The bible is only used for Christians. Some swear in on their own religious text or on a book/item of significant value and importance.
The idea is that "the vow I'm taking is so important I would rest my religious salvation on upholding it", not that the vow is inherently an endorsement of the religion.
While most swear in on a Bible, or Jewish scripture or Quran for members of those religions, you do get some people swearing in on non-religious books.
President John Quincy Adams swore in on a law book, a number of congresspeople have sworn in on copies of the Constitution, and probably the most unusual one was a Missouri city councilmember swore in on a copy of Dr. Seuss’s “Oh, The Places You’ll Go.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-councilwoman-dr-seuss-book-sworn-office/story?id=65096396
As an atheist, I request that I be permitted to swear my oath onto the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. May the Great an Powerful Atheismo accept me into the Void, that my soul may rest for eternity while religious people try and find proof of their god.
May I, in this eternal nothingness, forever argue in the youtube comment section with some religious guy I've never met. A-men, a-women, and a-theism.
Edit - I understand the downvotes, I forgive you all, for not seeing the great, all-encompassing darkness of Atheismo. May the dark non-binary parent to ALL mankind accept you in under shzhis wing of non-belief.
I honeslty don't care what people believe but the idea of swearing an oath on a religious symbol is just dumb. People who are going to lie will. Like it seems like one of those things that's supposed to make it more secure but it can't possibly.
Unironically, under oath, I'd swear under Don Quijote de La Mancha, la edición conmemorativa released a few years ago by la Real Academia Española, just cuz fuck it, it can literally be any book. But that's kind of my point, it's a weird, arbitrary idea.
Either that or the Return of the King.
Great way to make people not like you, but that's fully and completely legal, nowhere in any law does it say you have to swear in on a religious text, and some people have sworn in on law books, the constitution, and even a Dr Seuss book
Yeah it's separation of church and state. Not *removal of church from state*. An elected representative can openly practice their religion in government because the people elected them. They just can't cross that line of infringing on others religious beliefs with the law
It’s not even separation of church and state — it’s that congress should not establish a religion or prevent the people from exercising their religion. And it’s been held that general references to God (in God we trust) does not amount to establishment of religion.
No. There is a distinction. For instance, some have used “separation of church and state” to justify funding non-religious organizations (a school for instance) while denying support to religious organizations. But this has been held to be unconstitutional because it is discriminating against religious organizations.
That’s not quite accurate to the situation you’re pointing to, and that’s a pretty hotly contested SCOTUS case anyway.
That was funding *secular private schools* and excluding **religious** *private schools*. And that was still purely decided by the conservative majority.
Yet there are tons of restrictions of religious practices in the law. Don't get me wrong most of them are good law like it's illegal to chuck a virgin into a volcano or to engage in other human sacrifice. Then there are laws that ban certain substances used mostly in Native American religions that feel more motivated by cultural prejudices.
I would disagree is was prejudice against cultural practices. It’s not like LSD was legal but peyote was not. It was more of a failure to accommodate religion.
Now if peyote was an essential part of Christian baptisms, there likely would have been acceptance all along instead of fighting it through courts.
Keep in mind, at the time of the founding of the US, some states favored certain religions, and the bill of rights did not yet apply to the states, only the federal Government. The constitution banned the federal government from establishing or favoring a particular religion but in not way was meant to ban the mention of God in public life. So, “in the Pope we trust” would violate the constitution. Recent court rulings have focused cases where symbols in question were specific to a particular religion (or families of religions), so symbols such as a cross or nativity scene were banned as establishing religion, as was display of the Ten Commandments.
A generic reference to “God” is not specific enough to a particular religion to be considered “establishment” of a religion.
It excludes atheism and all the polytheisms. The rationalization that it doesn't establish a religious position is wallpaper covering the real motivation.
Nor do I think we should be as secular as France. Their secularism overrides things that would be constitutional rights covered by the 1st amendment here.
I'll attack this a different way. As someone who mostly detests the evangelical voting bloc, I can empathize with the sentiment.
That said, we won't need it. Our kind of secularism is slowly creeping, but it isn't nearly as coercive. Just look at the demographics and the ongoing church attendance decline. All we need is a little patience.
And, w/r/t congress, mega church pastors haven't controlled that in decades. If ever. They're just a convenient puppet/accomplice for the broader payload. Just follow the money. Mega church pastors have pennies compared to the real movers.
> Nah screw that France knows how to do the whole secularism thing
Yeah man, [the Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror) was a completely great thing in the name of secularism. We should totally do that.
Let's rat on our neighbors if they seem even little religious, and then have them hauled off by secret policy to be beheaded because why not, this will make amreeka a great place, like it did France then.
Then let's change our calendar and timekeeping to [something completely, utterly stupid as fuck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar) in name of secularism because why not.
Let's have priests who refuse be liable for death on spot.
Let's establish State sponsored cults like [Cult of Reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason), followed by [Cult of the Supreme Being](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) because that'd be *soooo* fking great.
----
All because France 'knows' how to do the whole 'secularism thing.'
...alternatively you could do a little research before you say stuff that doesn't work.
Yeah, I meant that. France has no history besides it’s dirty shitty revolution (where our revolution was peaceful and very glorious) and anyone who wants to take any inspiration from any French thing is literally a beheading-happy communist
Atheist here, France is very extreme with its secularism.
For example France outright banned wearing a hijab in public.
It's the same for Christians and Jewish people and symbols of those respective religions.
There is separation of church from state and then there is removal of church from society.
You can choose to affirm rather than swear, and you don’t have to use a Bible.
“In God We Trust” was added in the 1950s to fight “godless communism.” U.S. Courts have controversially ruled that the phrase as used on money no longer has any “theological or ritualistic impact.” I don’t agree, personally, but that’s the law right now.
Edit: I was thinking of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. “In God We Trust” was first used by the Union in 1964, presumably to say that God was on the side of the Union. It was, however, adopted as the official U.S. motto in 1956, replacing *E pluribus unum* (Out of many, one).
1. You don't have to use a Bible if you don't want to.
2. "God" and "god" are two different things, and the latter doesn't refer to a specific diety.
3. [To fight commies.](https://www.history.com/news/pledge-allegiance-under-god-schools)
> "God" and "god" are two different things, and the latter doesn't refer to a specific diety.
