God and the Oath of Office

The phrase "under God" and invoking God "are innovations of the 1950's" ? A product of the Cold War? Perhaps you should reread one of the greatest speeches in American history. It begins "Four score and seven years ago..." and ends with "-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom???and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I am an atheist who loves the First Amendment for combining these two ingredients: (#1) NON-ESTABLISHMENT of religion, PLUS (#2) FREE EXERCISE of religion. Together those two rules create a way everyone can get along. I do not need to believe (per #1), but you can (per #2). So I feel fine if Obama chooses to add <<so help me God>> and have Rick Warren speak at his inauguration. As long as observing Christianity is not a government requirement (per #1), then Obama seems free to choose it (per #2).

My personal worry is the US government appears to make religion a requirement for some other positions. The oath for a US Supreme Court justice includes the phrase <<so help me God>> as a requirement, not a option. Does the capital G in God as a proper name mean the god of Abraham? If so, does the oath endorse the decision of Abraham to kill his son? I feel fine if justices admire the story of Abraham in their personal beliefs -- we can agree to disagree on that as individuals. But I object if the oath is a government *requirement* for justices to believe Abraham decided correctly.

By the way, historically, the First Amendment non-establishment clause was written to protect Christians from Christians. Surprised? Think about it -- Suppose the government established a religion, and the government religion was Rick Warren Christianity. If Rick Warren Christianity is not your Christianity, then imagine the government teaching your kids Rick Warren Christianity as the government religion in the public schools. This is how Christian theocracy would suck for Christians. Odds are the government Christianity would not be your Christianity.

So I feel fine with Obama swearing on a Bible and having Rick Warren speak, as long as those are choices and not government requirements. I worry more about the oaths for Congress and the Supreme Court being requirements.

Once again, the revisionists strike. If you do not wish to look at the expressed will of the people (this is a democracy, remember?), you might wish to remember a few facts:

1. The Declaration of Independance makes clear reference to God.
2. Nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase 'separation of church and state' found. This phrase, which has risen to the status of athieists' own sacred cow, was written by Jefferson in a *private letter*, writing as a private individual, expressing a private opinion. In no way was this an expression of official policy or power.
3. Until the 1963 Supreme Court decision, no agency oif the U.S. government had ever esoused the 'separation' viewpoint in any official policy or document.
4. The Constitution forbids the Government from requiring any citizen to be a member of any religion. It does not forbid the expression of religious faith in the public arena or in public places, wether or not the property is owned by any government agency.

It is interesting that in the moral arena of the 20th and 21st centuries, it is always the left who run to the courts to thwart the will of the majority, crying, ironically enough, that they are looking for tolerance. They often like to speak about the 'tyrrany of the majority'. The alternative, however, is the tyranny of the minority. In South Africa, they called that apartheid.

American Christians are not the same as Taliban fanatics or Osama Bin Laden. Is is so wrong of you to in effect throw them together in your last paragraph. Separation of ChurcH and State was never intended to insulate the government from people of faith. It was designed to protect the church from government takeover and to prevent an "established church" like the Church Of England. You radical folks just feel people who believe in God are stupid and that the government must follow your "enlightenment." Oh Please....

First of all please consider what has happened when Prayer was taken out of school!!!. Instead of even considering for a moment removing God from our Government and this country we had best cry out to God and ask Him for His grace, favor and mercy. Our fore fathers understood the necessity of God and faith. The belief that they intended a separation of Church and State is ridiculous. Without God we are nothing. Jesus stands at the door and knocks..it is my earnest heartfelt prayer that we stop slamming the door in His face...sincerely Shardi Alagia

