Religion in Public Life: Prayer and Oath on Bible at Schwarzeneggar Inauguration

FoxNews ^ | 17 Nov 03

[xzins]

How can it be a violation to say "under God," but not be a violation to pray before a public event that features no less than the Governor of California being sworn in? What does it mean for a Governor to place his hand on a BIBLE and take an oath to uphold his constitution and his office?

It means exactly what the Schwarzeneggar children said in the pledge they repeated at the ceremony....UNDER GOD.

With his hand on a Bible, Arnold testified that integrity flows from the only ethical code that can hold a democratic nation together. And that is the Judeo-Christian code....the code of the Bible and of its commandments and encouragements.

[xzins]

Vindicates Judge Roy Moore's statement that these "God" things in our political world constitute a great contradiction in our "separation of church and state doctrine."

10 Commandment rocks are wrong in one state but not another. "In God We Trust" is on our money, but a court says our pledge's "under God" is "unconstitutional."

[Zack Nguyen]

Eventually the left (and frankly some from the secular right) will seek to remove the officeholder's oath on the Holy Bible. It is only natural - the oath signifies that the God of the Bible is a third party to the oath, with accompanying negative sanctions on the elected official if the oath is violated.

It also irrevocably links our government with the God of Nations.

Soon (if not already) you will officeholders refuse to put their hand on a Bible. The symbolism will be too much for them, and they will insist that God be taken out of the equation, as if somehow they have the power to do that.

[My2Cents]

Did you notice that the children who led in the Pledge of Allegience also said "...under God..."? I thought it was a nice touch that some of those kids were from Elk Grove, the city where the school district was sued by Michael Newdow over the pledge for it being a violation of the "separation of church and state."

[xzins]

I caught the "under God" part of the pledge, but I didn't know any were from Newdow's school district.

That sounds intentional, doesn't it?

[xzins]

There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but will heap to themselves teachers having 'itching' ears.

[LDO4CNO]

George Washington ended his oath with the phrase "So help me God", but he wasn't required to, it's not part of the oath!! FREEDOM, that's what it's all about people! If you don't have to say it and you do, it means something, if you require it, it means nothing. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

[Grit]

[MineralMan]

"Eventually the left (and frankly some from the secular right) will seek to remove the officeholder's oath on the Holy Bible. It is only natural - the oath signifies that the God of the Bible is a third party to the oath, with accompanying negative sanctions on the elected official if the oath is violated. It also irrevocably links our government with the God of Nations.

Soon (if not already) you will officeholders refuse to put their hand on a Bible. The symbolism will be too much for them, and they will insist that God be taken out of the equation, as if somehow they have the power to do that."

It's a matter of choice for the oath-taker, and has been since the Constitution was written. Even the President may simply affirm his oath of office.

One president, Pierce, did, indeed affirm his oath of office. One needn't be a Christian to hold elective office. Remember, this is the nation that allows people of all religions to serve.

[Zack Nguyen]

Indeed.

I believe the oath to be important - it places the officeholder under direct responsibility to God if he fails to keep his end up. It also reminds us all that God ultimately holds our elected officials accountable for what they do. This must never be forgotten if America is to remain free.

[Zack Nguyen]

Remember, this is the nation that allows people of all religions to serve.

You're kidding. I mean, I had no idea!

Sorry - I shouldn't be sarcastic. But I think that is evident.

One needn't be a Christian to hold elective office.

If an elected official refuses to swear an oath to God, and has no religious objection to doing so, then I would severely question exactly what that individual thinks he or she is accountable to, if anyone. A Christian or a JEew would understand (or should understand) what is at stake here. Our government can't establish a state religion, but it shouldn't be secular either.

[My2Cents]

They had children from Arnold's afterschool All Stars in LA, some special olympic kids from Sacramento, a group from Elk Grove, and his own children. To bring in the kids from Elk Grove, Newdow's hometown, has got to be intentional. Whoever suggested it deserves a medal.

[MineralMan]

"If an elected official refuses to swear an oath to God, and has no religious objection to doing so, then I would severely question exactly what that individual thinks he or she is accountable to, if anyone. A Christian or a JEew would understand (or should understand) what is at stake here. Our government can't establish a state religion, but it shouldn't be secular either."

OK. I'm an atheist. I served in our military, and have served on Grand Juries and petit juries. I have not held any elective office. I have never sworn an oath using a Bible, nor have I ever said "so help me God." I say the Pledge of Allegiance as I was taught it in 1950, without the "under God" phrase.

Are you trying to tell me that I'm unqualified to hold an elective office in the USA?

[My2Cents]

I agree. An atheist might run for high office, but would never be elected.

[SalukiLawyer]

Hi xzins. I think the best answer is that there are a few traditional uses of religious symbolism by the government. The emphasis is on "traditional," rather than "religious." Even many of these are going by the wayside. For instance no one swears on a bible in any courtroom I have ever been in (although I am sure it happens somewhere).

Bill Clinton swore his oath of office on a Bible. I am sure it had more to do with tradition than asserting his moral determination to fulfil all the mandates of the God of Abraham. A dollar bill may say "In God We Trust," but there is also a pyramid and the Eye of Ra (for all I know) on the back of it. I don't think very many people think about either one too much as they're buying a Big Mac.

The ironic point is occasional use of vague religious trappings by the government is not objectionable precisely because they are not taken seriously. Kind of like saying "bless you" when someone sneezes; superficially it has a religious connotation, but it is now mere politeness.

The Moore case is different because he put them in a law court of the land precisely to make a religious point that the foundation of the nation's laws is the revealed Commandments of the Judeao-Christian God.

In other words, I don't think the government's historical appropriation of a few quaint and generic invocations of The Deity does much to inform the Moore debate.

[Zack Nguyen]

Are you trying to tell me that I'm unqualified to hold an elective office in the USA?

Let me put it this way: I would never knowingly vote for one. Note I am not saying that you are incompetent to hold office, or even unable to understand the basic functions of that office. Quite the contrary. I am sure that you are an intelligent man. I realize you will find this highly offensive, and I regret that very much.

Nevertheless the Bible says that government is an institution that has been ordained by God, and that those who serve in it are his "ministers." (Romans 13:1-7.) Therefore I believe that when government is staffed by people who do not acknowledge that God is the final authority of right and wrongwill hold all people accountable, then disaster can ensue.

As a member of the military, did you not take an oath before God to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic? I have never served in the military so I do not know.

[Zack Nguyen]

An atheist might run for high office, but would never be elected.

Don't be so sure! Few of us thought that America would elect a moral alley cat to the highest office either - but they did twice.

[Zack Nguyen]

Your point regarding what made Moore different is valid. And that is why the secular left and right want to destroy him - he was a living symbol of all they fight against.

In other words, I don't think the government's historical appropriation of a few quaint and generic invocations of The Deity does much to inform the Moore debate.

I think oaths mean a greta deal, because we will be held accountable to God for every careless word, as Christ said.

[Zack Nguyen]

bump.