Comments on: New Poll: Presidential Oath of Office Verbiage http://www.godispretend.net/2009/01/new-poll-presidential-oath-of-office-verbiage/ A collection of thoughts on the lie that is religion. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:27:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Geis http://www.godispretend.net/2009/01/new-poll-presidential-oath-of-office-verbiage/comment-page-1/#comment-1670 Geis Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:53:16 +0000 http://www.godispretend.net/?p=526#comment-1670 "every president since Washington" Actually, this is not the case. The first recorded instance of "so help me god" being added to the end of the Presidential oath of office was in 1881 by Chester A. Arthur. There is nothing in any historical record to suggest that any president has said "so help me god" before this. Though I believe Obama to be delusional in his belief in a supreme being, I believe in his freedom to believe and express his faith as he desires so long as he acts in a Constitutional manner. If he wants to say "so help me god" with his hand on Lincoln's bible, go for it. However, I believe that having the Chief Justice of the Supreme court say "repeat after me. . . so help me god" crosses the line of separation of church and state. That line is not a part of the oath of office and the appending of that suggests that the person taking the oath is required to say it as one of his responsibilities. “every president since Washington”

Actually, this is not the case. The first recorded instance of “so help me god” being added to the end of the Presidential oath of office was in 1881 by Chester A. Arthur. There is nothing in any historical record to suggest that any president has said “so help me god” before this.

Though I believe Obama to be delusional in his belief in a supreme being, I believe in his freedom to believe and express his faith as he desires so long as he acts in a Constitutional manner. If he wants to say “so help me god” with his hand on Lincoln’s bible, go for it. However, I believe that having the Chief Justice of the Supreme court say “repeat after me. . . so help me god” crosses the line of separation of church and state. That line is not a part of the oath of office and the appending of that suggests that the person taking the oath is required to say it as one of his responsibilities.

]]> By: God is Pretend http://www.godispretend.net/2009/01/new-poll-presidential-oath-of-office-verbiage/comment-page-1/#comment-1659 God is Pretend Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:16:28 +0000 http://www.godispretend.net/?p=526#comment-1659 You are correct that it is not officially part of the oath of office, but every president since Washington has added it. One might argue that a president of even little faith would still leave it in to avoid the backlash of bad publicity following being the first president NOT to include the passage. You are correct that it is not officially part of the oath of office, but every president since Washington has added it. One might argue that a president of even little faith would still leave it in to avoid the backlash of bad publicity following being the first president NOT to include the passage.

]]> By: Evan http://www.godispretend.net/2009/01/new-poll-presidential-oath-of-office-verbiage/comment-page-1/#comment-1657 Evan Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:34:25 +0000 http://www.godispretend.net/?p=526#comment-1657 Personally, I would prefer it not to be there at all. However, I do think it is a personal choice for the President-Elect. If I recall correctly, it really is not a part of the official swearing in to office. (If I am wrong, please correct me.) I kind of view the expression as a colloquialism, more of the subset of faith-driven people than of the typical subset of localization. So I get this weird feeling that barring someone from saying it just because I don't like it is just as bad as someone wanting to make it official just because they think it's necessary. I guess my stance is that religious expression is a personal choice and should not be regulated (not banned nor obligated) by the government. Have at it, Mr. Obama. To me it is a meaningless expression, but if you feel you need to pay homage to Mr. Sky-Daddy Voyeur... Harumph. Personally, I would prefer it not to be there at all. However, I do think it is a personal choice for the President-Elect. If I recall correctly, it really is not a part of the official swearing in to office. (If I am wrong, please correct me.)

I kind of view the expression as a colloquialism, more of the subset of faith-driven people than of the typical subset of localization. So I get this weird feeling that barring someone from saying it just because I don’t like it is just as bad as someone wanting to make it official just because they think it’s necessary.

I guess my stance is that religious expression is a personal choice and should not be regulated (not banned nor obligated) by the government.

Have at it, Mr. Obama. To me it is a meaningless expression, but if you feel you need to pay homage to Mr. Sky-Daddy Voyeur… Harumph.

]]>