

Thank you Ms. Quinn for putting into your words my own thoughts. I am always amazed at the lack of knowledge that Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom to protect Quakers, Presbyterians, and Baptists from the Anglican Church, and that the real beginning of America was for profit (The Virginia Company) in Virginia (which, sorry Pilgrims) was here first. Tobacco save the United States and hooked the world.
Madison and Jefferson guided us to keep a wall of seperation. Just read their letters to each other.
All of the "God" additions in the 20th Century should be struck down and recognized as failed attempts to impose a "Christian Nation" idea.
Again, thank you your opinion.

I agree with Ms. Quinn. When I hear the argument that it is 'just a few words', I wonder what would happen if a non-christian president-elect happened to replace those few words with a few words about a pagan god, or no god.

Oh, Sally - I forgot to say that the time you spent talking to people is admirable, but hardly work. You also have to open your mind. This is why Einstein found it so hard to accept Lemaitre's theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre was a physicist but he was also a Catholic priest. Einstein simply had too much prejudice - scientists are not immune. The problem is not that the proof for God is not there, it's just that proof does not make someone believe. They still have to do some thinking. I have faith - you'll get there!

Great column. Everyone believes in God, but no one knows what that even means. For some reason people just think that if you say you believe in a "higher power" or "something out there" or "something greater than ourselves", it makes you a better person.

Thanks, Sally.

I would also like to point out that the words "lord," "god," and "jesus" do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, including the passage prescribing the inaugural oath. I would like my Christian friends to think about why that might be.

The only separation the founders insisted upon was that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Since, according to this amendment to the constitution, federal law cannot prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion, there is nothing "unconstitutional" about the president publicly ask for God's help in carrying out his oath of office. Since it's not part of the constitutionally-required oath (Washington said it at his inaugurations, and all the others, for some strange reason, want to emulate him) if a president chooses not to say "so help me, God", he'd still be the president. By the way, Jefferson did not believe in absolute separation of church and state, by any means.

So what! Tolerance cuts both ways. If a president believes in God and wants to swear by God. Then it is to him to do so.

And so what the Federal shouldn't promote God as an idea because some small segment of America doesn't think it is fair. The majority does! Therefore the collective consciousness of the majority will stand until the majority is changed.

This is a total non-issue. It's just a few words that are harmless to everyone. I'm sorry if you might not like it. But then, perhaps you should cast your vote for non-believers. Oh, there are no non-believers available to run? Well, that's the way a democracy works sometimes.

This is an issue only because too many people think too much about the minutiae of details (isn't that where the devil is?). It ranks up there with whether the Redskins should change their name.

"But it shouldn't be a requirement for the official part of the ceremony and we should think long and hard about what it would be like if we had an atheist president being sworn in on Jan. 20 instead of a Christian."

Sad thing about this is that it IS NOT an official requirement. The "so help me God" is optional.

Sally,

Why would you worry about his voluntary utterance of "so help me God," when he's saying the oath with his hand on the Bible? Can we spend our time on serious issues? If Obama WANTS to add the utterance, and it's not required, what would propose that we do? We already have the litigious atheist asking a Federal Judge to, in effect, enjoin Obama from exercising free speech at the very moment he is swearing to defend the Constitution. What we're talking about here is a man's personal choice, and some traditions that don't bind anybody. The next President is free to dispense with the Bible and to punctuate the required oath however he sees fit. As our current President has shown, Presidents can pretty much do whatever pleases them!

DearSally: Put yourself in Obama's position. The President of the USA should have his freedom of speach, even when he's denying it to others through Foca.

Matthew 5.34 says,

*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*

How can we interpret this verse.

I agree Sally, but unfortunately the religious bigotry of the U.S. public would prevent the election of an atheist for president.

hmaulden "Every 4 years at the inauguration, let's invoke a different god -- Allah, Odin, Great Spirit, etc"

And the guy thinks he's an expert in the New Testament scripture. Mad.

I started to read this piece with some interest, because I believe strongly in a secular government. But about a third of the way through, I lost interest in the topic. I think I finally realized in that defining moment that asking Christians to refrain from promoting the virtues of their particular religious tribe is like expecting a dog to not bark.

