God and the Oath of Office

Did Washington swear to God? That legend may be as apocryphal as the one about the cherry tree.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 10, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jan 19, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: danny73 @ 03/24/2009 12:29:54 AM

    Anerica is known to be the centre of christian faith world over, probably americans may not be aware of it, all non believers its time to start repenting, ask for forgiveness from the allmighty lord the saviour since the destiny of america is linked to its faith, the closer you be to God & the louder you proclaim your faith the stronger & secure you will be, so lets all say "God Bless America"

  • Posted By: starbuck75 @ 01/23/2009 2:00:15 PM

    Atheists are the ultimate blind hypocrites. Don't let their self serving demands fool you. They run around wanting to remove religion from everything, not realizing that removing religion from the world only results in forcing the world to follow their religion = atheism. The words "separaton of church and state" are no where in the constitution, that is only secular dogma. People should be able to express their religion, hindu, christian, jewish, muslim... yes even in state/federal capacity. When we restrict religion we promote atheism, so if you want to get technical, promoting the absence of religion promotes the church of atheism and that is not "separate" either. Atheists, if you want to be heard, pick a holiday and we'll remove every decoration from our offices/buildings and celebrate a day of nothingness just for you. That is equality. But stop trying to suppess the religions of the world or warp us into following your path of hopelessness.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/23/2009 5:03:23 PM

      "They run around wanting to remove religion from everything, not realizing that removing religion from the world only results in forcing the world to follow their religion = atheism."

      Nice theory but false. With the exception of two, every atheist I have ever met (and I have met hundreds) have no problem with people believing in god or having religion. They do not have a problem with people having religion in their private lives.

      And atheism is NOT a religion because it has no central hierachy or set of views. IThere is only one thing that all atheists have in common. We do not believe in god. That is it.


      "When we restrict religion we promote atheism"
      That is wrong.

      "The words "separaton of church and state" are no where in the constitution"

      The words are not the concept is.

      "that is only secular dogma. "
      False but given that we have a SECULAR government it would be appropriate.

      "stop trying to suppess the religions of the world or warp us into following your path of hopelessness. "

      Given that we are not trying to supress religion (and that atheism is not at "path of hopelessness") your statement is invalid

      • Posted By: WTL=JC @ 03/01/2009 4:12:01 PM

        quote( there is only one thing that all athiest have in common. we do not believe in god . that is it.) ok but if you truly dont believe in god then why do you keep agknowledging him?? shouldnt you be saying something like we do not believe in a god. the way you are saying it you keep contridicting yourself. lol . i think its funny. sorry

    • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/23/2009 2:28:26 PM

      Atheists don't have a religion. Atheists have nothing more in common with each other than they do with anyone else except non-belief. For example, I am an atheist who is pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti-murder, anti-bank robbery, and anti-jaywalking among other things..I'm sure you get my point. . I am a fairly liberal Democrat. There are atheists posting on this board who are Republicans.

  • Posted By: m.t.bear @ 02/25/2009 12:52:21 PM

    "E. Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, One) is a most appropriate motto for our polymathic society. In contrast, "One Nation Under God" is divisive. Whose god? Well, mine, of course. Who else could it be?

    From the Civil War to the Cold War, we have been asking for a 'national laying on of hands' by a divinity to be named later. Trouble is, some folks think they are the 'One' who should do the naming for the 'Many'. Sort of "E. Pluribus ME!"

    m.t.bear, who adds
    "In MY God We Trust- all others to the back of the pews."

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/21/2009 11:08:37 PM


    Report Abuse Reply Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/21/2009 8:48:11 PM"attacks on atheists where in his post he just saying what the bible says."
    Exaclty where in teh bible are the EXACT words "Atheists can go to hell".
    yea i posted two part of the bible that tell of them going to hell. So yea they do go to hell if you need more areas to prov it i can post more if yopu what i can even scan my bible to show it right in there

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/22/2009 9:13:01 AM

      Where are the EXACT WORDS "Atheists can go to hell"? It does not matter taht one can read the bible an come o to the conclusion that that man-made text implies it. I said that that the exact words are a verbal attack. And I have every right to respond to a verbal attack. You may not like it, but as you have shown, you feel that ONLY YOUR views should be allowed on web sites. And you have no authority to enforce your desires. I have never made such a claim. I am a loyal American and Lover of the US Constitution. I am not sure what you are.

      • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/02/2009 11:22:37 AM

        He is a person who needs to go back to school and learn how to spell.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 3:09:53 PM

    My little brother was killed by a bully like you.
    What happen his pc blow up? your brother got what he got not due to anyone but himself. maybe you sould of been there for him. yea i know its a low blow but thats what i am knowen for online.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 3:05:02 PM

    The he I was talking about was Constitution Lover not theologyprof. On 01/28/09 YOU wrote:yea thats why this is the first day out of 3 days
    What the hell you trying to say? that post was also to theologyprof not Constitution Lover. learn to read num nuts

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 3:02:47 PM

    Also danthemaninnyc do you even know what a bully is? I know you don't do to your sad reply. I am by no means bully anyone. I am just telling them I don't care for there input. But you really need to learn how to read. did i start it "No" but i will end it. I posted a reply on here first then Constitution Lover jumped in my comment. Did i say anything about him nope. but he did say say samething to me. Whos the bully he was look at every reply he has made. he was not just bully me he was doing it to others. So STFU already people

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 2:53:14 PM

    And before you ask me why I stuck my nose in it. It is because I do not like bullies and you are a bully. You are the main one here who attacks people when they do something that you do not like. Threatening them and telling tall tales about how website are afraid of you and how yo cna attack the computers of people you do nt like. My little brother was killed by a bully like you. I swore on his grave not to let other bullies rest. Since I just came to this site and you are the only bully left, I wrote to you. I may not be as smart as Constitution Lover or theologyprof but I am smart enough to know a bully when I see one. And smart enough to know someone who does not know English or grammar when I see one. Now I am going to ignore you too. Write all the trash you want. You have been exposed as the uneducated child you are.

    Yea who been exposed as a uneducated child not me but you. also Ignore me all you like maybe now i don't got to reply to some 10 year old brat. I show prof in what i say no one else on here has

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 2:50:20 PM

    Call me a bully all you like prof the site is mine is easy to prov num nuts i uploaded a pic on it and i can also post your a *** *** on it. So i just showed prof read my latest news num nuts

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 1:09:55 PM

    Also theologyprof said that he is an Methodist minister.

    That means that he is a man of God and Our Lord Jesus Christ.
    yea anyone can say what they what on here. It does not make it so.also if he was not talking to me why he use my name? grow the *** up.alos my site is in no way a gamers site. its a progreaming site. i don't make just games i make all kinds of hardware also. As for you calling me 12 yea thats why my site been around since 1990 also thats not my only site. its my first buit not even the newest. its a retired site been retired since 2007.

    • Posted By: danthemaninnyc @ 01/29/2009 2:37:56 PM

      "yea anyone can say what they what on here. It does not make it so."


      That can be said for you too. You can claim to be this high and mighty computer expert, but just because you use the name of some website does not mean that it is so. It does not mean that that site is yours. You could just be a 12 year old wannbe. You sure write like one.

      "also if he was not talking to me why he use my name?"
      "I don't care one *** if people stop bring me up i will stop replying."


      The he I was talking about was Constitution Lover not theologyprof. On 01/28/09 YOU wrote:yea thats why this is the first day out of 3 days i did not post back that he has keeped going. HAHAHA your so big of a fool. so in other words read the post dates moron.: Since you were responding to theologyprof saying the Constitution Lover was ignoring you you were talking about Consttution Lover. And Constitution Lover had not mentioned you or written to you since 01/22/09. All of his posts were words to the poster that he replied to. So your words that he has keep going was not about you. He was writing to other people not you. I think that theologyprof is right. Constitution Lover is ignoring you. Since he has not brought you up for 7 days, you are the one who is acting like a little boy.

