Does Religion Have A Place At Barack Obama's Inauguration?

Should Barack Obama invoke the name of God when he is sworn in as president next week?

Obama thinks so, and he wants to end his inaugural oath with the phrase "so help me God." But a group of atheists and agnostics don't want God mentioned at all during the presidential swearing-in ceremony, and they have banded together, suing Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court, seeking an injunction barring the use of "so help me God" in the inaugural oath. 

Atheist Michael Newdow, who fought to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, is the lead plaintiff in the suit, which also seeks to prevent Reverend Rick Warren from delivering an invocation. 

It should be noted that Obama wouldn't be first to tack "so help me God" onto the end of the inaugural oath. Many presidents have done so over the years, including George W. Bush, and Newdow also unsuccessfully tried to use legal means to prevent him from doing so.

The oath is it appears in the Constitution makes no mention of God 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 abilities, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

How do you feel about references to God being made during an inauguration? And putting aside the issues we have with Reverend Warren regarding his stance on gay marriage, how do you feel about a religious figure delivering a prayer at the inauguration? Have we let the wall between church and state come tumbling down in this country?

 

(Image courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[Glenn]

I definitely do not agree with political figures incorporating mention of god, church or religion into public speeches. While I do respect the historical relevance such references have in our pledge of allegiance and the constitution, I think they can be preserved as written references only, with a different passage selected for keynote addresses, such as the presidential oath of office. Big supporter of separation of church and state here.

[Ted]

People who claim God's name should not be mentioned because of "separation of church and state" are both hypocrites and uninformed morons. Separation of church and state simply means that the government cannot make any single religion or denomination the official state-sponsored belief. It prevents situations, such as in Sweden, where a person is automatically made a Lutheran Christian upon birth. The idea that separation of church and state bars a member of government from invoking God's name or publicly stating their beliefs is idiotic. A group of ignorant atheists suing to prevent the president-elect from making any reference to religion or personal beliefs is what is ACTUALLY barred by separation of church and state!

The bleeding-heart losers need to move to France if they want a secular paradise. The United States has been a religious country since day one. If they think "so help me God" is overbearing, they should take a look at the preambles of the 50 state constitutions. You would think you are reading a pastor's sermon!

Historically ignorant people make me sick.

[U REAP WHAT YOU SOW]

I Definitely agree with President Obams making reference to God in his inauguration because w/o God he would be unable to do anything and he is smart enough and wise in his heart to know that God is his only hope and anyone's hope for making a good change despite constant bickering of gay rights. so YES he SHOULD MAKE REFERENCE TO THE GOOD LORD in his inauguration. remember you will reap what you sow in this lifetime!!

[Brandon Sills]

it's an issue that i would be against, but the truth is, equality, beliefs, and all that we've held dear since we were born as a nation... everybody's shredding everybody else apart, like a man-made genocide that involves every person, adult, child, infant, to wreak havoc on our minds and make us think about our ideals and beliefs, and try to push them on others so much that it causes a rift between others.

if other presidents have said it before, and everybody's up in arms on this one, play it on the race card. if you're gonna sue someone because of something they want to add on in their inaugural memorial, then you should sue whomever else that let other presidents say it, and sue the ex-presidents who are still alive today.

then again, sue, sue sue. our country is already fucking bankrupt. you're just helping push us into debt. let him say what the fuck he wants, let it go, and let him do his job that of which will actually save us from a financial crisis worse than where we're going to be for awhlie. sue, and help us get lower by a few extra steps.

seriously. separation of church and state i'm all for, but now is not the fucking time to argue about it or claim defamation of a nation because someone said "so help me god"

for saying that right now in my commentary, you should sue me too, even though i have next to nothing and most likely always will until someone sees the value in me, that of which, i could see in you, if you pulled your head out of your asses and let the man do his fucking job.