The New Testament forbids taking oaths of any kind, particularly by invoking God. NT also says Christians are expected to be members of the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of nations (Cesar). You cannot be both.

Modern, religion-backed US patriotism has rendered moot Jesus' actual teachings. Find a quiet place, read for yourself one of the Gospels carefully, and decide for yourself. Also read history of the first 400 years of Christianity.

Not only can Christians not kill for their country, they, probably should not run for political office. In any country.

Its bad for their country.

Mostly, its bad for Christianity. Witness today's hyper-patriotic, self-righteous, hateful brand of Christianity in America.

You can't serve two masters. Can't be a good member of BOTH kingdoms.

I don't care what you call yourself, you can't be a Christian when you do not follow New Testament teachings.

Finally. I think it is disrespectful of non-Jews/Christians. Here's an idea: Every 4 years at the inauguration, let's invoke a different god -- Allah, Odin, Great Spirit, etc. If we are not going to eliminate god at inauguration, then let's at least take turns.

Sally, dear. All you need to know about God is that no nation lasted for long, without at least one. Like Pascal said, I paraphrase, "You pays your money and makes your choice."

For the record, I don't happen to "believe" in any God, or gods, I've heard of -- so far. Knowing history better than most, I do not want to live in a country that does not have at least one of them. And the government of my country can mention Him, or any of "them," any time it wants. As long as I am not legally bound to believe in any belief. That is our law, and our tradition.

I want the USA to last at least as long as both Roman Empires did. I hope you do, too.

Sally Quinn commenting on faith is like deaf music critic. Isn't muisc just a concept?

Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

The real view of God's/evolution's interactions with the human race:

From Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian in his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (humans) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And Spidermean2 what "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly wingie flying thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter stupidity.

Excellent article, Ms. Quinn.

If an atheist could ever get elected, I'm sure he or she wouldn't have prayers or add the so help me god part. But, don't we have more serious bones to pick with the god squad -- such as when they insist on trying to get dogma nonsense taught in schools along side actual science?

Everyone can invent their own "god" and invoke them at will and I don't see this oath or Rick Warren's prayer as an "establishment of religion." It's just continuation of a superstition shared by a majority of Americans. Let's save our ammo for where it matters.

jprfrog, what you just said is the reason why we need God. Left to himself, man becomes a fool.

I also forgot to mention, that god is a blanket term that can be used by pretty much anyone, and given meaning. What I mean by this is, that the definition of "god" can be interprited in almost any way you want. Atheists in general have a problem with the word god, because its meaning has been dumbed down to be a personal being. Someone who sits on a cloud and watches our every move, judging and casting us to hell or heaven. But the word god can be so much more than that. I personally believe in the "god" of espinoza, the same "god" that Einstein believed in. This "god" is not a person, but instead, the wonders of nature, the laws that govern every day living, and the complexity of everything around us. This "god" can be called whatever you want it to be called, you might as well just call it "life". What I am saying is, god is a word that can have meaning to anyone, even an atheist.

I am an agnostic/atheist, and I believe in the seperation of church and state. However this does not mean that we can seperate the church from the canidate. Meaning that one's faith should not be placed on display constantly for the public, but at the same time, it should not be hidden away. How can you seperate one's religion from his politics, when one's politics are based upon his religion. I would say that the oath "so help me God" is not so much needed to be said for a religious purpose, but more for tradition.

God" and "Goddess" mean different things to different people. We have for example:
the "Yahwehers", the "Zeusers", the "Jehovahers", the “Allahers”, "Mother Naturers", the "Suners", the "Krishna-Vasudevaers", the "Vishnuers", the Hariers, the "Shaktiers", the "Thorers", the "Universers", the "Quetzalcoatlers", the "Tezcatlipocaers", the "Apolloers", the "Marsers", the "Faunaers", the "Caesarers", the "Clintonites" and the "Kennedybridgers of the night".

BO's god is the Immoral Majority!!

