Are ‘so help me God,’ inaugural prayer still appropriate?
When President-elect Barack Obama takes office Tuesday, he will recite the prescribed oath—and then Chief Justice John Roberts will ask him to repeat four additional words found nowhere in the Constitution: “So help me God.”
If Michael Newdow is watching, he will not be happy. Last month, the high-profile atheist filed suit to enjoin the chief justice from adding “so help me God”—and to bar the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring clergy-led prayers.
Newdow is unlikely to prevail. Either the lawsuit will be dismissed for lack of standing (no showing of sufficient injury) or will fail because the court views inaugural prayers much like legislative prayers upheld by the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Chambers (1983).
But win or lose, Newdow has stirred a heated discussion about the meaning and scope of “no establishment” of religion under the First Amendment.
Polls tell us that the majority of Americans support the principle of church-state separation but think Newdow goes too far. Most people want and expect presidential inaugurations to have prayers and references to God.
But however unpopular, Newdow pushes us to think about why we insist on ceremonial religion on state occasions. Even if courts continue to uphold such practices, are they consistent with our national commitment to uphold religious freedom for believers and nonbelievers alike?
Some proponents of public religion argue from tradition: Didn’t George Washington himself add “so help me God” to the oath—and hasn’t every president since followed his example? And hasn’t clergy-led prayer always solemnized these occasions, reminding us of our religious heritage?
Actually, the answer is “no” to all of the above. Despite what we may have learned in school, Washington did not add “so help me God,” or at least there is no historical evidence of his having done so. The story of Washington adding these words to the oath didn’t appear until 65 years after he was sworn in as president.
Of course, Washington may not have felt the need to mention God in the oath (or have a member of the clergy pray), as his inaugural address was filled with references to the almighty—and even included a prayer.
Not until 1881, when Chester A. Arthur becomes president after the assassination of James Garfield, do we have a documented case of “so help me God” being added to the official oath. Today’s practice of the chief justice’s asking the president to repeat the phrase dates only to 1933. Moreover, clergy-led inaugural prayer is also of fairly recent vintage, having started in 1937.
As with so many stories about the practices of the Founders, historical reality often contradicts popular myth.
Beyond the question of tradition, we might ask what practices are relevant and appropriate in a pluralistic nation where 84 percent belong to every religion imaginable—and 16 percent say they have no religious affiliation.
Take, for example, the current brouhaha surrounding Obama’s choice of pastors at inaugural events. His selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical, to deliver the invocation has created an outcry from the Left. His choice of Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, to pray at a pre-inaugural event has caused a stir on the Right. Clearly, the “good old days” when the Rev. Billy Graham or anyone else could be called the “nation’s pastor” are long gone.
One prayer no longer fits all, if it ever did. We pray in different ways to different gods or to no god. Instead of clinging to the vestiges of a bygone era, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that civil religion, however generic, no longer represents the nation we have become.
Maybe it’s time for the president-elect to add his own affirmation to the oath rather than keep “so help me God” as a state ritual to be intoned by the chief justice. And rather than clergy-led prayer, maybe it’s better to have a period of silent reflection, giving all Americans an opportunity to offer thoughts or prayers according to the dictates of their consciences.
After the inauguration, of course, all who wish to do so can attend (or view on television) the prayer service at the National Cathedral, with real prayers and real sermons free and separate from any civil ceremony.
For many people of faith, state invocations of God and to-whom-it-may-concern prayers tend to squeeze the life out of authentic religious expression. Roger Williams, an early Founder and fierce advocate of religious freedom, went even further by condemning such practices as blasphemous.
That’s why some of the very people who now oppose Newdow’s lawsuit might consider rooting for it to succeed.
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Web: firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.
Jan 20, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Should totally be by choice, Maybe if not "under god" then "i totally promise"
lol or affirming, which i also was not aware of
But i mean, to me its like...toe-may-toe toe-mah-toe
marriage/union
who cares? as long as it gets the job done and its equal-go for it. If it needs different names, So be it. As long as it holds the same amount of water.
Jan 20, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
You know what I meant. At that time, he is pratically the President.
Thanks for the information about affirming to tell the truth. I did not know that.
Jan 20, 2009 at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
nurse4u...
