Yes, America... way to cater to the atheists. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

Well if Abraham Lincoln used the bible I'd use it to. I really don't care if God's in there or not, makes no difference to me.

Totally. It's so hypocritical. Whether or not this country was even founded by Christians: the Constitution clearly states free religion. It's THEIR word. Was it a setup double standard?

America really isn't the most secular nation ever. I don't get how the UK does it. They've got a rich Christian history but they somehow manage to actually separate government and church. Here we have "So help me God", "one nation under God," etc.

I'm a taxpayer and if I'm understanding this correctly, my tax dollars pay for all or most of the inaugural festivities. I have my own faith, but no faith has any place in government, and I object to my tax dollars being used for any religious purposes. They need to be spent on roads and schools and fixing this country, not funding a ceremony with religious overtones throughout.

I don't see how one person swearing on the Bible and saying "...so help me God" actually promotes any *national* religion. Nobody is being required to participate or even believe in the idea.

Also, looking at the Wikipedia article on the Inauguration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_Day#Inaugural_ceremonies], past presidents have made adjustments in the oath based on what THEY believe, i.e. some chose to affirm rather than swear, some have left the "so help me God" bit out, and nobody got riled about it.

The main thing is that the President is committing to protect and lead the country [THAT oath isn't to any deity] - if they want to ask for God's help in doing so [or not], what's the harm?

Agreed, margo.

"Yes, America... way to cater to the atheists. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves."

Well, Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible, so I think he's resting peacefully.

Liberty are you sure about that? Because I heard a representative of the group say that they are suing to keep Chief Justice John Roberts from saying (so help you God) however they are not trying to keep President Elect Obama from saying (so help me God) because that would infringe on his freedom of Religion and Speech. In the Chief Justices' case though he in that instance is the mouth & speech of the entire government and should not make reference to a God.

IMO if it's the way I understand it I have no problem with the law suit but if they're trying to keep President Elect Obama from saying (so help me God) then their hippocrates and no one likes a hippocrate.

I'm sooo tired of these kind of arguments. What difference does it make?

As an atheist, I am alienated by the Ten Commandments plaques, "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills. It makes me feel like I am an outsider, and I feel like I have to keep my non-religious beliefs secret because people associate God with good, and godlessness with evil. "So help me God" is a religious test, and should be unconstitutional, imho.

The ban is not about pandering to atheists. It is about stopping the pandering to monotheists. Religion is supposed to be private, so that each person may have freedom of conscience, without being intimidated or coerced into following the majority by the psychological forces of ritual national government statements like "so help me God." On that note, Obama can say whatever he wants, but Roberts cannot. I think it would be rude for Obama to make any religious statements in the federal government ritual.

Our nation was not founded on Christianity. Jefferson was agnostic, and very few people went to Church in the days of our nation's founding. The Puritans did not found this country - they came long before this country was founded. Our nation was founded on the philosophical ideals of the Englightenment, such as individualism and government by consent of the people. Religious nationalism was spurred by the Cold War as a way to differentiate the US from the godless USSR.

"They are" is contracted to "they're." "Their" is possessive. I know I'm a total jerk for pointing that out, but "so help me god" (see? It really means "I swear") if I don't say something now...

They took it out of the courts when swearing in a witness, it should be taken out here. It's a separation of church & state! As an atheist I really could care less if he does it for his own beliefs, but a member of another religion who does not support the bible or the notion of "god" could take it a bit offensively or just feel that their religion is being sacrificed at the sake of another. If he didn't believe in god/bible would this be an issue? I don't see the speech being changed to a different name or having a different book under his hand if he did which is why it shouldn't be included.

It's so wonderful to see fellow atheists here. The comments/intelligent discourse is far above the normal level of sophistication (and grammar proficiency) I typically see here!

Just wanted to make one point. For those who say, "well, 'God' is generic enough" - they're usually thinking it doesn't prescribe, promote, or alienate any particular religion.

I think it's worth remembering that we have fellow citizens who have faith or belief systems such as Hinduism or Buddhism that either have more than one god, or no gods at all. "So help me God" is a meaningless pledge to them, just as it is for atheists.

I think the choice should be left up to elected Presidents and their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. It is a personal choice.

I'm a christian, and I don't see this as pro-atheism, just separation of church and state. It isn't denouncing God.

Y.E.S.!

The Founding Fathers would NOT be rolling in their graves as the majority of them were Deists and expressed or practiced no religion themselves. And one is believe to have been totally secular and to have pretended to be godly in order to control and manipulate the public.