[U REAP WHAT YOU SOW]

President Obama* (correction)

[Rain City Blues]

Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion. When they are allowed to mix, people sharing the religious views of the leadership gain an unfair advantage over those who have different views. Further, religion becomes perverted as a tool of the state, encouraging fealty to it and discouraging the questioning of it. When the lines blur badly enough God and the State become synonymous, and rulers claim to rule by Divine Right. The experience fosters distrust in both government and religion itself, and ultimately destroys both.

To quote the Bible, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. The Republics of the Earth are not ruled by Divine Mandate but by popular mandate. Therefore it is more fitting for a President to swear an allegiance to the people and not to God. If he prefers to give his allegiance to God and not to the people, he should resign and become a priest.

The Constitution makes no references to God, the Divine, a Creator, or any other divine entity. It contains a prohibition against religious tests of office. The First Amendment to it prohibits Congress from favoring any one faith over any other. Thus is it not only within the above mentioned Divine Law that religion and the State are to remain separate, it is also enshrined within secular law.

While some would like to think that the reverse is true, America is not, and never was, a Christian nation. We were established as a secular state, as reflected in the law of the land, which avoids divine references. Therefore, the President,and all officers of the state, should likewise avoid divine references when acting int he capacity as an officer of the State. When acting in a civilian capacity, they are free to make whatever references they want. The job does require one to separate one's personal feelings from their professional duties. This includes the oath of office, as during that moment the President begins the execution of his duties as an officer of the State.

[Cheech]

Do I think that the leader of the United States should endorse religion within his official capacity? No. The United States is first and foremost a secular nation. Our founding fathers were from various different religious and non-religious backgrounds. They understood the importance of keeping religion out of government.

Now, do I think that this issue is worth a lawsuit? Maybe. I understand that many of religious faith will look at this lawsuit and see it as a group of secularists trying to ban religious expression. But consider the overall context. America has more Christians than any other nation in the world. Christmas is a national holiday. Since the 1950s we've printed "in God we trust" on our money and have used the words "under God" in our pledge of allegiance. Most recently George W. Bush and (a little further back) Ronald Reagan were both staunch supporters of Christianity and molded their public speeches and policies accordingly. These are just a few examples of a much larger problem: a large majority of population is quietly content to see secularism go the way of the dinosaurs in favor of a Christian state. So my answer is that this one battle is not important by itself. However, when considered part of the greater whole, each attempt to nationalize religion, no matter how small, should be challenged.

As one final point, did anybody else notice that the author used the phrase "atheists and agnostics" rather than secularists? Clearly the plaintiffs in this suit are secularists by definition. But in our culture the word secularist doesn't carry a negative connotation. In fact there are a lot of secular Christians. By choosing to label the plaintiffs as such, the author reveals their personal bias and knowingly or otherwise taints the question.

[XeroKewl]

President Obama, as he will soon be known from now on, has every right to use the phrase "so help me god" during his inaugural speech just as every other red blooded American has the right to use it in everyday conversation. We, as a nation, elected this man to this office for the beliefs and values he posses and yet, now we want to edit and censored what he has to say at the moment of his invocation of the office we have posted him to. That would be unfair and unjust. Just because he has become the leader of what was once, and soon will be again, a great nation, doesn't mean he loses the right to freedom of speech. The separation of church and state has no bearing on this small use of words, because, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, every American has the right to the freedom of speech. Isn't that what makes America, America?

[Rich]

I bet he really wants to say Allah....LOL.....most of you voted for him...now there is a problem ??? what is up with that ????? lol...wait till he gets if office....then you can all bitch...lol

[Sammy]

I think they are just making it a big deal. Just like the atheists want to be accepted in the society for who they are, and not be forced to believe in God, similarly they should live and let live. If Obama believes in God, it's his prerogative to ask for help from God if he wants to. They have no right to sue him for his faith.

[Sammy]

And why choose a picture with tears, what does that have to do with this article?

[david]

Allah is just another word for God...

Either way free speech is free speech. We the people voted him into office so to pitch a fit like this now is kind of redundant.

