Obama and "So Help Me God"...
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 14, 2009 9:15pm CST
Prs. Elect Obama has requested the words, "So Help Me God" be added to his Oath of Office for President of the United States. It is said that George Washington added the words, and most presidents have followed his example, though not all. The first eye-witness account of the words were in Prs. Chester Arthur's Oath in 1881.
Michael Newdow has once again sought headlines and more "15 minutes" by suing to keep Prs. Elect Obama from having his wishes respected. While I question his motives (which seem to be a lot more about his own bigotry against religion than any supposed concern for the US Constitution), he is free to use his 15 minutes of fame as he chooses.
This is one place where the courts could justifiably go either way. The US Constitution makes it clear what words are to be repeated in the oath of office. However, it doesn't say that nothing can be added to the oath. As long as the words added come after what is mandated by the US Constitution.
Even though traditionally, "So help me God" seems to be the only words anyone has wanted, the decision of the judges could open the doors for almost anything else.
In the Army, I had a friend who was really into Metallica, but had no religious preferece. He had some Dog Tags made off post that had "Metallicaism" on the religion line. I guess the decision made by the judges in this case could open the way for him to say, "So help me Metallica" if he ever won the White House. :~D
5 people like this
16 responses
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
15 Jan 09
Mr. Obama will need all the help he can get as he steps into the office. Far be it from me do deny him help from God, Metallica or anyone else. What has always seemed strange to me is how hung up people get about other peoples belifs. Especially in a situation like this where "So help me God" is a non denominational phrase. Mr. Obama could actually think Metallica is God and the phrase would still apply.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
Well, if he puts the words in, but never prays for help himself, then the words are pretty worthless. So let's hope he does pray. I know we'll be praying for him.
3 people like this
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
16 Jan 09
It also depends on who he is praying to. I don't think Metallica will get him very far.
@jimssaftytips (507)
•
15 Jan 09
Theres nothing wrong with adding those words, i think they should add them. What is the matter with that? Absolutely nothing wrong. We as a nation should grasp a hold of religion and thank god everyday for our lives.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
I don't see anything wrong with adding them either. However, I can see the point of a judge ruling that the oath has to be taken verbaden without adding to it.
All too often judges rule differently than what is written in the Constitution or a law. What isn't specifically stated in the Consitution is left to the states and individuals. This is a good example of that concept.
3 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Jan 09
I could be wrong, but I don't think I recall any President in my lifetime being sworn in without saying those words. I'm amazed nobody ever took it to court before! I must admit, you make a good point. Who knows what somebody might decide to add at some point in time. I can see a Republican saying "So help me Rush"...lol Or is it only HIM that thinks he's equal to God? I'm not sure what a future Democrat might say.
Annie
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
The way it's going, future Democrats would say, "so help me Obama" :~D
1 person likes this
@betsyraeduke (2670)
• United States
15 Jan 09
So help me Duke boys!!!! 
.....*shrugs*...don't feel like giving a serious response...this response is more fun! 
.....*shrugs*...don't feel like giving a serious response...this response is more fun! 1 person likes this
@Raven7317 (691)
• United States
15 Jan 09
I am SO tired of people who have nothing better to do than drum up trouble!
I don't agree that Newdow has this right to sue because he trying to prevent Obama himself from having the freedom of speech and expression. As long as the oath is completed in its entirety, why can't he say whatever he wants after the oaht??
Can't Newdow just mind his own business? Or better yet, can't he find anything of more importance to focus on?
I don't think the courts could justify preventing this... A person has to repeat "so help me God" before he testifies in court. Wouldn't it be hypocritical to rule against saying it before he TAKES OVER THE WELL BEING OF OUR COUNTRY??!! And as mentioned before, Obama still has the right of free speech. The court can not tell our President that he can't Swear to God.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
He could find something else to fight for, but that would neither feed his need for another 15 minutes, nor would it help him live out his bigotry against those of us who believe in God.