Now as an atheist, I think this lawsuit by Naddow is stupid and frivolous. There is no organization that speaks for all atheists and Naddow doesn't represent my views or even my atheist nephews views or the views of the majority of the atheist group I belong to here in SF. Trying to force people to stop being religious is just as bad as religious people trying to force atheists and agnostics into following their religion.

It is each individuals choice what oath they choose to be sworn in with. Mr. Obama is religious, he has stated that his religion is important to him, therefore it truly is no one else's decision but his which oath he chooses to use.

Tradition. Just leave it alone.

Slavery was a tradition...

I voted no, because it is traditional, and the President reserves the right not to say it if he chooses. Normally I am very supportive of the separation between church and state, but this isn't legislation or public policy: just simply a traditional affirmation that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively harmless.

True Song, good point.

I'm not feeling terribly strongly either way, but arguing for something because it's a tradition is a bit daft.

It is going to be a good party. Can't wait to see what the little girls will be wearing.

I don't see it as a problem unless the president is REQUIRED to say it.

WOW hes daughter looks like the girly type of gorge w bush

i'm sure if he were agnostic or an athiest and mentioned his beliefs, the athiests wouldn't object

oh gosh! who cares! its 4 words!people need to calm down!

I'm in favor of keeping it, and having it be at the discretion of the incoming President. It's a reminder to those who believe, and it means nothing to those who don't.

Ah that is the dilemma Sarahab145, (who cares)? When it comes down to it those four words won't in the end hurt anyone and not even an hour after their spoken most of us will forget that they were even uttered. However, when a nation chooses to stand behind a document and spill the blood of her children to defend it. It would be pretty hypocritical of that nation not to be genuine to the document it self.

Separation of church and state is just that. The State and the Church separated there should be no ambiguity here. IMO those who argue that atheists are being unreasonably predatory towards religious beliefs need to understand that this is a matter of pragmatism and oath to the documents which founded this country. I can run up and down the streets praising God till my voice gives out but the State simply does not have that privilege. The religious majority and more pointedly the Christian majority need to understand that long standing traditions which they enjoyed while they controlled virtually every part of our way of life may in the end be harmless, but they are also contrary to the documents which founded our nation.

I am a man of faith and God is part of my life that will never change nor will it be threatened by me choosing to be genuine to my nations documents.

"I think the choice should be left up to elected Presidents and their religious beliefs, or lack thereof."

I agree!

yeah, this is the same as slavery. please... unequal comparisons = a whole lot of nothing!

I would never think, what's a good example of tradition? oh, slavery, of course. I don't know where you get this stuff.

I agree with CupcakeGal. It should be up to the president.

Hypno said: "I am a man of faith and God is part of my life that will never change nor will it be threatened by me choosing to be genuine to my nations documents."

Amen (so to speak).

"However, when a nation chooses to stand behind a document and spill the blood of her children to defend it. It would be pretty hypocritical of that nation not to be genuine to the document it self."

Agreed.

i think obama should choose if he wants it in there or not. it's his oath and he has freedom of religious choice. let each president decide.

I'm an atheist but I feel like this is a somewhat petty issue.

"So help me God" is a meaningless pledge to them, just as it is for atheists.
But it isn't meaningless to the current president elect.

And for the record The constitution does not state separation of church and state. This is just an interpretation. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. What about this oath violates that part of the constitution? It doesn't. Plain and simple.

It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And also there is a valid question since atheism may or may not be considered a religion. Is the US establishing the state religion as atheism? And if they are that would be definitely against the constitution. I feel like people may have to walk on eggshells around this topic, because if it isn't violating your right to your religion or establishing a state religion, it isn't unconstitutional. And by establishing atheism as the state religion, it is unconstitutional. So how far are you willing to push the issue? Is this worth making this big an issue out of this? At what cost/expense? You speak of the inauguration costing money, but the cost of fighting this is so much more it makes your argument seem petty.

Hainan57 the first amendment does prohibit the free exercise of religion by the government it self. It is also agreed by historians that this implies the famous phrase (separation or church and state).

I'm a believer in God, but i don't think the bible, so help me God, and under God has any place in Government. Throughout history, humans have used God to commit every vile deeds imaginable. So just because somebody put their hands on a bible, or pray in public does not mean anything. Bush did that and look what he's done. Sarah Palin thought invading a country who did not attack us and murdering over a million people was "doing the work of God". Really? The scarry part is 48 million people agreed by voting for her & McCain. I thought one of the commandments was "thou shall not kill." I know details details.