      And before you ask me why I stuck my nose in it. It is because I do not like bullies and you are a bully. You are the main one here who attacks people when they do something that you do not like. Threatening them and telling tall tales about how website are afraid of you and how yo cna attack the computers of people you do nt like. My little brother was killed by a bully like you. I swore on his grave not to let other bullies rest. Since I just came to this site and you are the only bully left, I wrote to you. I may not be as smart as Constitution Lover or theologyprof but I am smart enough to know a bully when I see one. And smart enough to know someone who does not know English or grammar when I see one. Now I am going to ignore you too. Write all the trash you want. You have been exposed as the uneducated child you are.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 1:14:37 PM

    So lets see my site some how is 17 years old. but you think i am 12 years old. No i don't care less for grammer i do know how to do it but i don't. then the way you replyed danthemaninnyc you act like a 10 year old. I don't care one *** if people stop bring me up i will stop replying.. but till then learn something and show prof.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/28/2009 11:44:55 PM

    Lastly, from what I have seen, he is now ignoring you. Which also points out his superior intellect and maturity.
    yea thats why this is the first day out of 3 days i did not post back that he has keeped going. HAHAHA your so big of a fool. so in other words read the post dates moron.

    • Posted By: danthemaninnyc @ 01/29/2009 10:26:03 AM

      >yea thats why this is the first day out of 3 days i did not post back that he has keeped going. HAHAHA your so big of a fool. so in other words read the post dates moron.


      You're the moron, fool.

      If you'd bother to read the last post post he put up you'd see that he was not talking to you.

      He was talking to that bojack guy.

      The last time he talked to your sorry self was on 1-22 which is 7 days ago.

      He is ignoring you.

      Also theologyprof said that he is an Methodist minister.

      That means that he is a man of God and Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      I only have a high school education and work two jobs to provide for my wife and kids but I write better than you. Where did you get your masters? Joe's online degree store and body shop? A free degree with every oil change? HAHAHA.

      I read your lightning-z site. It is a gamers site. That must make you a 12 year old. It sure is the way you write.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/29/2009 12:31:01 AM

    Oh i for got a coment of yous
    "To give my background. I am a 60 year old who has been a Methodist minister for the past 15 years and a theology professor for the past 7. I have a JD (law degree) and a PhD in History with a speciality in Constitutional Law, as well as a PhD in Theology in addition to my ordination. That means that I am a firm believer in God. "

    I hate to say having all them things don't make you a firm belier in anything. for god is the father to get to the father you must go thouth the son. anyone can say they believer in god. but knowing is better i know theres a god and thouth his sons blood all will be forgaven

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/28/2009 11:42:02 PM

    theologyprof i don't give a *** what you say you or it has no prove i can say i am a doctor it don't make it so. he made no point and still you made none. I showed him links to prov him wrong. He showed me nothing. Also Since your methodist i really care far less what you have to say. so you say you have a phd in theology i have a masters so what. I am also one of the lead progreamers in the most advance theology that would have Microsoft and apple running. YOu a no body in this feild don't show nothing as prof for your statement. Half the over 99% of the usa have the wrong idea what the book says. Even now you have sinned in the eyes of god. The bible means what it says how it says it. I don't give 2 shits how when you where a minister you miss lead hundeds of people. althouth i master in the tech feild has no sway how i May sound to you you and your false ways. you can be 600 years old age an't everything. as for your reply

    "no he is not. He is putting forth an alternative viewpoint, unfortunately in a very intelligent and well thought out way. But at no time can any intelligent person think that he is trying to ???make people beleave [sic] the same as??? himself. He has shown a lot more respect for religious belief than most atheists, and has repeated said that he has no problem with people believing in God if it inspires them to do good. "

    NO one asked for a alternative viewpoint I know for a fact what i know. I know him and billions of others will go to hell. May no be foreever unless they still say theres no god or repent for there sins. Also as for your 2nd comment

    That is an inane comment. The idea that ONLY is one believes in God should one be allowed to comment on religious issues is wrong. The reality is that atheists ARE very much affected by religion in the US. It is a topic that is very relevant to them and they not only can but should be involved in the discussion. He, and others,hjave explained this several times but you seem unable to understand it. That is yor problem not theirs.