In my point of view he can say it as much as he pleases. So long as he doesn't start taking his personal views and implementing it into laws that turn the country into a theocracy over a democracy then I really don't care.

[mike]

Let's see now, the economy is in the tank, Gaza is up in flames, the threat of terrorism goes on, and I could go on and on, but the words "so help me God" is what somebody wants to sue over. Seems to me that with a new President, (thank God), this is the time for us as a nation to start pulling together and stop this divisive politics of the Bush era. The left can be as crazy as the right.

[Joe]

What he cant say God cause they dont want him to? What about the rest of us who believe in God? So Im assuming they dont use Us currency cause it says "In God We Trust" lol.

[keith]

The atheists seem to forget that freedom OF religion is part of the Bill of Rights. If Obama wants to include God in his ignaugaration it's his Constitutional right to do so. God Bless America.

[Clark]

Remember that the American Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. Should shred the Declaration of Independence as a basis for the understanding of our nation simply because it refers to God???? Of course not!

YES! Obama should say "so help me God" and it should not be challenged. That is his judgement.

I do sort of think he is trying to get brownie points with conservatives. I am one and still will be very critical of any action the soon to be President Obama takes that goes against my gay conservative make up.

[tyler]

My British uncle said to me many years ago that religion has been involved in every war/fight one way or another. I didn't take his words seriously then but I sure do now.
"So help me G*d" or any other "religious" sayings are a very sore subject for many people. Christianity has been a war within my family w/ my born-again mother for 30+ yrs....she has caused a tremendous amount of hurt w/ her religious dictatorship.
With all the chaos that is going on in the world, a born-again W Bush failure, Isreal/Gaza, Rick Warren, Prop 8....what we need is to cool down. But the Christians will never let that happen and respect others point of view. What's going on is karma, pure and simple.
I personally don't care if Obama wants to say G*d or not during his inauguration. But I certainly DO understand the feelings of others in not wanting it. People can only take so much hurt! And the Christians have caused a tremendous amount of hurt!

[jack]

This country was founded on religious freedom. Atheist and agnostics are free to practice what they believe and speak what they believe , however that freedom does not give them the right to keep persons who believe in GOD from doing the same. I therefor support Obama in saying "so help me GOD".

[Separation of Church and State]

I'm all for complete separation of church and state. Religion and religious institutions should have no control or influence on government and government institutions should not have any control of religious institutions.

Got a religion that says it's ok to molest a child? Nothing you can do! Hey, separation of church and state, right? Just as a church can't force itself on the government, a government can't force itself on a church! Separation of church and state!

"Separation of church and state" sounds pretty ridiculous when I put it in that context, doesn't it? They will always have influence upon the other and that's the way it should be.

Here's a good article for those of you who are capable of reason.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts

[Lani]

I agree with Ted, the group of atheists suing is one of the many situations that seperation of church and state is suppose to prevent.

[rain]

I think it is completely fine with him saying so. Its a swear by his faith in himself and has nothing to do with how he will run the country. Being sworn is is something personal so i think the people who disagree should butt out, if he tries to do something crazy with running the country the way Bush did with bringing in God to all of his decisions and not what was best for the people, then things would be much different.

[Vance]

If atheists are allowed to say that they don't believe in God, why should President Obama not be allowed to say he does? Freedom of speech is great and I think President Obama should be able to say that he wants God to help him with his success as President. THAT is not something against the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Chazman]

Pesonally, I know the man is religious, he let the country know that when they voted him in. However he should remember if he is religious that the bible says.. you should not swear by neither heaven nor earth. And "So help me God" is swearing by heaven. Just how I look at it anyway.

[Publicus]

This is an interesting case in which public interests and private beliefs intersect.

It is true that this country has struggled with the concept of the separation of church and state for most of its history. The underlying precept being an acceptance of tolerance for other beliefs -- whatever they may be. I believe that President-elect Obama has clearly embraced this.

Yet, in this case, the issue whether I believe in God or not or whether we as a nation collectively believe in God or not and how we exercise that belief is not important.

The presidential oath is the only pledge incorporated into the constitution. People look to it and see that it does not include "so help me God." But, previous presidents have included the phrase. There is even debate whether George Washington uttered the phrase.

Yet, even the historical precedents are not the issue. In taking any oath -- particularly one with such awesome responsibilities -- what is important is the belief of the individual taking the oath.

Barak Obama has talked about his faith in God and what that has meant in his life. It is part of who is as a person and who he will be as a president. Because of our belief in the freedom of conscience, it is entirely appropriate for this president to invoke the name of God when accepting the responsibilities of the office. The nation should expect that any individual accepting the powers of that office would do so in the name of the things most important to them. For some presidents this has been expressed as, "so help me God."

[Sargon Bighorn]

God's name? You mean Vishnu? Yeah I think he should.

[tellulater]

It's uneccesary and I can't help but think public demonstrations of faith in a transcendent power are nothing but attention-seeking acts, and for Obama to do this, makes me lose a little respect as he's showing himself to be a following sheep just like the rest. Context is everything. Not everything can/should be said by everyone anytime, anyplace. I don't see such statements as appropriate in the office he's in. Had the president been a genuine satanist (assuming one would even be elected) and uttered "so help me satan", imagine the uproar. Now going back to the issue of context, I can sympathize with those who think a lawsuit at this particular time is not a good thing. However, those arguing against the principle of the matter are clearly shortsighted and so completely unaware of their own bias.

[dbw]

If Obama wants to invoke the name of someone, let him. He has a right to religion.

[James]

Why don't we sue them for trying to sue Obama for wanting to say in god we trust. reminds me of the scripture that says a nation that forgets GOD shall be turned into HEll

[Kent]

Most of us here are grown mature adults. Are we really going to complain about a small phrase? Are we really going to bicker and cause an issue with something that causes us no harm? I wish people who oppose "God" in public government speeches, town halls, court houses, government prayers etc... could really prove what harm they are actually receiving by these phrases? I mean they treat the word "God" as if it is some disease or weapon that is physically hurting them?

I am gay and Republican. I don't exactly agree with everything Republicans believe in, but I do hold dear to myself the values and life lessons they teach. While it's hard to follow any set of values or morals 100%, I believe Republicans hold dear to them the best interests of this nation. Republicans like to keep traditions a live and working. While not all traditions are acceptable or appropriate, many are. That's why there is change and our government has in place a set of checks and balances to alter our government. I can't ever, for one minute, let the word "God" used in a speech hurt me or force me to get upset. It's so petty.

Also some of the individuals are posting that our founding fathers were in fact not Christians. That is far from being true. To the first settlers who established extreme views of Christianity to Jefferson and Washington, they all practiced or worshiped to some type of religion or god. Our founding fathers made references to God in many first public documents of our government and in their speeches.

[jovinman]

"So help me God" is THAT offensive? Must be pretty tough to function here in the USA or anywhere. Good luck!

[Tom]

I have to agree with Ted - Americans need to read the first amendment more carefully. The actual "separation" only refers to the fact that congress cannot make a law to establish a national religion - the actual wording is "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor preventing the free exercise thereof" - I think Obama is practicing the freedom guaranteed by the second half of the sentence. He didn't get that prestigious law degree for nothing! He knows constitutional law very well - and knows it is within his rights to use the "so help me God" phrase.

[Me]

Isn't God called Allah in Ebonics? And why is there bird droppings on Hussein Osama's face?

[Chris]

Its his choice to end with it. Its not a mandated part of government, and as we support peoples rights to not believe in god and not want anything to do with him, we should support his rights to believe in him. Yes, separation of church and state issue is what most of yall cry about, but this is kinda stretching it. How can you people really be so petty. He wants to do it, no one is pushing him to do it, it is not making or breaking any of our laws for him to do it, its not incorporated into everyones daily lives, its not impacting anyone else in anyway, if you believe THAT strongly that you can't tolerate OUR presidents right to choose what word he wants to say in a country built on the foundation of tolerance, yall need to get the @$%# out... Kinda hypocritical to be intolerant when all yall posting on this comment section are homos to begin with, god knows we don't take kindly to intolerance when things WE do are just as harmless as things obama is doing... in the end... Get over yourselves...

[tellulater]

"Practicing the freedom, or is it exploiting the freedom, similar to the way a person yelling "fire" in a crowded room expolits freedom of speech? What's the harm, Kent? It symbolized a bias in favor a popular religious mindset, and against that which does not conform. Like it or not, "God", in the country, is not neutral. The unmodified oath is neutral, not provocative and completely adquedate expression of what he's in office to do. I would like to see someone address other points that have been made so far, like the acceptability of him mentioning other names such as "satan, allah, or vishnu.

[ED]

I believe that President elect Barack Obama has the right to say whatever he choses when takes his oath. After all isn't this a country of freedom of speech. I say you go Barack and say what you would like too.

[James Howells (Dallas, TX)]

Of Course President-Elect Barack Obama should use the phrase "so help me God" in the oath of office, people who claim to be atheist sueing to prevent Mr. Obama's freedom of religion is little more than thier hatred of religion, in no way is using the phase So help me God in anyway an establishment of religion as is banned by separation of Church and State. Furthermore, if we do away with all religion we are establishing Atheism as the religion of the USA, which would violate the Separation of Church and State.

[Balin]

GOSH.. what a buntch of Wimps..
Suing over a simple statement..
I'd have to put them in the same class as one of my broken wrist friends that SCREAMS when he(she) sees a rolly polly.
Why would atheist care if anyone says " in God we trust" ? if they dont believe in god ? Are they scared of him ?
it's not like that statement means that the Pres will FORCE everyone to have a Bible and go to Sunday School..

[Matt]

I don't have a problem with Obama, like other presidents have done, using the phrase to be sworn in to office. Obama has not hidden the fact that he is a Christian and he has just as much right to be one as the athiests who are suing have a right to their own personal beliefs. By using the phrase in his oath of office, Obama is not infringing upon any right of the athiest, he's simply making a statement based on his personal beliefs that by God's help, he will uphold the duties of his office. Freedom of religion is freedom for ALL religions, and the athiests are trying to deny him that right by suing to ban the phrase being used, and by that action, they are wrong.

As for Warren leading the invocation (regardless of his views on homosexuality), I don't have a a problem with it. I don't believe that intolerance should be answered by intolerance. We as gays are very familiar with intolerance, but that does not mean that we should answer that with more intolerance. If anything, it means we should be all the more tolerant of conflicting opinions and viewpoints. That is the only way that we are going to change intolerant peoples' minds about our lifestyle.

[Brandon Montieth]

I just want to say one thing, I think athesists should just keep there opinions to themselves. That is so retarded, its his speech so let him say what he wants to say. Thats like taking away his right to believe in GOD!!! George W Bush say's God Bless America all the time. Nobody has sued him. Grow up and quit trying to get money the easy way. HOW IN THE HE*L DO YOU THINK YOU GOT PUT ON THIS EARTH.... If I sued everyone that didnt like the fact that I am gay, I would be in court all my life.. GROW UP!!!

[TK]

Why is this rubbish considered so newsworthy. Oh, I forgot, its America, "Land of the sue, any one, any time, any place, and for as much money as you possibly can". No wonder the rest of the world considers America a real basket case. Pathetic.

[Rod]

As an atheist, I do believe that religion has no place in government. However, I do believe that it is an individual's personal right to believe whatever he or she chooses. If Obama wants to swear to God, let him. It doesn't affect you, me, or anybody else, and if he wants to believe that uttering those words will help him serve as a better president, then fine, whatever!

[wick]

It's a freedom of speech, and Obama should be able to say what he wants. He is a strong individual and if individuals or groups of individuals try and sensor him, the will be taking away his rights...

[Michael]

I think that the whole "seperation of church and state" thing has been taken WAY too far. I myself am an agnostic, but it does not infringe on my rights of being an agnostic for Obama to say "so help me god" at the end of his oath. Having a prayer during the ceremony is a bit questionable though. But if it makes taking that oath more meaninful and sacred to him, then by all means, let him say it. Some people just need to grow up and get over themselves. Tolerance goes both ways people!

[Jesus]

For those of you who say that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, you are wrong. The founding fathers knew it, and stated it. Biggest proof is in the Treaty with Tripoli written and signed by John Adams in 1797. It states:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[Chris]

The point has been made: "separation of church and state" means that governmeent can't force a religion upon the people. Freedom of religion allows Barack to invoke God, and if he wants to call upon a higher power to help him through his time in office, more power to him. The phrase is "So help ME, God" that's an open covenant between him and his higher power, and has nothing to do with anyone else.
As for the invocation, if you don't want to pray with the invocation, don't bow your head. No one will force you to, you don't have to participate.

[Radically Atheist]

Whether or not our founding fathers were Christian is irrelevant. The question is whether or not they believed that one's religious convictions should play a part in their governing others. The answer is no.

With this in mind it's easy to understand why someone would find it inappropriate (not offensive) for someone to invoke their religion during a ceremony for a secular office. It will in no way affect his performance as president to say these words, nor will it to refrain from doing so.

Also, please remember that no one (that I've noticed so far) is saying that he should not be allowed to be religions or even proclaim his religion, but there is a time and a place. That is to say anywhere and anytime at which he is not executing his duties in the secular office of the President of the United States.

Though I maintain that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand, it is important to note that are founding fathers were not certainly Christians. There is evidence to support that a more likely conclusion that many of them were Deists. I would quote some letters for you and point you to more, but I loaned out the book from which I intended to quote.

All that said, I don't believe he should say it, but I don't think it will really make a big enough difference to fight about. There are more productive means to the end these "protesters" truly desire.

[Jim]

The President-elect's reference is a personal one, not an official reference covering the entire United States. Should I now sue if he doesn't refer to God because I am Christian and offended that he made no mention of the power we all know he worships? The smallness of some individuals amazes me. My life is far too full to worry about such trivialities. In the scheme of things, those who complain the loudest have way too much time on their hands.

[DS]

WHO CARES?

Obama sucks and he was elected solely because of a newly established ghetto vote. God or not, his 'presidency' will be a farce!

[DudeYouLied]

SCREW GOD. Imagine No Religion! God and religion this country as it is. God and religion should have NO verbiage EVER in politics! It's offensive and has no business in politics. If anything, the words should be, "so screw you god". Hell, hell was an astronaut anyways!

[youngbimale2007]

Seriously? This is a problem? Why does an atheist care if someone else believes in God? I mean it's not attacking their atheism no more than someone not believing in a specific God attacks a religion. It's an ambiguous term used by all religions. It could be whatever he worships be that the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, Buddha, or a friggin tree stump. All it means is he respects the religion he professes to. It is not a term that suggests he's going to sweep the country into this frenzy where we stamp out the "God haters" and suppress freedom. It's ridiculous to use separation of church and state as a reason to not said "so help me God". If he believes in a God, then let him invoke it to help. By all means this country could certainly use some. I would be completely on board with him not doing it if he was going to pull out an alter, tear his clothes, and speak in tongues. This is an argument from the extremely anti-religious and needs to be let go. If you're so unsure of your atheistic point of view that one man publicly saying "so help me God" is going to sway you to believe in one than you need to reevaluate your viewpoints anyway because you clearly don't believe in what you say you do and have no certainty. If you do, however, truly believe that there is no God than what do you care? It's harmless and we all need to learn not to be so sensitive.