There shall be "No Establishment of Religion" and "no religious test."

[Diogenes]

I watched Ketanji Brown Jackson being sworn in today.

The Constitution prescribes the text of the oath for the President taking office:
"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 II, Section 1, Clause 8

The Constitution does not list the exact wording for the oath a new Supreme Court Justice takes, so Congress decided a new Justice should pronounce similar words, closing with, "... so help me God."

The Constitution is clear, “there shall be no religious test” for those holding office in the United States. Yet, “… so help me God” was added to the oath which is administered while the new President or Justice holds their hand on the Bible (or two Bibles).

Questions for debate:
Does this not violate the United States Constitution?
What would happen if a President or Justice refused to utter the words "... under God" or refused to put their hand on the Bible?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]
Not sure how this thread is different than your other one on Separation of Church and State. Either way, I think my response there is relevant here...

From the following thread...

A friend recently wrote:

I’m wondering what would happen (and why it hasn’t) if a principled President or Supreme Court Justice refused to say “so help me God” or refused to put their hand on the Bible.
Note: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams did not put their hands on a Bible when sworn.

Your friend raises a valid point but I still think there would be some backlash. Like it or not, being religious or a Christian is still seen as some implied litmus test for character and morality. Eventhough in reality, many politicians probably don't even put Christianity into practice but they'll still call themselves that to help with their image, just like Donald Trump did when he held up the Bible in front of St. John's Church.

I wonder whether there are Christians here who resist the current movement among evangelicals to resist the combining of religion and government. For debate:
Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'*

I don't believe it would be bad to remove the Separation of Church and State, and by that I mean, allow the State and/or Fed. Government to endorse religious views. BUT, my condition for that would be to only endorse those views that are supported by reason and evidence. My reason for this is because secular views can be just as unsupported as religious views, so if you allow one then why not the other? Don't conservatives already disguise their views as being political or secular when it is often times very similar to biblical views, like their views on abortion?! Of course, religious views should not be given any special status which may've happened in the earlier history of America. All views, whether religious or not, should be considered for public policy if it is based on reason and evidence.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1

The Constitution is clear, “there shall be no religious test” for those holding office in the United States. Yet, “… so help me God” was added to the oath which is administered while the new President or Justice holds their hand on the Bible (or two Bibles).

If I remember correctly, George Washington started the "so help me God" practice and others followed suit. Certainly nothing constitutional about it.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #3]
Thanks for bringing that up. I hadn't heard of a G.W. connection, so I took a gander:

... scholars have continued to discuss the protocol surrounding these words, which are not listed within the Constitution and whether they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Much of the debate has centered on long-repeated claims, that a number of Supreme Court decisions have echoed, that George Washington had initiated the practice of adding the words “so help me God” to the presidential oath that the Constitution prescribed. The best available evidence, however, suggests that reports that Washington used these words did not arise until long after he took the oath and cannot thus be reliably verified (Henriques 2009).
There is, however, contemporary evidence that George Washington engaged in a symbolic equivalent when he kissed the Bible after taking his oath....

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... elp-me-god

The article goes on to discuss the "Historic Usage principle," a squishy work around the so-called 'strict constructionists' should abhor, but love because of their religious views.

[Purple Knight]

What would happen if a President or Justice refused to utter the words "... under God" or refused to put their hand on the Bible?

We all know what would happen, or rather, what wouldn't happen, and that's the meat of this topic.

Effectively, it is such a test. But only effectively.

Questions for debate:
Does this not violate the United States Constitution?

Not really, actually. If you believe in the god you're swearing to, you swear. And if you don't, then nothing stops you from swearing either.

The only test here is screening out 1) admittedly, those who haven't thought it through or want to stand on their lack of belief for a genuine moral reason and 2) people who think that particular god exists but just don't care for him.

[Diogenes]

What would happen if a President or Justice refused to utter the words "... under God" or refused to put their hand on the Bible?

We all know what would happen, or rather, what wouldn't happen, and that's the meat of this topic.

Effectively, it is such a test. But only effectively.

Questions for debate:
Does this not violate the United States Constitution?

Not really, actually. If you believe in the god you're swearing to, you swear. And if you don't, then nothing stops you from swearing either.