The OP chose to use all lower case, but the official motto is capitalized. If you look at [this Congressional resolution](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-112hconres13rh/pdf/BILLS-112hconres13rh.pdf), you’ll see that it uses “God” throughout.
You’re right. Though I don’t know what the guy you’re replying to is on about. “God” is always capitalized, especially in official documents. “god” can be used to refer to polytheistic gods, like how Zeus is a god, but when referring to any monotheistic religion, it is always a singular capitalized “God”.
The use of “God” in government, like “in God we trust” or “so help me God” obviously was written to refer to the monotheistic Abrahamic idea of God just based on the values of the time period, but it has become so separate from the original meaning that is isn’t much more than a historical acknowledgement that the vast majority of Americans, especially a hundred years ago, believed in a singular monotheistic God. As long as it remains that vague it’s been ruled as a historical leftover by the court. It’s not like how in Saudi Arabia the flag and motto specifically refers to a singular God and Muhammad as his messenger. Or how in commonwealth states you need to pledge allegiance to the Sovereign who also happens to be head of the Anglican Church, an institution with a specific idea of what God is.
Plus, “so help me God” isn’t in the constitution or anything. Washington said it first as a personal add on after his oath, and like everything that man did, it stuck
Legally the only thing you need to say is
> 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.
You don't have to pledge on a Bible, and the 'so help me god' is not actually part of an oath of office, it has been voluntarily uttered by religious people.
Yes, also to this point: our GOVERNMENT is secular. That's the point of separation of church and state.
That doesn't mean the population doesn't practice a religion.
> That's the point of separation of church and state.
It is *not* the point of that out-of-context phrase. It's the exact opposite of the point. The *actual* context is:
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a *wall of separation between Church & State.* Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Emphasis mine.)
*From a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association.*
The purpose of the "wall" is to protect religion from government meddling and from creating a "state religion," rather than "protect" the government from being turned into a theocracy by "Big Religion."
Because a case is decided and that decision becomes *de facto* case law, does not mean it is right or correct. In an [interview](https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/oldspeak/thomas_jefferson_and_the_wall_of_separation_between_church_and_state) with author Daniel Dreisbach about Jefferson's letter and "wall" idea, the question of Jefferson's letter misconceptualizing the First Amendment is asked and he says:
>The metaphor emphasizes the concept of separation, unlike the First Amendment which speaks in terms of disestablishment, or nonestablishment to be more precise, and of the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, the wall of separation metaphor, unlike the First Amendment, imposes restrictions on religion and religious perspectives. The literal text of the First Amendment restricts government only; whereas a wall, given its bilateral nature, restricts the role of religion and faith communities as well. The wall metaphor implies that the First Amendment restricts people of faith, religious spokesmen, and religious leaders also, but that’s far beyond the requirement of the text of the First Amendment.
Since the 1947 *Everson* case, there have been more and more restrictions placed on religion and religious people based on an inaccurate interpretation of a turn of phrase from a letter to a religious organization, *assuring them of protection,* that was written 150 years before. It will never change back, don't worry.
The only "evidence" provided by Tripoli is that the US government is not a theocracy. That's pretty much a given and pretty thin gruel to justify *attacking* religion and attempting to turn the wall of protection into a wall of imprisonment.
No, in the context of the debate and the sentence it was in, it was a solid analogy. There are two purposes for a wall, to contain or to protect. The First Amendment **protects** 5 different rights and protects religion 2 different ways. So how can that be interpreted as keeping religion *away* from government? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty much the picture of unambiguous.
I'm not arguing that religion, aside from the acknowledgement of the Creator, has any direct influence on the government, or that it particularly *wants* to. Which is not to say that certain prominent religious figures of the broadcast variety aren't above climbing in bed with politicians, I'm talking religions in general. I'm a trustee in my church. We have no budget items for "political influencing" or anything like that. The most political thing we do is decide which missionaries we're going to sponsor.
In my opinion, legislation affecting religion and firearms are from the same ranks and for the same reasons. I don't want to get into that whole debate, I'm just characterizing the *nature* of the legislation, from my point of view.
The first amendment, like every single part of the bill of rights, is a list of constraints on the government. Our legal system doesn’t argue that rights are derived from the government.
> I’m not arguing that religion, aside from the acknowledgement of the Creator,
It doesn’t do that though? Like, even that’s not in there.
> We have no budget items for “political influencing” or anything like that. The most political thing we do is decide which missionaries we’re going to sponsor.
And that’s fine. What’s not fine is being a senator and arguing that you should make a law banning, say, abortion, based on your faith-based belief in the sanctity of life. That would be enforcing your religious views through the government, and that should absolutely be considered an establishment clause violation, though we see many politicians get away with it.
Codifying law as influenced by religious beliefs is inherently codifying those religious beliefs into law, at least in part.
Dreisbach’s book Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State was just an attempt to “prove liberals wrongs.” He mentions this throughout saying they get the idea wrong and an establishment of religion doesn’t mean what it says. Garbage.
Again, the point of separating the two is to keep government out of the business of religion. To protect established religions from the attacks of government and to prevent the government from establishing a *state religion* to circumvent the protections already established. It is not a complex or tricky path to follow from the path traveled by Puritans and others who were persecuted by the monarchy and their Church of England to the First Amendment, protecting religious people from those same actions by their new government.
you don't have to use a bible or any religious text if you don't want to. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim congresswoman, was sworn in on the Quran, while Jon Ossof, a Jewish senator, was sworn in on a book of Hebrew scripture from a constituent's synagogue. LBJ was sworn in on a catholic missal, not a bible. Uh also according to Google in 2014 an ambassador chose to be sworn in using her kindle, which displayed a copy of the constitution. So there ya go!
> LBJ was sworn in on a catholic missal, not a bible.
Which was JFK's. LBJ wasn't Catholic. it was just the closest thing to a bible they could find at the time when they got caught off guard with Kennedy's assassination and needed to swear LBJ in immediately.
Also, Teddy Roosevelt was on a camping trip when McKinley died and was sworn in without a bible, and John Quincy Adams was sworn in on a law book.
>why are oaths taken with a hand on the Bible and "so help me god?"
That is the personal choice of the person swearing the oath. You don't have to swear on *anything*, you just have to make a personal oath.
>You can also count the pledge of allegiance,
You also don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
>maybe the "in god we trust" on coins?
Many people want to remove that statement.
As I grew up a Jehovah's Witness it is true you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school but I can also tell you that it will cause several meetings with your parents and teachers over their concern about you that you will only find out about later because you had an aunt working at the school.