1 person likes this
@ulalume (713)
• United States
15 Jan 09
There is something wrong with it. Why? He has been elected to a public office, for one. He should represent the public, with no religious preference. Sure, addressing "God" does not directly make one religious, but some people in his nation do not believe in God. Why should we who believe in no god, elect a man who's first move before even taking office is to have the words "So Help me God" put into his oath. This is fakeness on his part. He does not need to be George Washington of the year 2009. President Washington was not exactly the best president. I dont care if he was the first, either. Be yourself Obama, and don't infringe on your public office to preach to us. If we want that, we can attend a church.
PS: That story you put is pretty funny. Metallicaism. haha.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
So we believers should keep God locked in our church buildings so we don't offend those of you who don't believe?
Thanks, I thought it was pretty funny too.
@HeavenUnaware (1757)
• United States
15 Jan 09
ulalume.. did you vote for Obama? If so, it's a little late to be worrying about electing a man who's first move before even taking office is to have the words "So Help Me God" put into his oath.
This is something that should have been a concern, if it is a concern for you, BEFORE the elections and not now.
And like ParaTed said above.. you want Obama to put aside his religious beliefs and the beliefs of many others in this country in an effort to support those who do not believe in a God? Why are your beliefs more important than his or the other millions of God loving people in this world?
@ulalume (713)
• United States
16 Jan 09
I am not bothered by believers being open about their belief, however I am bothered by public officials being an official of...THE PUBLIC (which inadvertantly consists of believers and non-believers) insisting on doing such things like this in the "name of god" or similar. The issue has really nothing to do with the words which he swears in on (I really don't care). I am just aware that by allowing this to go through, Obama will have opened the door to do things like past presidents, such as declare war in the name of god or insist that what he is doing is because god has told him to do such things.
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
16 Jan 09
It is all right for the next president to say "so help me God," but not right for a judge to decide that it is the rule that anything can be said as a result and not after the swearing in. So Obama can add the words and America will need God's help. I have been praying that Obama be an honest man and obeys God rather than man, and perhaps by him saying "so help me, God," that he will do so.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
15 Jan 09
You're right, the constitution does have a prescribed oath, and it doesn't specify whether or not we can add on to it. Almost every president seems to have added some different turn of phrase, however, going all the way back to the Founding Fathers. The only way they could win this would be to argue that the constitution requires a specific oath be made - and I really don't think that argument will make it far. The argument that it violates the Establishment Clause will fall flat on it's face in no time.
This is one particular area where I believe atheists can not win. You can't claim something's against the Establishment Clause if the Legislative branch had nothing to do with it.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
True, just mentioning God doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. As was posted in another comment, it doesn't say who or what a person's god is or has to be.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 Jan 09
It seems to me to deny him this right is to infring on his right to free practice of his faith, something specificly prohibited by the constitution. there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about not adding to these words, and thogh it must ne said as the constitution reads and no words ommitted, I don't think it would forbid adding the line. The more I think about it, i think a number of presidents use these words, it seems i remember Reagan saying "so help me God" too.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
Yeah, he definitely has precedence and tradition on his side here. However, I think this may be the first time it has been challenged in the courts. Since (as you pointed out) The US Constitution doesn't say that no words can be added, then the courts could justifiably go either way.
I don't know about infringing on his right to practice his faith. Unless his faith says that he has to invoke God openly in all things. Even if he can't say "so help me God" out loud, if he makes the oath to God in his heart, he has made it to God.
But I agree, it should be left up to him.
2 people like this
@olivebranch56 (910)
• United States
15 Jan 09
I guess we will see how strongly President O'Bama holds to his religious beliefs, that he kept swearing he had during the campaign. They would have to put me in jail before I would turn my back on the God I believe in, no matter what the court ruled. This is President O'Bamas day not Newdow, and I think it is time they begin to treat Newdow as they do any other perpetual "suer". They say the day of people suing for the sake of money or other insignificant fraudulent claims is suppose to be over, so I would say Newdow has had his day and needs to shut up. Blessings Marilyn
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
Yeah, Newdow has cried wolf so many times and has been caught in so many lies, I'm surprised anyone pays attention to him anymore.
