Freedom From Religion?
On January 20th, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. Not only will Barack recite his full name during the ceremony, he will also invoke the name of God, keeping in line with tradition dating back to George Washington. Nearly every single American President has mention or alluded to God in their inaugural addresess.
Dan Barker, an atheist and co-founder of Freedom From Religion, takes exception to this tradition. So much so that he’s teamed up with Michael Newdow, another wet towel who in the past took exception to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and filed a lawsuit seeking the elimination of the word “God” from the oath of office.
There’s a wrinkle to this: The word “God” is not mentioned in the official oath the president takes at his inauguration. The entire official oath reads:
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.
But as stated above, since the official oath contains no reference to God, why is Dan Barker so intent on protecting us from His name? If Barack wants to lay his hand on the bible and mention God, why should we stop him? Heck, if he wants to petition Allah, give thanks to Krishna, or praise the grey spot of mold slowly pulsating underneath his refrigerator, why should we care? I mean, we the American people elected him in a fair and free election. If he wants to tack on a “so help me, God” to the end of his oath, why should anybody get bent out of shape?
Dan and his ilk simply wants control. He wants to censor what we’re exposed to, narrow our field of vision, and dull our critical thinking. Like it or not this country was founded on jeudo-christian ethics, and its served us well thus far. The Golden Rule is a good thing. The lessons taught in the Bible are a good thing. This is coming from a blogger who doesn’t practice, but does believe that there’s a higher power out there. If you want to be an atheist, fine, but don’t forget the fact that the vast majority of people in this country believe in some sort of afterlife, and that something out there holds sway over our souls.
Dan, please don’t try to censor what we hear. Don’t think that we need “protection” from the world and its varying opinions and ideas. We can understand where people are coming from. We can respect the opinions and beliefs of others. Please give us the benefit of a doubt and believe that we’re not going to start dancing a jig around a church waving live rattlesnakes in the air, donning Nikes and looking skyward for the closest NEO asteroid, or naively slapping down our life savings on the first collection plate that passes underneath our noses just because somebody solicits the name of their favorite deity.
Slow down Dan, take a breath, and relax. If a majority of the American people are not offended by the word “God” than why should you be? America is about choice. It’s purpose is not to coddle you, and it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t be offended by differing viewpoints. You choose to be an atheist. Barack chooses to mention God at what will be the most important time in his life. So what? Man up and deal with it.
The tradition argument is bogus. The Founders, by and large, were not Christians, they were Deists. The inaugural invocations only go back to Roosevelt (Franklin, not Theodore). The “so help me God” tradition is also questionable, as the Wikipedia article that you link to indicates.
You’re right about this being about control. Both sides in the culture wars are after control, and slippery slopes abound. “So help me God” sounds innocuous enough, but one thing leads to another, and if they could get away with it, the Christians would require taxpayer-funded public schools to teach Intelligent Design.
Maybe if the Christians would let up on their efforts at control, the atheists could chill out about the oath of office.
In this particular case I don’t see how Christians are trying to assert their control. It’s a personal choice on the part of Obama to say “so help me God” (or words to that effect. We’ll have to wait and see). It’s a small group of atheists who are trying to control what a person can say and when they can say it. That’s a form of censorship only meant to appease a tiny group of easily offended people.
I believe a total of 37 presidents have referenced God during their swearing in ceremonies. If that’s not the definition of “traditional” then I don’t know what is. I’ve added a link to this info in my post.
And I agree that this is a slippery slope. Next thing this small vocal group will want is to completely get rid of the Bible while being sworn in. Again, this is a personal choice of Barack to say these words. It’s not officially part of the ceremony. That’s the rub and point of contention here.
Thanks for the comment! Feel free to disagree…
The 37 references to God are in the inaugural addresses, not the oath of office. That’s a different tradition. There are no official words for the inaugural addresses, and the Presidents are expected to come up with something personal and original.
The lawsuit is about the oath of office. There are official words for the oath of office. Obama could simply take the oath of office, using the official words and nothing else, and then talk about God all he wants in his inaugural address.
I don’t think the atheists are out of line here. Imagine how bent out of shape the Christians would be if Obama, as a purely personal choice, ended the oath with “so help me Allah”.
Dan: You are correct sir. I can see the argument where the Oath of Office is concerned. In my opinion, if the President swears or affirms to a higher power I personally don’t have a problem with it.
I was able to find this tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
Quite a few Presidents in the past, and most (all?) of the contemporary Presidents have tacked on a “so help me God” (or something to that extent) to the end of the Oath of Office.
And just to pick nits here, technically the President takes the Oath of Office, he reaches the end at which point the official oath is complete. He then tacks on a “so help me God”. Is that officially now part of the oath, or is that a freedom of speech issue? There’s the man, hand on Bible, acknowledging a God. What’s the offensive part? Why is there a lack of concern about a Bible being used? Are the atheists being selectively offended?
Again Dan, thanks for the clarification and correction!