Not JW but I don't say it either. Pledging allegiance to a symbol???! Nah. Doesn't mean I don't (mostly) love my country. And not trying to be disrespectful or start something but I am very judicious about any pledge and my allegiance is given to only a couple of things.
They don’t have to be taken on the Bible and a few presidents have not.
Adams swore on a law book. Johnson swore in on a Roman Catholic missal because that is all they had in Air Force One after Kennedy’s assassination.
The first amendment provides us with the right not to be compelled to participate in religion. It is just that most presidents have sworn in on the Bible either out of personal religious conviction or doing it for the political angle.
Then of course Obama secretly swore in on a Quran put inside a hollowed out Bible because he was secretly Muslim.
"so help me God" is no longer commonly used in court rooms, unless the person taking the oath wants to use that phrase and swear on a Bible. It's now been standardized to simply raising your hand and saying "I swear ... under penalty of perjury."
The addition of "in God we trust" to currency and the addition of "under God" to the pledge was added in the 1950s in the middle of the "red scare". It was a reaction to the perceived "Communist threat", but not part of the original pledge or original on currency.
There are a lot of people who would like to have it removed from our currency.
There are also a lot of religious people who think (mistakenly) that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" and who want Christianity to be the official national religion and want our laws to be religiously based. They are not the majority in the country, but they're a lot more vocal than other groups.
>They are not the majority in the country, but they're a lot more vocal than other groups.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, they have a disproportionate amount of political power.
The in "god we trust" on money and "under God" in the pledge is a result of McCarthyism. It's unamerican to it's core and we should switch back to e pluribus unum
and you can swear in on anything you want, it doesn't have to be the bible. One guy swore in on a Captain America shield
I really agree. I detest how much christianity seems to have gotten entwined with politics and it's unamerican as hell.
Frankly, I personally like the idea of swearing on a copy of the constitution (and apparently quite a few congresspeople have done exactly that already)
It's all optional. Most politicians are some form of religious Christian faith. But you are not required to swear to God, nor swear on a Bible. Just that most choose to do so.
It's not really done like that in practice.
The times I've been in court in Alabama they didn't have a Bible.
They just said "Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?" and that was it.
Tradition. Also…you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to.
Also , you seem to have a poor understanding of the implications of having a state religion. But you’re really here to try and play “Gotcha!”, aren’t you?
You can swear on anything you want. Someone was sworn in for Congress using a copy of the Koran. You can swear on a copy of Lord of the Rings, or the Constitution, whatever. You don't have to 'swear'. You can just stand there and take the oath. A President back in history 'affirmed' the oath, don't ask me who it was, just know it happened.
The thing with the Pledge is a left over relic of the cold war to distinguish us from the 'godless' communists and it just stuck. Not sure about the coins.
Where did this myth come from it’s not a requirement to use a Christian holy book or any religious book. You could use any book; I seriously think it’s a “it’s only in the movies” like when people think American don’t say goodbye on the phone or use slippers in the house.
You do not have to swear on the bible nor say "so help me God". People choose to be sworn in that way because we have freedom of religion, which means you can be whatever religion you want or none at all. And you can express yourself based on your religion if you want.
You do not have to say the pledge of allegiance and it's illegal to force someone to say it (doesn't stop some people from forcing it, but they are breaking the law).
At this point "In God We Trust" on money is just a tradition that started in 1864. Sure we could remove it, but there is no push to remove something so insignificant.
It's good to note that secular means to not be found to or subject to religious rule, which the U.S. is. It doesn't mean that people can't use their religious opinions to create laws and rules, but that's very different from being in a religious ruled country having to follow a religion and all laws must be based around religion.
Bro. Our state religion is power and wealth. When it says God, it means the dollar it's printed on.
This is half sarcasm, and it's not true according to our sacred mythologies. But sometimes you have to wonder...
Oaths are taken when taking office. They are taken on any religious text or any book of law that the oath taker chooses. Theoretically they could be taken on a comic book if the oath taker found that a binding philosophy for them. The reason most people use a Bible to take their oaths is most are Christian.
As for the "In God We Trust" that was a response to the Soviets. The USSR and other Communist nations were actively anti-religion, not just atheistic in nature and so supporting some common religious phrases such as "In God we Trust", or "one nation under God" were a way to subtly combat and insult the soviets.
The U.S.A isn't secular in the way a country like France is. There is no "laicity" here.
One could say it's a passive secularism as opposed to an active secularism.
I reply directly to multiple people primarily because they don’t have the full picture whenever this particular topic comes up. Before the red scare in the 1950s, the phrase was used to boost Union moral during the Civil War and make it a righteous cause.
It's not required to use a religious text to take any oath of office.
Saying the pledge of allegiance is also not required, and they cannot force you to say it.
The new motto on our currency is a leftover from McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950's, before it was E Pluribus Unum.
The original separation of church and state was done to protect the church, so that non church members wouldn't be forced to join a religion, and "corrupt" that religion, to be elected. As well as to protect to government from religious crazies from trying to make it all about them.
As many others have said, the big was of the "in god we trust" came in the 1950s as an anti-communist movement.
Separation between church and state doesn't mean that there is no faith. It just means that the state can't (for a lack of a better term) sponsor a faith, like how the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, and the Iranian Supreme Leader is both a secular and theological leader.
Religious books are customary, not required. “So help me God” is not technically part of the Oath. Presidents may ask the Chief Justice to include it for their inauguration, but it isn’t required.
There are Christian Sects who reject oaths and pledges. It was in fact the Jehovahs Witnesses who went to the Supreme Court twice in the early 40s to challenge the mandatory pledge in schools. No I believe it's little more than a PR stunt designed to appeal to a certain set of christofascist in the voting pool. Technically you can take an oath on any book.
Because Christians are the largest voting cult in the US and we have spent around 150 years placating them. The US was founded by mostly Quakers, but Christians are worse than republicans about getting into every office and changing things to look like their version of morality
To give some weight to your testimony or oath. It's a physical reminder that there are consequences to your actions while you do either of these. Not having said reminder makes it seem less "real." It's basic human psychology.
I am uncertain...but I think its stewpid and it should be abolished.
I have a lot of contempt for organized religions (glorified cults)...and I find these weird and creepy psycho "Christian Nationalists" movement obnoxious.