Actually I think it should be the president ELECT's choice. (Not the president's)
And, to this statement "Also, whenever I watch anyone being sworn in to give testimony in court, they always have them place their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
They do have the option of "AFFIRMING to tell the truth" rather the "swearing to God"
Jan 19, 2009 at 10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think it should be the President's choice.
Also, whenever I watch anyone being sworn in to give testimony in court, they always have them place their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
Jan 19, 2009 at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
RUSerious,
I wasn't expressing the opinion that believing in a god, rather proposing the possibility that some day a person with that opinion could be elected. Perhaps not to the Presidency (at least not soon), but eventually atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious will begin to be a more apparent part of our government. I think most of us would see the expression of such an opinion as a bad thing.
***
Crafty,
Personally, I consider atheism in general a religion almost as much as I consider baldness is a hair color. There are SOME atheists that think of it like a religion and want to indoctrinate others but that line of thinking is not universal, nor in my experience even common.
I agree with you, however, that a person should not be forced to omit the oath. I would hope that out of respect for our religious diversity which includes many religions and the non-religious.
I do not, however, agree with you that most of our laws have a Christian basis. While we do have laws regarding murder, theft, and false witness, such laws have existed in other religions far before Christians. It's a good thing for society in general not to go around killing each other, stealing stuff, and lying constantly in a court of law. I'm curious what other laws you feel come from the Christian Bible or God. I'm still allowed to covet my neighbors' possessions, commit adultery (in most places), use the lord's name in vain, make false idols, worship "false" gods, work on the Sabbath, eat shellfish, shave my beard, allow women to wear make-up and cut their hair, etc.
Jan 19, 2009 at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
I say leave it in. This country would never elect an atheist. Whoever utters the words is making a sacred oath to god to uphold the constitution. If that strengthens his/her conviction, more power to the President Elect who utters "so help me God". God knows he/she will need that strength.
Jan 19, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our Govt. and almost all of it's laws are based on the words of the Bible and God. But if someone doesn't want to say God, that is their choice. I don't think they should be forced to NOT SAY it...
Fldpan is right. Atheism is a religion. Atheists want it to be the ONLY RELIGION.
Jan 19, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Correct about running again,also blacks only counted as three fifths of a man, women couldn`t vote, you had to be 21 to vote, slaves had to be returned to their masters, only elected "electors" in a state could vote for senators, or President. There was not a popular vote for either. But all those things were changed by amendments to the Constitution, the "so help me God" was added spontaneously without an amendment. I don`t really have a problem with a new President saying it if he wants to, as long as he is not one of those politicians who pretends to follow the Constitution, and then proceeds to ignore it like Bush.
Jan 19, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
"One nation, too intelligent to believe in gods?" Who says that believing in God equals less intelligence? These are our leaders you're speaking of-and if all all those in favor of adding “so help me God” lacked normal intelligence, then we'd have more to worry about than the oath used on inauguration day. But what could be more logical than taking the oath in the way that means the most to the person taking it? (as has been said) If a person being sworn in was not a believer, of course the oath with “so help me God” would (probably) mean less to him/her, but if he was a believer, not using “so help me God” would be less meaningful.
"...the way it was written then." If I'm not mistaken, if everything had remained the same these 230+ years, George Bush could have run again.
Jan 19, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with fldpan: it should be up to the person reciting the oath as to whether they want to or not.
Jan 19, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you go by the Constitution, you have to leave it out, just recite the oath the way it was written then.
Jan 19, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
They are not and have never been appropriate. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists or agnostic/atheist, if the group of them as a whole had wanted us to pledge to the Christian God, they would have written into such oaths.
The Warren and Robinson controversies are perfect examples of why religious leaders should not be so involved with events such as the inauguration of the POTUS. Let the ceremony be secular and then let those who desire to do so go worship in the way in which they wish.
If we continue to allow religion to encroach upon our government, eventually we will reach an time when non-Christian, or perhaps even anti-religious rhetoric could become common place. Does any Christian really want our money to say "In Zeus We Trust"? How about being required to put your hand on a Quran and proclaim "So Help Allah"? It's perfectly fine if we changed the pledge to say "One nation, too intelligent to believe in gods?" It's important for the majority to act they way wish to be treated when they become the minority.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.