LOOK THIS IS SOO SIMPLE. OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED, AS FOLLOWS( UNDER GOD.) GOD IS WHAT MY COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON. GOD FIRST COUNTRY SECOND. MORE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD THEN DON'T. NOW PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELEIVE WHAT EVER THEY WANT. HOWEVER THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUSH THERE CAUSE IN FRONT OF GOD OR OUR COUNTRY JUST BECAUSE WE SAY UNDER GOD, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. THEY DO. ATHIST HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT. HOWEVER THIS COUNTRY IS AND WAS FOUNDED UNDER GOD .AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, TWO THINGS, LEAVE, GET OUT, OR LIVE WITH IT. WHY SHOULD THE MAJORTY BE AFFECTED BY THE MINORTY. IF THEY ARE INSULTED WELL GET OVER IT. I AM A PROUD GAY MAN AND YOU DON'T SEE US GAYS TRYING TO CHANGE THE FUNDELMENTELS OF OUR COUNTRY. WE WANT OUR RIGHTS BUT NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF GOD. WE ARE NOT BULLYING OUR WAY TO REMOVE GOD. WE ARE APART OF GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. WE JUST WANT IT LEAGEL. ATHEIST ARE TRYING TO ERODE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY. HOW IS THIS INFRINGING ON THERE RIGHTS. UNDER GOD. IS WHAT IT MEANS UNDER GOD. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH AND STATE. THEY ARE CONFUSING THE TWO.. GREG..

Under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 50's. I know this for a fact because the first version I learned did not have this phrase in it. Oh, by the way, when I was in 6th grade there was a girl in my class (Linda Moody) who was not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a matter of great concern to us. We felt very sorry for her. And the reason she could not was religious--she was a Jehovah's Witness. How ironic.

I am sick and tired of these nonbelievers trying to change those of us that do beleive rituals and ceremonies. The President-elect is taking the oath of office to guard and protect the Constitution, and no one else. When some non-believer get's elected President then they can pledge their allegiance to whomever (themselves, I guess). This is getting ridiculous. I am strongly for separation and church and state in terms of public policies and decisions that affect the many, but making a public pledge to God is a part of this country's tradition.

"In God we Trust" as the national motto is NOT an innovation of the 1950's. One Francis Scott Key recorded it as the motto of our country when he penned the words of a poem, later set to music, now known as "The Star Spangled Banner." Will Michael Newdow sue to have this stanza excised from our national anthem?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Obviously Mr. Newdow's lawsuit is frivolous. Every time I read any atheist tome, I feel slightly embarrassed. Always The writer comes across as brow beat and defensive. I'm not angry at religion anymore. I don't care about "so help me god" and neither should any other confident godless citizen. Folks like Newdow are feigning being offended, and look to the religious world to have a lack of conviction. Conversely, religious folks who offer the only hope for our nation is a return to the flock simply scare me.

Jrchar, I find it a bit strange that suggest that religious people have the right to practice any religion they wish, but if they believe in God they are insane or should not drive cars. You seem to be sending mixed messages. You either respect their religious beliefs or you don't. Moreover, a belief in a god is as irrational as a belief in Russell's Teapot, but religious people are not all irrational. Many Christian priest believe in evolution and many scientist and medical doctors are religious. Obama seems quite religious and he will soon have his hand on the button and I'm not scared by that. The problem isn't so much believing in God as much as anti-intellectualism and religious fanaticism.

You say you don't want people to pray in your schools, court houses, or military. Something to consider is how far we want to push religion out of these places. I would hope winter performances at the schools will have Christmas songs with Santa and maybe even Jesus. Don't want them to become minimalist like on South Park. I think many solders would find comfort in their religion after facing the horrors of war (thanks for your service by the way). Perhaps we don't want the absence of religion in public, but rather want religious diversity and tolerance in public.

As for the invocations, I suppose we are sending another mixed message by paying for the invocation in that Christians have the right to religion in the First Amendment, but it's okay to ignore the First Amendment by providing public funds and venue for a Christian priest to preach to the entire country, which is not 100% Christian like you. Practicing religion is fine, but there are boundaries. Besides, I'm a libertarian too and the invocation is a needless waste of my tax dollars. Maybe we can get rid of some of the inaugural balls while we're at it! (Just kidding.)