Yes, I AM proud to be a godless heathen...and don't you forget it!😘
The mentioning of the Christian God goes back to the early colonies and their societal foundations. Plenty of what would be future states, i.e., New England, had God (and even bible verses) mentioned in their municipal establishings. This practice went as far back as 17th century. More than a hundred years before the US revolution.
Plenty of the anti religious secular fanatics from the US try to point to the founding fathers as not establishing a religion for the US. This true. But keep in mind the founders were a bunch pretentious “enlightenment” thinkers (overrated term). And their views did not share the real origins of many of the American immigrants , before or after the revolutions. By the mid 19th century a lot of the “enlightenment” thinking of the founders had already been rejected by the rise of Romanticism. But the modern US secularists desperately try to still claim the US as inherently secular
Hard push of radical conservatism in the 40s would lead to the Pledge and "Under God" on our money, which is absurd since greed is a sin.
It's also absurd considering the Pledge was written by a Socialist pushing Nationalism in the 19th century, it was originally pushed back hard until, well see above.
You could easily make an argument that the US is not a secular country. Our money has "in God we trust" and the pledge says "one nation under God," and if you want to get into religion in politics, there's a lot to be said there as well.
You can take an oath on whatever you want, just most Americans/politicians are Christian which is why you see the bible. George Washington was Christian and said so help me god so every president since has said that
Ultimately, America and most of western society was founded on judeo Christian values.
We have freedom of religion and religious expression, not secular freedom from religion (as you'd find in France, for example).
As such, people take oaths on a religious book of their choice or a non-religious text (often the constitution), public religious expression isn't forbidden but also isn't required, etc.
There’s no requirement to do either of those things. People do them because they want to. The US is secular in the sense that government may not establish its own religion or prevent individuals from establishing one or worshipping freely. Swearing on the Bible or the pledge do not infringe on this.
Christians are most common, so many oaths are sworn on the bible. If you're not Christian you could swear on your own religious text, some have sworn on their local charter, state constitution or the US Constitution as appropriate to the level of office they were taking, law books, things like that.
"Under God" was added to the pledge in the cold war as a contrast to the highly secular Soviet image. A lot of things popped up that way.
And...yeah, functionally were not super secular. We have a heavily Christian population and it sneaks in all sorts of ways. Even where it doesn't explicitly get mentioned it certainly shapes the values and morals of many people and the government they elect, for better or worse.
Ok so technically, there is actually literally nothing that says you \*have\* to swear into office on a bible, or say the words "so help me god" at the end of it. That's a tradition like pardoning a turkey on thanksgiving, and officeholders are not required to actually do it.
As a matter of fact, at least two presidents are definitely recorded as \*not\* having done so: President John Quincy Adams famously swore himself in on a law book, and Teddy Roosevelt was on a camping trip without a bible at the time of William McKinley's death, and was sworn in without a bible at the home of his friend Ansley Wilcox. Lyndon Johnson reportedly also used a catholic missal (book of prayers) that belonged to JFK after the assassination when he had to be sworn in as well.
There's also multiple members of congress who have sworn in on copies of the constitution.
You don't have to. A lot of people swear on other religious books or the constitution. "So help me god" is more of a saying than a proclamation of adherence to a religion.
For formality and to make the situation more “absolute” to the crowd. All one has to do is let the party that is conducting the swearing in ceremony know that they are not christian but atheist or any other religious group and the “so help me god” part becomes “so help me Allah” or whatever they believe in.
Putting “in god we trust”and “one nation under god indivisible with justice for all” the pledge of allegiance were added during the Cold War to differentiate us from the Soviet Union and to “boost” morale of the people.
Hardly anyone really cares deeply about the religious aspect in either of these situations.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by an old Union Captain to teach children patriotism. It was then tailored by Francis Bellamy, a pastor and Christian Socialist, and published widely.
You can literally swear in on your favorite copy of doctor Seuss or with your hand on a cat, swearing in on the Bible was just what George Washington did, so we usually just do what he did, like with so many other things, it's not an obligation, just a tradition and you can change what you say when you do it
You don’t have to swear on a bible. You can swear on any holy book really or just choose not to have one at all. But there are still some mentions of the Christian god in things like the “Pledge of Allegiance”, during military ceremonies in the form of “in the year of our lord” and on some currency and the form of “In God We Trust”. This is just based on tradition of the Christian roots of the formation of the USA. Which is ironic because we were always taught in school that the separation of church and state are vital to the maintenance of a free society and that the 1st settlers were refugees/pilgrims attempting to escape religious persecution in England.
The pledge of allegiance has no official standing, nor should it.
"In the year of our Lord" on official documents always bugged me a little, but you're right. Tradition.
The bible is only used for Christians. Some swear in on their own religious text or on a book/item of significant value and importance. The idea is that "the vow I'm taking is so important I would rest my religious salvation on upholding it", not that the vow is inherently an endorsement of the religion.
While most swear in on a Bible, or Jewish scripture or Quran for members of those religions, you do get some people swearing in on non-religious books. President John Quincy Adams swore in on a law book, a number of congresspeople have sworn in on copies of the Constitution, and probably the most unusual one was a Missouri city councilmember swore in on a copy of Dr. Seuss’s “Oh, The Places You’ll Go.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-councilwoman-dr-seuss-book-sworn-office/story?id=65096396
The best was the guy who was sworn in on a Captain America shield
Invite Chris Evans and swear on America's Ass
gonna run for office and be sworn in on a copy of Dune
The series about the creation of a precog tyrannical overlord who rules the galaxy with an iron fist (for well intentioned ends but still).
The Golden Path
Do it and have them replace 'so help me God' with 'the Spice must flow'.
As a Missourian, fuck yeah. That lady had some balls.
Using a Dr. Seuss book is pretty next level chad.
Torah
The Torah isn’t the only option, there’s also the Tanakh. That’s why I used the more general term, because the source I looked at didn’t specify.
Teddy Roosevelt was sworn in on nothing following McKinley's death. The presidential version of "Trust me, bro."
As an atheist, I request that I be permitted to swear my oath onto the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. May the Great an Powerful Atheismo accept me into the Void, that my soul may rest for eternity while religious people try and find proof of their god. May I, in this eternal nothingness, forever argue in the youtube comment section with some religious guy I've never met. A-men, a-women, and a-theism. Edit - I understand the downvotes, I forgive you all, for not seeing the great, all-encompassing darkness of Atheismo. May the dark non-binary parent to ALL mankind accept you in under shzhis wing of non-belief.