Fishcrow:

I can't teach 'all about evolution" in 10 minutes but I can give an intelligible outline of the basic idea in much less. Here goes:

Offspring resemble their parents because biological traits are inherited (they are coded in DNA, which is transmitted from parent(s) to offspring).
But small changes in DNA (mutations due to errors in copying, or induced by radiation, like xrays or cosmic rays for example) translate to small changes in offspring, and these changes too are inherited. External conditions change --- climate, topography, other living things. Those individuals whose inherited variations favor their reproductive success (i. e. how often they have healthy descendants who also reproduce) under these changing conditions spread their advantageous characteristics through a population, and those who do not tend to die out (95% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct). Given time (we have about 3 billion years to play with, and some bacteria that reproduce by fission every 20 minutes --- those superbugs that resist antibiotics are the ones whose mutations enabled them to survive and thrive when all their susceptible relatives were killed off) and geographical separation (dispersal on islands, new mountain or water barriers, etc.) to prevent recombination back into the general population diluting the changes, those accumulated changes eventually give rise to new species.

This process by which some traits are passed on and others are erased is called natural selection. It is precisely how dog and horse breeders work, except here the selection is truly natural, provided by the drive to reproduce which is universal among all living things.

End of story. There are many, many details to consider, and questions remain about which there is disagreement (healthy science thrives on disagreement and evidence-based argument), but the evidence (fossil, chemical, biological) gathered over 150 years places the process of evolution by natural selection as one of the strongest pillars of science. Without it modern biology would be impossible --- so (I can't resist a bit of snark here) I wish that every literal Bible-pounder would think about that whenever they swallow a pill or get a flu shot.

Sally,

"What if Obama had invited a Muslim cleric to give the invocation? Or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a humanist? What if he said "so help me Allah, or Yahweh, or Shiva, or Buddha or Zeus?"

I would be fine with a faithful Moslem President Elect swearing by Allah, or clearly meaning Allah by "God". Likewise the other religions. The person who is taking the oath should be able to swear by anything they believe to be holy, or by nothing at all. Just as I am fine with Obama saying the very traditional "So help me God."

Do you have a problem with that?

bobbyvalenz said, "Don't you know that we(excluding you of course)the believers are in the minority now?"

I'd like to see you back that up. Christians are the majority in this country. Now, since each sect believes that only they are the "true Christians" then possibly your particular sect is a minority. But in the sense of identifying oneself as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Other, Atheist/Agnostic; those calling themselves Christian are by far, the majority.

Ask yourself this quesion: How many self-proclaimed Christians hold federal offices? How many non-Christians do? How many Christians hold any kind of public office? How many non-christians do?

Oh yes, it's so "Christian" of you to tell people to go to hello for non-belief.

Excellent points Sally. I agree, I don't want to pledge allegiance under God. I'm perfectly content with pledging my allegiance to America.

Gamiller1 stated: "As you exercise your first amendment rignts here, it is interesting that you want to impose your own personal ban on the president elect's choice to do the same. How is that fair, equitable and not hypocritical?"

It is fair because Obama is being sworn into a public office of the US government. This is not a private matter but an official government act. Christians cry out about the secularization of this country and Bamiller1 rightly points out that the Puritans left Europe for, among other things, religious freedom. But you leave out the ending. In coming to America they in turn persecuted other beliefs as vigorously as they were persecuted. That's why there needs to be strict separation of church and state.

And the trend in this country has been increasing influence of religion and not increasing secularization. That's why we no long pledge allegiance to just the United States but do so "under God". That's why our coins are not trustworthy enough but need to have God's trust added.

To Fishcrow, why do you think Ms. Quinn asked people for the short version of God? When she said "Over the past two years I have interviewed many theologians, religion scholars and thinkers.", why do you claim she didn't spend time trying to understand? It sounds like your jumping to conclusions without a basis for doing so.

I share similar experiences having talked with people about their views of God for hours, sometimes weeks on end. No one seems to have a handle on what this being is? So here's your chance to clear it up. What is God?

And Sparrowhawk is absolutely correct. When Christians are challenged about their beliefs based on science, evidence and reason, that somehow translates in their minds into persecution. Enforcement of separation of church and state is viewed as religious persecution; no matter how minimal that enforcement is.

Before the eisenhower years, more specifically before the red-bating joseph mccarthy years, we didn't have all these god problems. Adding "under god" to the pledge of allegiance was done during those times, a sop to the believers who feared communists.

The christians weren't screaming about the under god crap before then. Now that they have it, they seem to think it was always there, that in fact the founding fathers put it there.

