Tweet
I read Fred Clark's post on liberal Christian blog Slacktivist this morning, and I found it very interesting. It's a case where I can see both arguments presented. On the one hand, I can see the argument he referred to (put forward by Friendly Atheist, at least in his reference)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackti...your-no-by-no/
That the President of the United States (and anyone else taking office) should not say "So Help Me God" or swear themselves in on anything religious. The United States is, after all, a pluralistic country. It does not take sides in religious debates, the Constitution makes that much clear. To that, the sign of religion in the halls of power can be a little concerning, a little worrying. It can seem exclusionary to use a Bible and say "So Help Me God" at the end of the oath (something that, as Clark points out, is not a required part of the Presidential oath.)
On the other hand, I see Clark's argument as well. That the United States does not take sides, and thus, there should be no requirement to say "So help me God" or to be sworn in on the Bible, (or the other two mentioned, the Koran and the Baghavad Gita.) But at the same time, most religious people take their faith fairly seriously. And that he would hope, and that I would hope, that they take their job executing the office of President, Representative, or whatever else, just as seriously as they take their faith. To that end, swearing on the Bible, the Baghavad-Gita, and particularly the Koran due to its peculiar place in Islam compared to other holy texts, would be a demonstration of that.
That the President, and others, are not saying that all Christians must hold their faith. Instead, they are using their faith as an example of how seriously they take the job of President/Congressman/Whatever. The phrase, after all, is not "So help us, God" or even the supposedly-non-sectarian (but in fact frequently exclusionary) "God less America." This is how this one person shows how seriously they take the job.
That said, these are government officials, and the government cannot establish religion. Perhaps all the Bibles, Korans, and Baghavad-Gitas can be exclusionary, saying this is 'Our' country, not 'Yours.'
However, I've turned these thoughts over and over in my head, and I can't come to a decisions on which I prefer. That the person not say "So help me God" and use religious paraphenelia, thus keeping from appearing to take sides... Or that they do, to remind themselves, and demonstrate to everyone else, how seriously they take their faith, and how seriously they take thier role in office.
I feel that the question comes down to whether we focus on this as the person taking the office, or a symbol of the office itself. But I may be way off, and I want to form an opinion and hear other people's thoughts.
So, I don't really have any opinion on the matter, and I want to hear other people's thoughts.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackti...your-no-by-no/
That the President of the United States (and anyone else taking office) should not say "So Help Me God" or swear themselves in on anything religious. The United States is, after all, a pluralistic country. It does not take sides in religious debates, the Constitution makes that much clear. To that, the sign of religion in the halls of power can be a little concerning, a little worrying. It can seem exclusionary to use a Bible and say "So Help Me God" at the end of the oath (something that, as Clark points out, is not a required part of the Presidential oath.)
On the other hand, I see Clark's argument as well. That the United States does not take sides, and thus, there should be no requirement to say "So help me God" or to be sworn in on the Bible, (or the other two mentioned, the Koran and the Baghavad Gita.) But at the same time, most religious people take their faith fairly seriously. And that he would hope, and that I would hope, that they take their job executing the office of President, Representative, or whatever else, just as seriously as they take their faith. To that end, swearing on the Bible, the Baghavad-Gita, and particularly the Koran due to its peculiar place in Islam compared to other holy texts, would be a demonstration of that.
That the President, and others, are not saying that all Christians must hold their faith. Instead, they are using their faith as an example of how seriously they take the job of President/Congressman/Whatever. The phrase, after all, is not "So help us, God" or even the supposedly-non-sectarian (but in fact frequently exclusionary) "God less America." This is how this one person shows how seriously they take the job.
That said, these are government officials, and the government cannot establish religion. Perhaps all the Bibles, Korans, and Baghavad-Gitas can be exclusionary, saying this is 'Our' country, not 'Yours.'
However, I've turned these thoughts over and over in my head, and I can't come to a decisions on which I prefer. That the person not say "So help me God" and use religious paraphenelia, thus keeping from appearing to take sides... Or that they do, to remind themselves, and demonstrate to everyone else, how seriously they take their faith, and how seriously they take thier role in office.
I feel that the question comes down to whether we focus on this as the person taking the office, or a symbol of the office itself. But I may be way off, and I want to form an opinion and hear other people's thoughts.
So, I don't really have any opinion on the matter, and I want to hear other people's thoughts.
Comment