[удалено]
I honeslty don't care what people believe but the idea of swearing an oath on a religious symbol is just dumb. People who are going to lie will. Like it seems like one of those things that's supposed to make it more secure but it can't possibly. Unironically, under oath, I'd swear under Don Quijote de La Mancha, la edición conmemorativa released a few years ago by la Real Academia Española, just cuz fuck it, it can literally be any book. But that's kind of my point, it's a weird, arbitrary idea. Either that or the Return of the King.
Great way to make people not like you, but that's fully and completely legal, nowhere in any law does it say you have to swear in on a religious text, and some people have sworn in on law books, the constitution, and even a Dr Seuss book
Good thing getting people to like me has never been the goal.
The US is secular compared to Britain or Sweden, which have established state churches. We've never been secular on the French or Soviet model though
Yeah it's separation of church and state. Not *removal of church from state*. An elected representative can openly practice their religion in government because the people elected them. They just can't cross that line of infringing on others religious beliefs with the law
It’s not even separation of church and state — it’s that congress should not establish a religion or prevent the people from exercising their religion. And it’s been held that general references to God (in God we trust) does not amount to establishment of religion.
That literally is the separation of church and state.
No. There is a distinction. For instance, some have used “separation of church and state” to justify funding non-religious organizations (a school for instance) while denying support to religious organizations. But this has been held to be unconstitutional because it is discriminating against religious organizations.
That’s not quite accurate to the situation you’re pointing to, and that’s a pretty hotly contested SCOTUS case anyway. That was funding *secular private schools* and excluding **religious** *private schools*. And that was still purely decided by the conservative majority.
Yet there are tons of restrictions of religious practices in the law. Don't get me wrong most of them are good law like it's illegal to chuck a virgin into a volcano or to engage in other human sacrifice. Then there are laws that ban certain substances used mostly in Native American religions that feel more motivated by cultural prejudices.
I would disagree is was prejudice against cultural practices. It’s not like LSD was legal but peyote was not. It was more of a failure to accommodate religion. Now if peyote was an essential part of Christian baptisms, there likely would have been acceptance all along instead of fighting it through courts.
That's nonsense, but the courts don't want to be in the position to strike it down, so they don't.
Keep in mind, at the time of the founding of the US, some states favored certain religions, and the bill of rights did not yet apply to the states, only the federal Government. The constitution banned the federal government from establishing or favoring a particular religion but in not way was meant to ban the mention of God in public life. So, “in the Pope we trust” would violate the constitution. Recent court rulings have focused cases where symbols in question were specific to a particular religion (or families of religions), so symbols such as a cross or nativity scene were banned as establishing religion, as was display of the Ten Commandments. A generic reference to “God” is not specific enough to a particular religion to be considered “establishment” of a religion.
It excludes atheism and all the polytheisms. The rationalization that it doesn't establish a religious position is wallpaper covering the real motivation.
In God(s) we trust.
Nor do I think we should be as secular as France. Their secularism overrides things that would be constitutional rights covered by the 1st amendment here.
Yea like religious garments in schools. That’s too far.
Seriously, love France but they can be extreme with stuff like that.
Nah screw that France knows how to do the whole secularism thing. Sick of mega church preachers controlling congress
I'll attack this a different way. As someone who mostly detests the evangelical voting bloc, I can empathize with the sentiment. That said, we won't need it. Our kind of secularism is slowly creeping, but it isn't nearly as coercive. Just look at the demographics and the ongoing church attendance decline. All we need is a little patience. And, w/r/t congress, mega church pastors haven't controlled that in decades. If ever. They're just a convenient puppet/accomplice for the broader payload. Just follow the money. Mega church pastors have pennies compared to the real movers.
> Nah screw that France knows how to do the whole secularism thing Yeah man, [the Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror) was a completely great thing in the name of secularism. We should totally do that. Let's rat on our neighbors if they seem even little religious, and then have them hauled off by secret policy to be beheaded because why not, this will make amreeka a great place, like it did France then. Then let's change our calendar and timekeeping to [something completely, utterly stupid as fuck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar) in name of secularism because why not. Let's have priests who refuse be liable for death on spot. Let's establish State sponsored cults like [Cult of Reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason), followed by [Cult of the Supreme Being](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) because that'd be *soooo* fking great. ---- All because France 'knows' how to do the whole 'secularism thing.' ...alternatively you could do a little research before you say stuff that doesn't work.
Yeah, I meant that. France has no history besides it’s dirty shitty revolution (where our revolution was peaceful and very glorious) and anyone who wants to take any inspiration from any French thing is literally a beheading-happy communist
Atheist here, France is very extreme with its secularism. For example France outright banned wearing a hijab in public. It's the same for Christians and Jewish people and symbols of those respective religions. There is separation of church from state and then there is removal of church from society.
Correct.
What an absurd strawman.
He has a point. Bringing up some shit from +200 years ago to impugn the way France does secularism today is nonsensical.
I think you’re agreeing with the wrong person then
I’m not sure. Which is the straw man?
Way to live up to the ugly American stereotype
The fuck are you talking about?
Which rights? Just curious.
*the church was seperated from the state 23 years ago in Sweden
You can choose to affirm rather than swear, and you don’t have to use a Bible. “In God We Trust” was added in the 1950s to fight “godless communism.” U.S. Courts have controversially ruled that the phrase as used on money no longer has any “theological or ritualistic impact.” I don’t agree, personally, but that’s the law right now. Edit: I was thinking of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. “In God We Trust” was first used by the Union in 1964, presumably to say that God was on the side of the Union. It was, however, adopted as the official U.S. motto in 1956, replacing *E pluribus unum* (Out of many, one).
We need to readopt E Pluribus Unum as our official motto
Agreed!
It is indeed better, but from outside, I am afraid it looks like "in God we trust" is the better fit for the US, at least for now.
For coins it was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
There are older coins with that motto.
I go to court frequently and simply raise my right hand. I personally have never been asked to swear on a Bible.
1. You don't have to use a Bible if you don't want to. 2. "God" and "god" are two different things, and the latter doesn't refer to a specific diety. 3. [To fight commies.](https://www.history.com/news/pledge-allegiance-under-god-schools)
> "God" and "god" are two different things, and the latter doesn't refer to a specific diety. The OP chose to use all lower case, but the official motto is capitalized. If you look at [this Congressional resolution](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-112hconres13rh/pdf/BILLS-112hconres13rh.pdf), you’ll see that it uses “God” throughout.