Amazing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance didn't even exist until 1892. The "under god" business wasn't put in it until 1954.

But give the believers an inch, they'll take a mile, and assume they've always had that mile.

This is why so many of us resist it. The ignorance of the believers in this matter is profound.

How about contempt to believers? I thought there are laws that protect the rights of the minorities Ms. Quinn? Don't you know that we(excluding you of course)the believers are in the minority now? I am of course referring to the real believers? Why should Mr. Obama be denied his rights as a believer. Maybe in the future you will have a non- believer president then he can choose not to pray. Then all of you can go to h____?

fishcrow:
Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children.
Period.

I'd also like to ad that I do not believe this whole inauguration thing is a serious separation issue. As long as it is not mandatory or legislated by the state, I don't see it as a violation. If the president-elect chooses to invite ministers as personal guests to his inauguration and have them speak, and if he chooses to utter "so help me god" at the end of his oath, that is his business. I would only consider it a serious church and state issue if ALL candidates were REQUIRED to observe this religious language. While I am an atheist, it doesn't offend me or make me uncomfortable to know that Obama is a Christian and wishes to include that in his ceremony. Sure, on a personal level I kind of wish he would leave it out, because I do believe that it is unneccessary and too much of a public "show", but I don't see it as a crucial issue. We have to pick our battles and this isn't a fight worth fighting right now.

gamiller1,

The separation of church and state is not designed just to protect the church from the state, though it does accomplish that. The separation of church and state is important because it is a principle that maximizes freedom for all citizens. By prohibiting the government from endorsing ANY religion (not just yours), we avoid marginalizing all the citizens who don't happen to be a member of which ever sect the government might endorse. Your idea that it is really there to protect the church and your comment that "religion has to defend itself from government", is indicative that you're suffering from this strange persecution complex that a lot of Christians seem to suffer from nowadays. Just because some of us don't want the Ten Commandments on Courthouse lawns, or don't want religious ideas taught in public science classes, or don't want religious slogans on our currency, that does NOT mean we are attacking "religion". If anything, the people who are pushing for these changes probably value freedom of religion even more than you. The actual situation is that religious forces in this country have gotten away with too much, and are feeling the backlash now. It's not an attack on you, it's just a return to normalcy, a push for government neutrality with regard to religion, which as I've already said is something that will protect EVERYONE, even you. Take the example of prayer being "taken out" of schools. People like you are constantly trying to paint this as some kind of attack on their faith, when in reality it's nothing of the sort. It is in no way illegal for a student to pray in school, or even form a religious student group. the only way in which prayer has been "taken out" is by prohibiting "official" prayer in school, so that any children who aren't members of the predominant religion aren't marginalized. No one is prohibiting you from exercising your religion, no one is prohibiting you from holding any kind of religious belief, no one wants to force your church to marry gay people and no one wants to force your kids to be atheists.

Sally, you sound like the kid in Sunday school who doesn't quite know how to think about God yet. This is the problem with most agnostics. The last time they learned about God was when they were nine years old. As a result they have a nine-year-old's understanding of God. Aquinas would probably cause a meltdown in your brain. Stop demanding that people give you a one-line answer, or provide you with a workable definition of God in a simple interview. You would laugh at someone who asked a scientist "teach me all about evolution in ten minutes." Someone who wants a quick explanation of God is just as laughable. Eschew the sound bite mentality of the internet age and begin some study. And that means more than a few weeks.

One of the most rational, intelligent columns I have read on this website in a long time. Thank you Sally Quinn

Ms. Quinn,

Agreeing with you or not is not the point. The point is that the Constution calls for separation of church and state, BUT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. As you exercise your first amendment rignts here, it is interesting that you want to impose your own personal ban on the president elect's choice to do the same. How is that fair, equitable and not hypocritical?

Now we live in an age when religion has to defend itself from government, which was never intended to be the case. Think back to why the Puritans came over here - religious persecution. Even a revisionist history cannot deny that. Please try to keep your censorship fair and equitable.

Thank you so much for a completely rational explanation of why we shouldn't have any religious observance at government events. As an atheist I am very uncomfortable when church and state are on the same platform....or when someone even says "God bless". Let's get rid of that language and get on with saving this country and maybe the world, with truth, understanding and tolerance.