The only test here is screening out 1) admittedly, those who haven't thought it through or want to stand on their lack of belief for a genuine moral reason and 2) people who think that particular god exists but just don't care for him.

It is very simple. The Constitution forbids the 'establishment of religion.' Swearing an oath to God violates this principle. 'Christian' culture frequently violates this principle because of their majority in the population and their loyalty to their religion over country.

[Purple Knight]

It is very simple. The Constitution forbids the 'establishment of religion.' Swearing an oath to God violates this principle. 'Christian' culture frequently violates this principle because of their majority in the population and their loyalty to their religion over country.

I agree. My point was that you could say that this oath gets off on a technicality.

...Making this one of basically every law that requires people to adhere to the spirit of it, not just the letter.

And that, in turn, requires that people believe in the law. And as you pointed out, they don't. They believe in Christianity.

Here's the rub though. You have to look at it from their perspective. They believe, 100%, that they are right. Muslims are wrong, Hindus are wrong, Purple Knight and his belief that he himself is god, is wrong. When they believe they are absolutely correct, it is absolutely logical for them to want the establishment of their own religion. It can only help, because it is the correct religion.

Having laws like that one require people to take their own religion with a grain of salt. And if they could do that, they wouldn't be religious in the first place. They might believe it was probably true, but that doesn't rise to the level of religious belief. That makes them agnostics. This law only works if everybody is at least agnostic. And in a country where everybody was agnostic, you wouldn't need such a law.

Therefore it's a utopian law and it's pointless.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

This is the second thread Diogenes started on this topic. The questions of this thread seem to have been fully answered in the last thread. Ending the oath with “…so help me God” does not violate the constitution, and if a judged refused to say those words then nothing other than her not saying the words would take place. Those words, like placing a hand on the Bile, is a personal choice, not a requirement.

Diogenes, Is there something specific you were hoping address that was not covered in the earlier thread?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...Ending the oath with “…so help me God” does not violate the constitution,

Kinda like abortion, "The Constitution don't mention abortion, so not yours. The constitution doesn't mention 'So help me God' either, but we'll keep on requiring it all the same."

It seems many Christians have an interpretation of the constitution that doesn't prevent em from imposing their will, while rejecting the will of so many others.

and if a judged refused to say those words then nothing other than her not saying the words would take place. Those words, like placing a hand on the Bile, is a personal choice, not a requirement.

You've never been you to the Bible Belt, have ya? You get far enough out in the sticks with some of these Christians, and you'll see that not toeing the religious party line is call for getting you a shunning.

Suddenly your daughter ain't cheer leady enough, your boy's 'causing trouble' with the biggest boy in school. Your old lady can't find anyone to babysit. And you get passed up for that promotion.

Never kid yourself folks, some Christians preach you turn the other cheek, so's they can slap ya on that'n too.

[bjs1]

...
...Ending the oath with “…so help me God” does not violate the constitution,

Kinda like abortion, "The Constitution don't mention abortion, so not yours. The constitution doesn't mention 'So help me God' either, but we'll keep on requiring it all the same."

It seems many Christians have an interpretation of the constitution that doesn't prevent em from imposing their will, while rejecting the will of so many others.

No, not like that. This is a case where the Constitution gives people the right to say, “so help me God,” or refrain from saying it, and the courts have acted accordingly.

and if a judged refused to say those words then nothing other than her not saying the words would take place. Those words, like placing a hand on the Bile, is a personal choice, not a requirement.

You've never been you to the Bible Belt, have ya? You get far enough out in the sticks with some of these Christians, and you'll see that not toeing the religious party line is call for getting you a shunning.

Suddenly your daughter ain't cheer leady enough, your boy's 'causing trouble' with the biggest boy in school. Your old lady can't find anyone to babysit. And you get passed up for that promotion.

Never kid yourself folks, some Christians preach you turn the other cheek, so's they can slap ya on that'n too.

Yes, Christians like that exist. There also exist atheist who outright hate anyone who claims to be a Christian. However, the issue at hand is not social pressure but legality. An individual may feel pressure place her hand on the Bible or pressure to refuse to do so. The job of the State is to protect her right to do either.