Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

[Dardedar]

DAR
For better or worse, I am guessing that about 95% of the population is going to think this is absurd.

***
Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

Wed Jan 14, 7:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words in the inaugural oath.

Newdow and other atheists and agnostics also want to stop the use of prayers during the inaugural celebration.

Newdow, who lost a Supreme Court battle to get the words "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, has failed in similar challenges to the use of religious words and prayers at President George W. Bush's inaugurations.

Roberts' attorney Jeffrey P. Minear filed a document in Newdow's lawsuit saying that Obama wants the words "so help me God" included in his oath of office.

The Justice Department and attorneys general from all 50 states have filed motions at the federal court asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and 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."

The National Archives says that George Washington added the words "so help me God" when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since [Note: this claim is now known to be false, see debunk provided below by Ray]. However, some have argued that the first eyewitness account of a president using those words came at President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881.

Named in Newdow's lawsuit are Roberts; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and the two pastors invited to the event, the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.

Link

[The Physicist]

If he wants to end his speech with these words no one can nor should stop him...however, as he will be acting in an official capacity, it is wildly inappropriate and he should know better. It certainly should not be a part of the official speech.

--Kevin

[raySoller]

Darrel, could you please cite a source for claiming "The National Archives says that George Washington added the words 'so help me God' when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since." As far as I know this statement needs to be modified. See my email posted below regarding the use of "So help me God" in a presidential oath:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Pinkert" - Executive Director, Center for the National Archives Experience
To: "Ray Soller"
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: CNN Sunday Morning - January 18, 2009


Dear Mr. Soller:

Thank you for bringing to my attention my misstatement in response to the [presidential oath] question from Ms. Nguyen on CNN. I apologize. In other interviews I gave that week, answering similar questions, my response stressed that we (the National Archives) have no direct evidence of what George Washington said - unlike the films/video that exist of more recent presidents. My intent was to deliver the same response in the CNN interview, but the transcript indicates I failed to do so. In all interviews I laid emphasis on the fact that the phrase "so help me God" is not a part of the oath in the U.S. Constitution.

I also appreciated your bringing to my attention the citations on the web that are at variance with the position articulated above. I have already asked our education director to remove the misleading statement from the education section of our website [RS>which has now been done]. The second citation is from a section of the site that features articles from Prologue magazine [Winter 2000, Abrupt Transition]. This particular article was written in 1997 by [C. L. Arbelbide] a guest scholar. I have raised your concern with the editor of the magazine. [RS>A notice posted at the bottom of each webpage says "Articles published in Prologue do not necessarily represent the views of NARA or of any other agency of the United States Government."]

Thank you for pointing out my error. I will endeavor to be more cautious and accurate in my answers to reporter's questions.

Sincerely,
Marvin Pinkert

[Dardedar]

Darrel, could you please cite a source for claiming "The National Archives says that George Washington added the words 'so help me God' when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since."

My source, given above, is a cut and from a (nearly) three year old Yahoo News article that is apparently long gone.

As far as I know this statement needs to be modified. See my email posted below regarding the use of "So help me God" in a presidential oath:

When I put: "National Archives says that George Washington added the words" into google, I see that this claim about the national archives is repeated all over the place. For instance, here:

http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/31b ... 8f448a79ba

"The National Archives says that George Washington added the words "so help me God" when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since. However, some have argued that the first eyewitness account of a president using those words came at President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881."

So perhaps it is controversial regarding what Washington said at his inauguration. I have no idea. There certainly is no controversy about it not being in the constitution. As the above article points out: "The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and 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."

Good job on your part for going after the CNN guy for not being precise!

D.

[raySoller]

Responsibility for the assertion that the National Archives supported the notion for GW having added SHMG to his presidential oath is a 1/15/2009 Associated Press article written by Mark Sherman. An early copy of the article is still available at a mnsbc website, Judge doesn't ban 'God' in inaugural oath. The reporter's intent is clear. He pitted the institutional prestige of the National Archives against what "some [unidentified others] have argued" so the reader would feel comfortable that the counter-argument had no real merrit. The fact that the article was "repeated all over the place" shows just how well he succeeded.

Some of those unidentified others, along with Michael A. Newdow, are: Edward G Lengel, author of Inventing George Washington, and editor-in-chief of the Papers of George Washington; Charlene Bickford Director of the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress Project; Jurretta Heckscher, Research Specialist, Digital Reference Team, at the Library of Congress, who are on record as saying that there is no contemporaneous evidence showing that George Washington added "So help me God" to his oath of office. Specifically, the Library of Congress webite, Presidential Inaugurations: Some Precedents and Notable Events, shows the "first eyewitness account of a president using those words came at President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881." There's also this 1/11/2009 online History News Network article – “So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded by Professor Peter R. Henriques. It turns out, the Henriques article is based upon the Amicus Brief he filed in conjunction with the Newdow v. Roberts lawsuit.

In the end, the only reason for the so-called "controversy" is that the proponents for including the non-constitutional SHMG as part of the presidential oath want to use George Washington as their poster child.

[Dardedar]

Wow! Excellent debunk and exposition Ray. Thanks for your hard work on this issue! I think we should have an announcement about this at our freethinker meeting. I didn't know anything about this. What an excellent lessen in how easy it is for a person to start a false meme and have it spread around like wildfire.

Learned something new today, and that's always a good thing (and see the correction I have inserted in the topic comment).