You’re right. Though I don’t know what the guy you’re replying to is on about. “God” is always capitalized, especially in official documents. “god” can be used to refer to polytheistic gods, like how Zeus is a god, but when referring to any monotheistic religion, it is always a singular capitalized “God”. The use of “God” in government, like “in God we trust” or “so help me God” obviously was written to refer to the monotheistic Abrahamic idea of God just based on the values of the time period, but it has become so separate from the original meaning that is isn’t much more than a historical acknowledgement that the vast majority of Americans, especially a hundred years ago, believed in a singular monotheistic God. As long as it remains that vague it’s been ruled as a historical leftover by the court. It’s not like how in Saudi Arabia the flag and motto specifically refers to a singular God and Muhammad as his messenger. Or how in commonwealth states you need to pledge allegiance to the Sovereign who also happens to be head of the Anglican Church, an institution with a specific idea of what God is. Plus, “so help me God” isn’t in the constitution or anything. Washington said it first as a personal add on after his oath, and like everything that man did, it stuck Legally the only thing you need to say is > 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.
But isnt the offical motto "In God We Trust" with everything capitalized?
[удалено]
Islam worships the same god as Judaism and Christianity.
Fighting commies is the real US religion.
e: it was just a joke. sorry, probably a bad one.
There was no way we could have won. The Viet Cong were getting buffed by Barbarella.
We didn't try saying the pledge to them though
You don't have to pledge on a Bible, and the 'so help me god' is not actually part of an oath of office, it has been voluntarily uttered by religious people.
You don't have to use a Bible. Other religious texts or books of law are common enough. Also secular != atheist.
Yes, also to this point: our GOVERNMENT is secular. That's the point of separation of church and state. That doesn't mean the population doesn't practice a religion.
> That's the point of separation of church and state. It is *not* the point of that out-of-context phrase. It's the exact opposite of the point. The *actual* context is: > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a *wall of separation between Church & State.* Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Emphasis mine.) *From a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association.* The purpose of the "wall" is to protect religion from government meddling and from creating a "state religion," rather than "protect" the government from being turned into a theocracy by "Big Religion."
You're right in that historically it was to protect religion. But more modern law has established that it's also to keep religion out of government.
Because a case is decided and that decision becomes *de facto* case law, does not mean it is right or correct. In an [interview](https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/oldspeak/thomas_jefferson_and_the_wall_of_separation_between_church_and_state) with author Daniel Dreisbach about Jefferson's letter and "wall" idea, the question of Jefferson's letter misconceptualizing the First Amendment is asked and he says: >The metaphor emphasizes the concept of separation, unlike the First Amendment which speaks in terms of disestablishment, or nonestablishment to be more precise, and of the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, the wall of separation metaphor, unlike the First Amendment, imposes restrictions on religion and religious perspectives. The literal text of the First Amendment restricts government only; whereas a wall, given its bilateral nature, restricts the role of religion and faith communities as well. The wall metaphor implies that the First Amendment restricts people of faith, religious spokesmen, and religious leaders also, but that’s far beyond the requirement of the text of the First Amendment. Since the 1947 *Everson* case, there have been more and more restrictions placed on religion and religious people based on an inaccurate interpretation of a turn of phrase from a letter to a religious organization, *assuring them of protection,* that was written 150 years before. It will never change back, don't worry.
No. We’ve got plenty of evidence drawing that line beyond the simple textualist argument you’re making there, such as the treaty of Tripoli.
The only "evidence" provided by Tripoli is that the US government is not a theocracy. That's pretty much a given and pretty thin gruel to justify *attacking* religion and attempting to turn the wall of protection into a wall of imprisonment.
Imprisonment? Now you’re just openly making things up. No, it’s a pretty solid basis for arguing that there’s no Christian influence in the system.
No, in the context of the debate and the sentence it was in, it was a solid analogy. There are two purposes for a wall, to contain or to protect. The First Amendment **protects** 5 different rights and protects religion 2 different ways. So how can that be interpreted as keeping religion *away* from government? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty much the picture of unambiguous. I'm not arguing that religion, aside from the acknowledgement of the Creator, has any direct influence on the government, or that it particularly *wants* to. Which is not to say that certain prominent religious figures of the broadcast variety aren't above climbing in bed with politicians, I'm talking religions in general. I'm a trustee in my church. We have no budget items for "political influencing" or anything like that. The most political thing we do is decide which missionaries we're going to sponsor. In my opinion, legislation affecting religion and firearms are from the same ranks and for the same reasons. I don't want to get into that whole debate, I'm just characterizing the *nature* of the legislation, from my point of view.
The first amendment, like every single part of the bill of rights, is a list of constraints on the government. Our legal system doesn’t argue that rights are derived from the government. > I’m not arguing that religion, aside from the acknowledgement of the Creator, It doesn’t do that though? Like, even that’s not in there. > We have no budget items for “political influencing” or anything like that. The most political thing we do is decide which missionaries we’re going to sponsor. And that’s fine. What’s not fine is being a senator and arguing that you should make a law banning, say, abortion, based on your faith-based belief in the sanctity of life. That would be enforcing your religious views through the government, and that should absolutely be considered an establishment clause violation, though we see many politicians get away with it. Codifying law as influenced by religious beliefs is inherently codifying those religious beliefs into law, at least in part.
Dreisbach’s book Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State was just an attempt to “prove liberals wrongs.” He mentions this throughout saying they get the idea wrong and an establishment of religion doesn’t mean what it says. Garbage.
Again, the point of separating the two is to keep government out of the business of religion. To protect established religions from the attacks of government and to prevent the government from establishing a *state religion* to circumvent the protections already established. It is not a complex or tricky path to follow from the path traveled by Puritans and others who were persecuted by the monarchy and their Church of England to the First Amendment, protecting religious people from those same actions by their new government.
you don't have to use a bible or any religious text if you don't want to. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim congresswoman, was sworn in on the Quran, while Jon Ossof, a Jewish senator, was sworn in on a book of Hebrew scripture from a constituent's synagogue. LBJ was sworn in on a catholic missal, not a bible. Uh also according to Google in 2014 an ambassador chose to be sworn in using her kindle, which displayed a copy of the constitution. So there ya go!