    As the book says atheists or fools i don't mind them reading or replying unless they they talk *** to people like he did atheists do go to hell. Maybe not in the methodist area but they or fools also along with any other mass. Church that you read in the bible is inside of everyone no a building or place. For you even proved to be usless like him. I bet you two or even one in the same. Due to both your layouts in text is the same. so pick one or the other you beleave or not. I know far to much more then i what to know. The end is so near its not even funny.

  • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/28/2009 5:54:12 PM

    Constitution Lover just shut the *** up already. you or not making a point you or trying to make people beleave the same as yourself. Get a hold of yourself and move on to other areas besides religion due to you don't beleave in god. Why do you even reply i know. your trying to force your beleafs. bull *** it you say you an't. Why else would you keep posting your crap. I don't know if you can understand anything but you lost this fight last week. Now STFU and go play else where. maybe with the stuff toy due to it not real and you can get it to not beleave sooner then on here. or you can be knowen all over the net as a nazi or something.

    • Posted By: theologyprof @ 01/28/2009 10:05:03 PM

      lightningz,

      I just finished reading through this thread and although I was not going to post a response to anyone, your post requires a response, but only one response (broken into a few parts. )

      To give my background. I am a 60 year old who has been a Methodist minister for the past 15 years and a theology professor for the past 7. I have a JD (law degree) and a PhD in History with a speciality in Constitutional Law, as well as a PhD in Theology in addition to my ordination. That means that I am a firm believer in God.

      You posted:
      ???you or not making a point you or trying to make people beleave the same as yourself.???
      No he is not. He is putting forth an alternative viewpoint, unfortunately in a very intelligent and well thought out way. But at no time can any intelligent person think that he is trying to ???make people beleave [sic] the same as??? himself. He has shown a lot more respect for religious belief than most atheists, and has repeated said that he has no problem with people believing in God if it inspires them to do good.
      ???move on to other areas besides religion due to you don't beleave in god. Why do you even reply i know. your trying to force your beleafs. bull *** it you say you an't. Why else would you keep posting your crap.???
      That is an inane comment. The idea that ONLY is one believes in God should one be allowed to comment on religious issues is wrong. The reality is that atheists ARE very much affected by religion in the US. It is a topic that is very relevant to them and they not only can but should be involved in the discussion. He, and others,hjave explained this several times but you seem unable to understand it. That is yor problem not theirs.
      ???I don't know if you can understand anything but you lost this fight last week.???
      No he did not lose the fight last week. Just because Chief Justice Roberts prompted President Obama to say ???So Help Me God??? and President Obama said those words does not mean that the issue has been resolved in the long term. As Constitution Lover has so cogently pointed out, the issue is NOT Obama???s saying the words (which he and others have correctly pointed out are NOT part of the oath) but whether the Chief Justice should say prompt them. Having far more expertise in the US Constitution than you obviously do, I can see the possible validity in that argument. If done correctly, such a case (to prohibit the person who administers the oath from prompting those words) could win.

    • Posted By: theologyprof @ 01/28/2009 10:04:47 PM

      Part 2

      As for the second part of his argument, that might be another story. But he is correct that that issue has not gone away.


      ???Now STFU and go play else where. maybe with the stuff toy due to it not real and you can get it to not beleave sooner then on here. or you can be knowen all over the net as a nazi or something.???
      You are the one who seems to need a toy to play with given the childishness of your posts. He is far more the adult and intelligent poster. You (and I) may not agree with his religious beliefs, but in your online joust, he won every single bout, mostly because his posts were more intelligent, coherent and cohesive.


      Lastly, from what I have seen, he is now ignoring you. Which also points out his superior intellect and maturity.

      Now you can focus your rage and tantrums at me. I will not respond, as you are not worth further effort.

  • Posted By: rsmith63 @ 01/23/2009 7:38:39 PM

    It is your right to not believe in GOD. It is not your right to force others to not believe in GOD. This Nation was formed from Christian beliefs which dates back to before Columbus. This Nation is a Christian Nation and has been from its earilest beginnings. I would recommend that you "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States". This nation is a free nation which allows you to believe in whatever you want to believe in. If prayer is said in school and you don't like it, that's ok. Just sit there and shut up and let others pray in silence for a minute if they want to.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/23/2009 8:30:21 PM

      "It is not your right to force others to not believe in GOD."

