Oath Swearing ceremonies

Very_Kerri

So, my family and I were discussing why the president swore an oath on a bible to uphold the constituion (I realize this isnt always the case, but it was with Obama)? If the government is trying to separate church and state, why would this be appropriate?

My personal beliefs aside, this sends a mixed message. Religion is ok when I want it there and not when I don't?

Thoughts?

perfectingpatti

Great question. My guess is that it is considered a “traditional symbol” of faithfulness and commitment. It implies there is something (or Someone) higher than the president to whom he must be obedient and faithful. It implies he is taking a solemn oath or making a serious commitment.

However, I suspect if the president were asked why he does it, he would say that it is only symbolic and does not imply that only the Bible or Christianity can be used to make this symbolic gesture. I’m sure there is a lawsuit somewhere trying to change all this.

k8blujay2

I agree with Patti. This is also commonly done in courts as well, when "solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God". However, in court you can swear upon the Koran, Torah, Bible, whatever... so I'm sure you can amend it for whatever faith (or not) that you hold.

LuckyLeprechaun

Religion is ok when I want it there and not when I don't?

Thoughts?

Christianity has enjoyed a home field advantage in the US for a long time. Despite the fact that many of our founding fathers were atheist, and fled from England to escape from (among other things) the control exercised by the Church of England.

k8blujay2

Religion is ok when I want it there and not when I don't?

Thoughts?

Christianity has enjoyed a home field advantage in the US for a long time. Despite the fact that many of our founding fathers were atheist, and fled from England to escape from (among other things) the control exercised by the Church of England.

I thought most of them were Theists or Deists... but non-religious by any means.

lour441

Presidents choose how they want to take their oath. John Quincy Adams swore his oath on a book of laws.

The constitution does not ban religion. It is OK for the president to want to take an oath on the Bible. It is NOT OK for the government to mandate that the president take their oath on the Bible.

adrian_indy

Presidents choose how they want to take their oath. John Quincy Adams swore his oath on a book of laws.

The constitution does not ban religion. It is OK for the president to want to take an oath on the Bible. It is NOT OK for the government to mandate that the president take their oath on the Bible.

^good answer. If a president is a christian and holds the bible as holy, swearing on it makes sense. I on the otherhand would swear on a Hustler.

Azdak

You also have the social/cultural pressure to demonstrate you are a Christian. As part of the coverage, there was lots of trivia. Franklin Pierce was the only President to use the secular "affirm" rather than the religious "swear".

I can't imagine any politician having the guts to do it today.

treetop57

I wouldn't call "affirm" secular. It's used in the U.S. Constitution to assuage the religious sensibilities of the Quakers, whose religion takes literal the admonition in the Sermon on the Mount:

33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5 [NIV].

For the presidential oath, the Constitution doesn't require a Bible, nor does it add "So help me God." All it says is:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “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." Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

The Bible and the "So help me God" are personal decisions to be taken by the individual taking the oath. Most have added them, but some have not.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."[31] There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.[32]

The historical debate over who first used "So help me God," is marred by ignoring the two forms of giving the oath. The first, now in disuse, is when the administrator articulates the constitutional oath in the form of a question, as in, "Do you George Washington solemnly swear...", requesting an affirmation. At that point a response of "I do" or "I swear" completes the oath. Without verbatim transcripts, the scant existing evidence shows this was the common procedure at least until the early 20th century. In 1865 the Sacramento Daily Union covered the second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln finished his oath with "So help me God," and he kissed the bible.[33] In 1881, the New York Times article covering the swearing in of Chester A. Arthur, reported that he responded to the question of accepting the oath with the words, "I will, so help me God".[6] In 1929, Time magazine reported that the Chief Justice began the oath uttering, "You, Herbert Hoover, do you solemnly swear..."[7] Hoover replied with a simple "I do".