1 person likes this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
15 Jan 09
If Obama wants to say it, who is to deny him? But in the opposite - if he wants to take it out... there'd be those that would sue to make him say it.Technically they are only words, one's beliefs are what makes them important or not important. They should just follow what the Constitution says and give these people a quarter and tell them to go call someone that cares. There are FAR more important things goig on right now, that need serious attention by Obama and the courts.. those are what should be taking front and center attention... not jokers like this. Unfortunately, jokers like this "steal the show" for many.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
Well, if Prs. Elect Obama wanted to have words changed or removed from what is written, then I'd be behind any case brought up against it. Technically or not, words mean something when they are codified in law or the Constitution.
It isn't the biggest thing on anyone's mind, and there's nothing saying that the topic of converstation has to be the biggest (or only) important thing going on.
2 people like this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
15 Jan 09
That is exactly what I said - words are just words until one bases them on their own beliefs. If you value the words in the Constitution then those words mean something to you. I you don't value the Constitution, then those words mean nothing to you. Just like the Bible - if you are a believer, those words mean something to you. If you are not a believer, then those words mean nothing to you.
As far as important issues - I watch the news regularly and what have I heard? This topic and ..... this one......
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1868862.aspx
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ap_poll_obama_dog
@overhere (515)
• United States
15 Jan 09
I am afraid I so feel sorry for Mr Obama if ever there was a man who was" damned if he does damned if he doesn't" he is that man. It is a real shame that those who have the time and energy to pursue these matters cannot put their energy to much better use with the country facing the problems it is as the new president takes office. It would be so nice if everyone would just get behind him and wish him well and work to getting the economy and country back on track.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Jan 09
If we don't agree with what he is doing, why should we stand behind what he's doing?
I'll support him when he does things I agree with and speak out against him when he does things I don't agree with. That's a right we should never take for granted.
2 people like this
@HeavenUnaware (1757)
• United States
15 Jan 09
I agree with ParaTed completely.
Obama is not unlike any other President this country has had who is damned if he does or damned if he doesn't. President Bush was attacked more than any other President in my time and even now.. as he is about to leave the office, he is still being attacked no matter what he does.
It would be nice if everyone could get behind every President ever - but that's not going to happen.
I wish Obama well and I hope and pray that he is able to get the economy and country on track but I fear that will not happen any time soon and is even less likely to happen if the events that happened on Bush's watch, happen on Obama's. Sadly, I firmly believe we are in for another "attack" on our country during Obama's term and I pray this man full of empty promises can handle it.
1 person likes this
@powermannx (450)
• United States
15 Jan 09
It does not matter that President-Elect Obama uses this American phrase - at least he is using it a positive way, we need more patriotism and less sensationalism. I believe that in these times we live in today we need prayer and God more than ever.
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
15 Jan 09
Well, that's the first thing about Obama I've heard that I like. Good for him! He's doing the right thing. That atheist guy is crazier than a sack full of snakes. I wish he'd get a life or something...
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
15 Jan 09
So help me Metallica...sure why not.LOL
This is something that has traditionally been left to the discretion of the incoming president and I think it should continue to be that way. He (or she) is the one tackling the job and he (or she) should be allowed to call on their own source of strength. When we get to our first Muslim president, I would have no objection to letting that president add "So help me Allah."
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
15 Jan 09
Well to me it falls under Obama's first ammendment rights to religion. I can't stand how so many left wing extremist misinterpret the constitution to be anti-religion when it is just the opposite. It's freedom of religion, and freedom against a state mandated religion. Obama can't force citizens to worship god, but they can't restrict his own freedom to worship god either.