      No one is trying to force others to not to believe. Anyone who says that they are is lying. In fact I would argue that no one trying to convince others not to believe. Having open-minded conversations about why people have decided what path that that have decided to follow in no way is trying to force or even convince others not to believe. Now if sameone, after that type of conversation decides to change ther own beliefs that is their right and does not in any way shape or form mean that they were forced to do so or that the person who they were having the conversation with was intending for them to do so.

      The issue with this lawsuit is not in any way about denying people the right to believe. It is making sure that at a publicly open government sponsored event (which the inauguration is probably the most wide-ranging example of) that the Establishment Clause is not violated. And until the US Supreme Court rules one way or the other about these specific issues (whether it is appropriate for whoever is administering the oath to be promtping something, religious, that is not part of the oath, and whether it is appropriate for public prayers to be said at such an event) no one can claim that their viewpoint is absolutely correct. As I have said, IF and WHEN the US Supreme Court rules (since that body is the ONLY one that can make the final decision) that both things are not violations I will accept it.

      "This Nation was formed from Christian beliefs which dates back to before Columbus. This Nation is a Christian Nation and has been from its earilest beginnings. "

      That is not true. Several of the founding fathers did not believe in Christianity (and others, such as Washington, specifically stated that the US was NOT aChristian nation) They may have believed in a god but not in the Christian religion.

      "I would recommend that you "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States".

      I have heard of that book (written in 1864) by someone who had a very specific agenda to put forward. Outside of the Conservative Christian world is is not considered very accurate.

      "If prayer is said in school and you don't like it, that's ok. Just sit there and shut up and let others pray in silence for a minute if they want to."

      No one argues with the right to silent prayer or more specifically to a monemt of silence that can be used for whatever purpose a student chooses to use it for, whether it be prayer, reading notes, or gather9ing one's thoughts before the start of classes. It is the forced prayer that the US Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutoinal that we object to. To say otherwise is a lie.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/27/2009 2:34:35 PM

        LOL...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was a Christian Nation and every state constitution acknowledges God in their constitution for their existence.....

        So easy for you to disregard a book by saying someone has a Agenda but don't point out what this Agenda is....maybe telling the truth or reading about it is not your "Cup of Tea".....to each its own......

        • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/27/2009 9:58:09 PM

          "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was a Christian Nation and every state constitution acknowledges God in their constitution for their existence....."

          I assume that you are referring to the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). There are many Christians who claim that that cases affirms that the US is a "Christian Nation". But a careful reading of the opinion in that case do not suppoort said claim. The various refernces to the various charters and State Consitutions were NOT made to affirm that the COUNTRY as a governmetnal or legal entity is Christian but to acknowledge that religion is important to the citizenry of the country and that in many cultural ways it is a Christian nation (that being the case because it has a majority Christain population) . Also that the law in question (to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia) was not to apply to relgious entities becasue to do so would prevent qualified clerics from overseas from being brought in as clerics for US religious instiutiuons. Note that at the end of the opinion a Jewish Rabbi was mentioned as one type of cleric that would be allowed. The point of the case was NOT to be taken that the Country is a Christain nation, but that the the idea of religious freedom requires that no law prevent qualified foriegn clerics from being allowed entry to the US to work for houses of worship. That since some religions still did not have many seminaries in the US, that clerics trained in foreign seminaries had to be allowed to work in the US. Also note that in a book he wrote in 1905, Justice Brewer, who wroite the opinion, pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

          In 1985 Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling set forth a more accurate idea of the relaitonship between religion and government. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Therefore is can be staed that the Court has NOT affirmed that this is a Christian nation.





  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/23/2009 8:14:21 PM

    Nobody has suggested forcing anyone not to believe in god. How can anyone force anyone else to believe antything? The idea is ridiculous.

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/21/2009 8:33:54 PM

    If we were to ignore lightningz, do you suppose he would go away so the rest of us could have a civilized, intelligent discussion? Otherwise, Newsweek needs to shut this down.