A Federal law suit filed in the District of Columbia by Michael Newdow on December 30, 2008 contended the second, current form of administration, where both the Chief Justice and the President articulate the oath, appending "So help me God", to be a breach of the Constitutional instructions. The suit distinguishes between the words spoken by the administrator, which must conform to the exact 35 words of the Constitution, and the President, who has a right to add a personal prayer, such as "So help me God."[34]

Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

I wish Roberts had just read the Constitutionally mandated oath and left it to Obama to add "So help me God" if he chose. Roberts did a bad enough job at this simple task in 2009 that he shouldn't complicate it by adding extra-Constitutional language.

treetop57

When I've served as a juror (always in California, always in Los Angeles County), I don't remember the witnesses' oath including God. The law apparently mandates two forms, one which refers to God and one which refers to "the penalty of perjury."

2094. (a) An oath, affirmation, or declaration in an action or a proceeding, may be administered by obtaining an affirmative response to one of the following questions:
(1) "Do you solemnly state that the evidence you shall give in this issue (or matter) shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God "
(2) "Do you solemnly state, under penalty of perjury, that the evidence that you shall give in this issue (or matter) shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth "

(b) In the alternative to the forms prescribed in subdivision (a), the court may administer an oath, affirmation, or declaration in an action or a proceeding in a manner that is calculated to awaken the person's conscience and impress the person's mind with the duty to tell the truth. The court shall satisfy itself that the person testifying understands that his or her testimony is being given under penalty of perjury. http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/ccp/2093-2094.html

Perhaps the custom in LA courts is to use the non-religious version.

k8blujay2

When I've served as a juror (always in California, always in Los Angeles County), I don't remember the witnesses' oath including God. The law apparently mandates one of two forms, one of which refers to God and one which refers to "the penalty of perjury."

2094. (a) An oath, affirmation, or declaration in an action or a proceeding, may be administered by obtaining an affirmative response to one of the following questions:
(1) "Do you solemnly state that the evidence you shall give in this issue (or matter) shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God "
(2) "Do you solemnly state, under penalty of perjury, that the evidence that you shall give in this issue (or matter) shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth "

(b) In the alternative to the forms prescribed in subdivision (a), the court may administer an oath, affirmation, or declaration in an action or a proceeding in a manner that is calculated to awaken the person's conscience and impress the person's mind with the duty to tell the truth. The court shall satisfy itself that the person testifying understands that his or her testimony is being given under penalty of perjury. http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/ccp/2093-2094.html

Perhaps the custom in LA courts is to use the non-religious version.

Or maybe I just watch too much tv.

TheRoadDog

I think we should keep religion out of Government, Schools and the workplace. And as far a swearing an oath in court...if I killed, robbed or committed larceny against someone, you don't think I would lie in court or when taking the oath.

MaraDiaz

He already tossed the Bill of Rights completely out the window just like Bush did before him, who cares what words he says on some book?

There is nothing in the NDAA that excludes US citizens from being secretly detained, tortured, and murdered as well as all non-US citizens that can become the victims of these hideous provisions in violation of international law. Not that the US hasn't been doing this forever, but to codify it? Treason.

treetop57

Over the weekend, I finally watched the entire swearing-in ceremony, rather than just the snippets from the news.

Two comments:

1. The Vice-Presidential oath of office was much longer than the presidential one. A little research tells that the president's oath is dictated by the constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) and "So help me God is" not legally part of the oath, while the VP's is dictated by law (5 US Code § 3331) and "So help me God" is legally part of the oath:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

2. Chief Justice Roberts indicated both by phrasing and intonation that "So help me God" was not part of the oath. The rest of the oath he stated in the first person and had Obama repeat, "I Barack Hussein Obama," etc. But the God part, he stated in the third person and intoned as a question: "So help you God?"

Another interesting piece of information: An affidavit from Robert's lawyer stating that before the 2009 inauguration, the Chief Justice's people asked the president-elect's people whether Obama wanted to say "So help me God."

Before the commencement of this lawsuit, the Chief Justice instructed me to ascertain from President-Elect Obama's representatives the President-Elect's wishes concerning the administration of the oath of office at the inauguration--including his wishes concerning the inclusion of the phrase "So help me God" after the conclusion of the constitutional oath. The Chief Justice instructed me at that time to inform representatives of the President-Elect that he will honor the President-Elect's wishes on that issue. An authorized representative of the President-Elect has informed me that the President-Elect wishes to conclude the oath with the phrase "So help me God," and I have so informed the Chief Justice.

http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2009-01-08 CJ's Counselor's Declaration.pdf