I've always cringed at the Republicans' tactics of manipulating the right wing evangelicals by exploiting religion. They're always promising them the RNC trifecta. You know their fav. wedge issues, Gay marriage, Abortion, Prayers in school etc. I think all this stuff with Rick Warren, using A. Lincolns' Bible is Democrats's way of pandering to those same groups.

The world is like a powder keg with religious extremism. I've read the bible. I've yet to find a name of a specific religion in it. yet mankind has created gazilion religious sects, and are constantly murdering each other over them. I agree with the atheits' on one thing; we could use a major break from religion.

It should be up to whoever is being sworn in... If they want to say it, fine... If not... fine...

hypno - Doesn't it actually mean that the government can not endorse one religion, and designate that religion as America's religion?

I don't know, I actually find the whole "so help me god" phrase a little frightening... why is the president of our country asking for help governing us from a big floating head in the sky? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say, "so help me logic," or maybe, "so help me Cabinet," or even "so help me brain"? I don't know if I really want to support someone who thinks his ability to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as president is dependent upon the support of an unseen, potentially unjust deity.

"why is the president of our country asking for help governing us from a big floating head in the sky? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say, "so help me logic," or maybe, "so help me Cabinet," or even "so help me brain"?"

Very true. cote.

If you aren't a religious person you wouldn't understand "so help me God" because to you he is a big floating head in the sky. To Obama he is his guidance and decider of all things. So to say so help me God means he just would wants God's help and blessing in making the very difficult decisions that will come his way. Why do you have to be so cynical towards people's beliefs?

Hypno- no it doesn't. It only say that government cannot prohibit the exercise of it not that it prohibits government from exercising it. I posted the entire section of the first amendment. I think that the constitution should be reverred to as literally as possible if you are going to make arguments like, "However, when a nation chooses to stand behind a document and spill the blood of her children to defend it. It would be pretty hypocritical of that nation not to be genuine to the document it self."
If you are going to spill blood over that document, should it be spilled over an interpretation??? IMO a literal interpretation of it is the only way to go. And I absolutely 100% do not see in the writings that a government can do absolutely nothing religious.

And the supreme court has said that a government should not prefer religion to irreligion. What about the other way around, which is what is the new trend in America. Atheists on this site have continues to say how they feel left out in America because of the statements such as "in God we trust" or "one nation under God" and also stated on here is "I am a man of faith and God is part of my life that will never change nor will it be threatened by me choosing to be genuine to my nations documents." So the opposite would be true. If you have no faith, that will not be swayed by a simple "so help me god" or putting their hand on their religious book of choosing.

Wooo! UnDave you sound like you're just salivating for a Theocracy, lol. Yes it is contrary to the intent for representatives of our government to endorse and designate one religion as our nations official religion. Christianity enjoys prominence through our secular way of life simply because it has been the over whelming majority not because Christianity was given any guarantee by law to assert it's will indefinitely.

Now that we have a growing number of cultures and religious backgrounds representing us in government it has cast an even grater light on the matter. The minority has every right to bring forth a case and ask that the majority live by the same rules that they do under the law. This is not an unreasonable request. A shock to a long standing tradition, yes, but never the less a just inquiry.

IMO Christian politicians ruined a good thing for themselves when they became pseudo bible thumpers. There was no more humility about them and those who were not Christian were cast as politically immoral by the consequence of their actions. They should have just expressed their faith by deed and deed alone not by grandstanding to the masses. What they did was turn a political arena into a faith based one. Like I said it's fine to express one's faith through deed but when you're in a position of government you do not have the luxury of a regular citizen.

Hainan57 my point is that it is an agreed upon interpretation by historians now if you disagree with political historians that is certainly your prerogative. I on the other hand happen to agree with them.

"So the opposite would be true. If you have no faith, that will not be swayed by a simple "so help me god" or putting their hand on their religious book of choosing."

Hainan57: This isn't about swaying or converting anyone like I said before this is about being genuine to our foundation of government.

I'd also like to point out that I referred in past comments to the document(s) which founded our nation not just the Constitution it self.

I don't necessarily want a theocracy, but I don't see anything wrong with having our country run by a group of people who are good, moral, God fearing individuals. By and large, people of faith are better stewards of their money, better givers to charities, and are more empathetic towards those in need.