    • Posted By: lightningz @ 01/21/2009 9:49:16 PM

      What youir or a bug that don't go away no i will not leave due to i don't care if you say something about me or not. i will post again. ask alot of private sites that tryed to stop me. i been baned from over 30,000 sites but i still post on them due to i don't give up. i do how ever get my user base to flood that site same will happen to newsweek if they try to ban or block me. ITs called i got power maybe not in your eyes. but as for them sites they no longer ban me. ddos attacks make any website owner stop and think is it worth it. i will always be around might not be on this site but i do own my own sites that i can flood all day long and talk *** and if i ever see you on one i will have the site ddos attack your computer also. yea e-mail me at webmaster@lightning-z.com and see what happens to your computers. start a flame war in my index box i will not even have to reply for the ddos to begain. hell come to any of my sites they all have admins that will be on hold to attack you pc. is it legal yep do to a disclamer on my site. saying if you talk *** to the admin you or giving them the ok to kill your pc in anyway they see fit. now your say i block my users rights to free speach nope its a private network that been around since 1994. the servers not in the usa and where its at its legal. kind of like what the gov uses but for other crap

      • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/22/2009 8:14:28 AM

        Is English your first language?

        • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 01/23/2009 3:01:00 PM

          I have read his postings over and over, trying to get an understanding of his rants. I wonder if he was homeschooled by parents to cared more about spreading religious fanatism than proper use of the English language.

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/23/2009 12:15:52 PM

    I didn't see the first oath. Watching the second, I was amazed and appalled that the Chief Justice added the words "so help me god" for Obama to repeat as though they ARE part of the oath. This was clearly out of line. If Obama had wanted to add the words, that would have been fine. I am an atheist, but I love ritual and have respect for traditions (so long as they're harmless). I could see myself adding the words if I were President. To repeat myself: Henry IV of France agreed to convert to Catholicism to gain the throne saying "Paris is well worth a Mass." Well the While House is well worth this sop to the religious right.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/23/2009 1:18:29 PM

      Your point about the Chief Justice prompting the words is on point.

      "I am an atheist, but I love ritual and have respect for traditions (so long as they're harmless). I could see myself adding the words if I were President."

      As is your right. If I were elected President I would not say them as they are not part of the oath, and my saying them would be a lie and I do not thik that it is appropriate for a President to start his/her term with a lie, let alone an internationally televised lie.

      " To repeat myself: Henry IV of France agreed to convert to Catholicism to gain the throne saying "Paris is well worth a Mass." Well the While House is well worth this sop to the religious right."

      I disagree. IF it is just to placate a group of people who have shown what I view as nothing but contempt for the US Constituttion then it is wrong. If it being done as a nod to tradtition then it could be justified. As long as it was your CHOICE and your were not prompted to do so.

      • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 01/23/2009 2:37:43 PM

        That's why I can see myself doing it--a nod to tradition. Much along the lines of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I still live in this culture. I revere the King James Version of the Bible for its literaray value. As an English major, a working knowledge of the Bible is essential in the study of poetry, Shakespeare, you name it. Besides I think that religion (at its best) is nothing more or less than man taking his finest instincts and attributing them to a god. The fact is that men wrote the bible, men came up with the ten commandments, men decdied what is right and wrong. And it is their right and duty to do so. Put more than three people together and what happens? They form a government. We are social creatures. I just wish we could admit to ourselves that WE are the authority because we ARE. We don't have to apologize for our consciences or pretend that what we consider right comes from anywhere but ourselves.

  • Posted By: ttlms @ 01/23/2009 11:04:03 AM

    This is one instance in which it is preferable to avoid the nontextual phrase "separation of church and state" and, instead, distinguish the two clauses of the First Amendment that, together, comprise its religious freedom guarantees. Both the constitutional text of the oath and the religious test clause of the Sixth Article make clear that the phrase "so help me God" is not required to be uttered by the President; thus, there is no mandatory act to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. President Obama wanted to say "So help me God" at the end of the oath. To PREVENT him from doing so would have violated the Exercise Clause. The remaining question is whether the President's utterance of "So help me God" would violate the Establishment Clause. Under the Lemon test, however, it is not even clear that President Obama's words constitute a governmental action, much less one having the primary act of advancing religion, rather than a personal prayer for guidance and strength.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse