God and the Oath of Office

I respectfully support anyone's belief in a PEACEFUL religion if it makes them happy. My Parents & Grandparents are Christians, believe in God and go to Church and apperantly brings them much peace and contentment (or they wouldn't be going). I could not be more respectful of their beliefs and wouldn't take that away from them for anything.
That said, whether there is a God or not, we simply cannot know. As for me, I've never seen any supporting evidence, much less proof, that points toward the existence of any kind. So, it makes absoutely no sense to me to argue, fight and especially kill one another over religion. So, much of this back and forth bantering I just don't get.
I don't care what Pres. Obama says about a God when he takes office, or who or what he prays to or on or whatever. I probably wouldn't agree with him about that but, that is the last thing in the world we need to be wasting time and effort on in the courts. All I care about, and all that matters is, how much he and his party is going to tax the blood out of us and whether or not he takes away our individual firearm rights.
I completely believe in the separation of Church and State as much if not more than anyone but, legal action against a prayer at a government ceremony is a huge waste of time and money. There are such bigger issues fish to fry right now

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Religion is a personal belief. A leader like Obama REPRESENTS the people of this nation and not everyone believes. He needs to remain unbiased on this issue when doing his job. There is a reason the separation of church and state was implemented. It can be a dangerous situation otherwise. Look at all the countries that are in constant turmoil due to the fact their religion drives their policies.

I find it humorously hypocritical that the folks (Ms. Miller) who say we should just pray in private are the same ones that bristle up when it is suggested a homosexual should be gay in private. Both are choices, both are actions. The only difference is there is no Christian Gestapo that will boycott Newsweek and no willing media that will make a national issue out of it.

Mr. Newdow is the same guy that tried to get the Pledge of allegance modified because it mentioned God. He tried to justify it by claiming it was prostelitizing his daughter, whom he didn't have custody of. When the girls mother was asked about her issues with the pledge she said she had none. So the court threw out Newdows case. Now he is making another attempt. What is great about this country is that one man can have a voice and attempt to push his desires on the rest of us. Which is also not so great.

Perhaps Mr. Newdow should spend more time figuring out how to get laid instead of cleansing the world of references to God. He really has too much time on his hands - no pun intended :)

avoid praying because religious extremists in other countries do bad things? stalin was not a believer and killed tens of millions -- so avoid athiests (or russians)? some extremist parents in other countries abuse their children - so avoid families? some extremist authors in other countries write bad books - avoid books? are the the logic police at newsweek on vacation?

Too bad he didn't tell you about how to use the spellchecker, Facilitator.

I'm not that concerned about the "so help me god" bit, as it's more of a personal utterance. I'd be more concerned if it was mandatory, like Congress' oath, although I'm sure there, like citizenship and military oaths, it's optional too (only nobody tries to tell the people that it's option before swearing). The prayers though, those are troubling because they're inherently divisive. Water them down so it's all generic "god", and fundamentalists of all persuasions get upset. Don't water it down, and the non-Christians get upset. Do any prayer, and atheists, agnostics, and anyone else who cares about the separation of church and state get upset. It just seems at odds with a campaign of change and unity to start off your term with such polarizing divisiveness. I agree with mksh that "he is going to need all the help he can get to lead us out of the messes that we currently are in", so why start off causing another mess?

Separation of Church and State does not mean there should be a separation of State and God. Freedom of religion doesn't mean we should be free of religion, in fact, that idea promotes the embracing of religion and the value it provides to the American family. Mark Price, Sibley, MO

I'm going to let you in on a little secret-- "separation of church and state" is something I appeal to at times to make it look like there is some legitimate legal precedent for excising religion from our culture. In reality, this probably doesn't exist, but I don't care because the ends totally justify the means :)

All this mindless bantering about whether our new president elect should be able to say "so help me god"...like it makes any difference. It is so blatanly obvious there is no god. I've never met an honest and intelligent believer, casue if he/she was honest and intelligent, he/she would not be a believer. Humans have an undeniable capacity to believe in things that just ain't so. Either humans will finally shed their religious skin, or it will eventually kill us all.

I always find it amusing when the Left, which generally is all for tossing 18th and 19th century precedent onto the rubbish heap of history, suddenly adopts it with full force.

Separation of church and state is a myth. It does not exist in the Constitution. Careful review of the First Amendment shows the Amendment outlined the guidelines to prevent the GOVERNMENT from intruding on important aspects of personal and public life- not the other way around.

The First Amendment is about the government not passing a law that dictates how a specific religioun is created or expressed.

Don't take my word for it- go back and read it for yourself!

Separation of church and state is a myth. It does not exist in the Constitution. Careful review of the First Amendment shows the Amendment outlined the guidelines to prevent the GOVERNMENT from intruding on important aspects of personal and public life- not the other way around.

The First Amendment is about the government not passing a law that dictates how a specific religioun is created or expressed.

Don't take my word for it- go back and read it for yourself!

No such thing in our laws as "speration of church & state"... read the 1st amendment. It is his right to pray in public if he wishes, just as it is his right not to. To not do so if he wishes would be a violation of his rights.

How about we let the President select what he wants to do at his party. This is not a violation of the separation of church and state. He is not making policy here. He is not requiring anyone to pray with him. After all the inauguration event is not an official exercise. According to the constitution he could do this all behind closed doors with a few witnesses. The constitution states the presisent-elect must only state, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So everything else is just his party. So let him have it!
I dont know about you but I was taught that the best way to teach is by example, not by keeping quit. The best example we can give extremist and the world is to have these multiple prayers without any violence or disturbance.

A president should be free to say whatever he wants to during the inauguration. It would be nice; however, if we could progress far enough as a country to the point where there wasn???t an expectation by the vast majority that a new president hold or pay lip service to their insipid delusions.

Gretal said "Are there fundamentalist Christians abroad who are promoting terrorism toward this country?"
Um, Yes. Ever heard of the KKK? Granted, that's home grown, but there are plenty of "Fundementalist Christian" groups promoting terrorism, stockpiling weapons, and promoting hate against others.

We have always been a nation that worked against any kind of religion having the power to take away our rights. Before the Mormons were pushed out of Ohio, Missouri, then Illinois, there were riots against Catholics in Pliladelphia. We tend to want quiet religion - everyone can believe what they want to believe, so long as they dont tell me what to believe. Sounds a lot like our other big topics, like gay marriage or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

No there aren't fundamentailist Christians abroad promoting terrorism. They're all right here at home blowing up buildings in Oklahoma and doctor's offices nationwide, killing many innocent people in the process. Why is it that Christiian fundamentalists feel they are only bound by certain portions of the Constitution and not others? Apparently "the right to bear arms" is OK for everyone, but "separation of Church and State" is not to be tolerated. And "freedom of speech" only applies to them! Go figure...