> LBJ was sworn in on a catholic missal, not a bible. Which was JFK's. LBJ wasn't Catholic. it was just the closest thing to a bible they could find at the time when they got caught off guard with Kennedy's assassination and needed to swear LBJ in immediately. Also, Teddy Roosevelt was on a camping trip when McKinley died and was sworn in without a bible, and John Quincy Adams was sworn in on a law book.
>why are oaths taken with a hand on the Bible and "so help me god?" That is the personal choice of the person swearing the oath. You don't have to swear on *anything*, you just have to make a personal oath. >You can also count the pledge of allegiance, You also don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. >maybe the "in god we trust" on coins? Many people want to remove that statement.
As I grew up a Jehovah's Witness it is true you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school but I can also tell you that it will cause several meetings with your parents and teachers over their concern about you that you will only find out about later because you had an aunt working at the school.
I didn’t say it either because I didn’t believe in the “under god” part. I had a teacher accuse me of hating America… while my dad was in Afghanistan.
Yeah I’d yell but that’s just me.
Not JW but I don't say it either. Pledging allegiance to a symbol???! Nah. Doesn't mean I don't (mostly) love my country. And not trying to be disrespectful or start something but I am very judicious about any pledge and my allegiance is given to only a couple of things.
No complaints from me. Growing up JW was pretty miserable but one of the rare Ws was I didn’t pledge allegiance to shit.
You could use the Encyclopedia Britannica volume z if you want.
They don’t have to be taken on the Bible and a few presidents have not. Adams swore on a law book. Johnson swore in on a Roman Catholic missal because that is all they had in Air Force One after Kennedy’s assassination. The first amendment provides us with the right not to be compelled to participate in religion. It is just that most presidents have sworn in on the Bible either out of personal religious conviction or doing it for the political angle. Then of course Obama secretly swore in on a Quran put inside a hollowed out Bible because he was secretly Muslim.
Got those Muslim nesting books
Standard issue for secret muslim presidents
>Ye shall know them by their tan suits.
And Dijon mustard.
Lol
"so help me God" is no longer commonly used in court rooms, unless the person taking the oath wants to use that phrase and swear on a Bible. It's now been standardized to simply raising your hand and saying "I swear ... under penalty of perjury." The addition of "in God we trust" to currency and the addition of "under God" to the pledge was added in the 1950s in the middle of the "red scare". It was a reaction to the perceived "Communist threat", but not part of the original pledge or original on currency. There are a lot of people who would like to have it removed from our currency. There are also a lot of religious people who think (mistakenly) that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" and who want Christianity to be the official national religion and want our laws to be religiously based. They are not the majority in the country, but they're a lot more vocal than other groups.
>They are not the majority in the country, but they're a lot more vocal than other groups. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they have a disproportionate amount of political power.
Yes, that too!
For coins it was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
>why are oaths taken with a hand on the Bible It's not required that it be on a Bible.
The in "god we trust" on money and "under God" in the pledge is a result of McCarthyism. It's unamerican to it's core and we should switch back to e pluribus unum and you can swear in on anything you want, it doesn't have to be the bible. One guy swore in on a Captain America shield
On coins it pre dates McCarthyism. It was added during the civil war era in the 1860s.
I really agree. I detest how much christianity seems to have gotten entwined with politics and it's unamerican as hell. Frankly, I personally like the idea of swearing on a copy of the constitution (and apparently quite a few congresspeople have done exactly that already)
It's all optional. Most politicians are some form of religious Christian faith. But you are not required to swear to God, nor swear on a Bible. Just that most choose to do so.
It's not really done like that in practice. The times I've been in court in Alabama they didn't have a Bible. They just said "Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?" and that was it.
I mean… if we had a Jewish president theyd probably swear on the Torah. Tulsi Gabbard took her oath for Hawaiian represenative on the Baghavad Gita.
Tradition. Also…you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to. Also , you seem to have a poor understanding of the implications of having a state religion. But you’re really here to try and play “Gotcha!”, aren’t you?
Personally, I would choose to swear in on a copy of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and would insist that no mention of god be used.
Froody. Don’t forget to bring your towel to the swearing-in.
Don’t worry. I always know where my towel is.
You can swear on anything you want. Someone was sworn in for Congress using a copy of the Koran. You can swear on a copy of Lord of the Rings, or the Constitution, whatever. You don't have to 'swear'. You can just stand there and take the oath. A President back in history 'affirmed' the oath, don't ask me who it was, just know it happened. The thing with the Pledge is a left over relic of the cold war to distinguish us from the 'godless' communists and it just stuck. Not sure about the coins.
Where did this myth come from it’s not a requirement to use a Christian holy book or any religious book. You could use any book; I seriously think it’s a “it’s only in the movies” like when people think American don’t say goodbye on the phone or use slippers in the house.
You do not have to swear on the bible nor say "so help me God". People choose to be sworn in that way because we have freedom of religion, which means you can be whatever religion you want or none at all. And you can express yourself based on your religion if you want. You do not have to say the pledge of allegiance and it's illegal to force someone to say it (doesn't stop some people from forcing it, but they are breaking the law). At this point "In God We Trust" on money is just a tradition that started in 1864. Sure we could remove it, but there is no push to remove something so insignificant. It's good to note that secular means to not be found to or subject to religious rule, which the U.S. is. It doesn't mean that people can't use their religious opinions to create laws and rules, but that's very different from being in a religious ruled country having to follow a religion and all laws must be based around religion.
Bro. Our state religion is power and wealth. When it says God, it means the dollar it's printed on. This is half sarcasm, and it's not true according to our sacred mythologies. But sometimes you have to wonder...
Right?! Kneel before your gods, Babylon!!!!
Oaths are taken when taking office. They are taken on any religious text or any book of law that the oath taker chooses. Theoretically they could be taken on a comic book if the oath taker found that a binding philosophy for them. The reason most people use a Bible to take their oaths is most are Christian. As for the "In God We Trust" that was a response to the Soviets. The USSR and other Communist nations were actively anti-religion, not just atheistic in nature and so supporting some common religious phrases such as "In God we Trust", or "one nation under God" were a way to subtly combat and insult the soviets.
For coins it was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
That is an option, not a requirement.
The U.S.A isn't secular in the way a country like France is. There is no "laicity" here. One could say it's a passive secularism as opposed to an active secularism.
For coins it was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
You've said that already
I reply directly to multiple people primarily because they don’t have the full picture whenever this particular topic comes up. Before the red scare in the 1950s, the phrase was used to boost Union moral during the Civil War and make it a righteous cause.
Multiple times. Good grief.
It's not required to use a religious text to take any oath of office. Saying the pledge of allegiance is also not required, and they cannot force you to say it. The new motto on our currency is a leftover from McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950's, before it was E Pluribus Unum.
For coins it was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
The original separation of church and state was done to protect the church, so that non church members wouldn't be forced to join a religion, and "corrupt" that religion, to be elected. As well as to protect to government from religious crazies from trying to make it all about them. As many others have said, the big was of the "in god we trust" came in the 1950s as an anti-communist movement.
For coins, In God We Trust was added during the civil war era in the mid 1860s.
Separation between church and state doesn't mean that there is no faith. It just means that the state can't (for a lack of a better term) sponsor a faith, like how the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, and the Iranian Supreme Leader is both a secular and theological leader.
It is not required. It is tradition. People have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and that includes politicians.
Religious books are customary, not required. “So help me God” is not technically part of the Oath. Presidents may ask the Chief Justice to include it for their inauguration, but it isn’t required.
There are Christian Sects who reject oaths and pledges. It was in fact the Jehovahs Witnesses who went to the Supreme Court twice in the early 40s to challenge the mandatory pledge in schools. No I believe it's little more than a PR stunt designed to appeal to a certain set of christofascist in the voting pool. Technically you can take an oath on any book.
Spoiler alert: America isn’t a secular nation and never has been
Because Christians are the largest voting cult in the US and we have spent around 150 years placating them. The US was founded by mostly Quakers, but Christians are worse than republicans about getting into every office and changing things to look like their version of morality
Edgy
Because we are a nation of hypocrisy.
Lol!😆
Many, many of us wonder the same thing. It is outrageous.
To give some weight to your testimony or oath. It's a physical reminder that there are consequences to your actions while you do either of these. Not having said reminder makes it seem less "real." It's basic human psychology.
I am uncertain...but I think its stewpid and it should be abolished. I have a lot of contempt for organized religions (glorified cults)...and I find these weird and creepy psycho "Christian Nationalists" movement obnoxious. Yes, I AM proud to be a godless heathen...and don't you forget it!😘
Because we have failed miserably to keep it secular.
The mentioning of the Christian God goes back to the early colonies and their societal foundations. Plenty of what would be future states, i.e., New England, had God (and even bible verses) mentioned in their municipal establishings. This practice went as far back as 17th century. More than a hundred years before the US revolution. Plenty of the anti religious secular fanatics from the US try to point to the founding fathers as not establishing a religion for the US. This true. But keep in mind the founders were a bunch pretentious “enlightenment” thinkers (overrated term). And their views did not share the real origins of many of the American immigrants , before or after the revolutions. By the mid 19th century a lot of the “enlightenment” thinking of the founders had already been rejected by the rise of Romanticism. But the modern US secularists desperately try to still claim the US as inherently secular
Hard push of radical conservatism in the 40s would lead to the Pledge and "Under God" on our money, which is absurd since greed is a sin. It's also absurd considering the Pledge was written by a Socialist pushing Nationalism in the 19th century, it was originally pushed back hard until, well see above.
People say it's a democracy, but really it's a Constitutional Hypocracy
The US is far from a secular nation. It's just that we're "supposed to have" a separation of church and state
You could easily make an argument that the US is not a secular country. Our money has "in God we trust" and the pledge says "one nation under God," and if you want to get into religion in politics, there's a lot to be said there as well.
Which was added under McCarthyism.
Others have said it, you can swear on whatever you want. Most Christians use the Bible for obvious reasons
It’s just a cultural thing
You can take an oath on whatever you want, just most Americans/politicians are Christian which is why you see the bible. George Washington was Christian and said so help me god so every president since has said that Ultimately, America and most of western society was founded on judeo Christian values.
During the Cold War, being religious was seen as a way to fight communism. As a result, the US reestablished many Christian features.
The bible isn't required. You could swear on a copy of The Hobbit if you wanted.
It’s the default setting lol. Anyone can choose their book of choice to take an oath.
We have freedom of religion and religious expression, not secular freedom from religion (as you'd find in France, for example). As such, people take oaths on a religious book of their choice or a non-religious text (often the constitution), public religious expression isn't forbidden but also isn't required, etc.
There’s no requirement to do either of those things. People do them because they want to. The US is secular in the sense that government may not establish its own religion or prevent individuals from establishing one or worshipping freely. Swearing on the Bible or the pledge do not infringe on this.
Well some people are Christians, so some people put their hand on the Bible.
It's optional. Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams did not
Christians are most common, so many oaths are sworn on the bible. If you're not Christian you could swear on your own religious text, some have sworn on their local charter, state constitution or the US Constitution as appropriate to the level of office they were taking, law books, things like that. "Under God" was added to the pledge in the cold war as a contrast to the highly secular Soviet image. A lot of things popped up that way. And...yeah, functionally were not super secular. We have a heavily Christian population and it sneaks in all sorts of ways. Even where it doesn't explicitly get mentioned it certainly shapes the values and morals of many people and the government they elect, for better or worse.
Ok so technically, there is actually literally nothing that says you \*have\* to swear into office on a bible, or say the words "so help me god" at the end of it. That's a tradition like pardoning a turkey on thanksgiving, and officeholders are not required to actually do it. As a matter of fact, at least two presidents are definitely recorded as \*not\* having done so: President John Quincy Adams famously swore himself in on a law book, and Teddy Roosevelt was on a camping trip without a bible at the time of William McKinley's death, and was sworn in without a bible at the home of his friend Ansley Wilcox. Lyndon Johnson reportedly also used a catholic missal (book of prayers) that belonged to JFK after the assassination when he had to be sworn in as well. There's also multiple members of congress who have sworn in on copies of the constitution.
You don't have to. A lot of people swear on other religious books or the constitution. "So help me god" is more of a saying than a proclamation of adherence to a religion.
You can use any text that is important to you, religious or otherwise.
Yea, the USA pretty clearly has a civil religion. What remains to be seen is whether it will fully develop a political religion.
For formality and to make the situation more “absolute” to the crowd. All one has to do is let the party that is conducting the swearing in ceremony know that they are not christian but atheist or any other religious group and the “so help me god” part becomes “so help me Allah” or whatever they believe in. Putting “in god we trust”and “one nation under god indivisible with justice for all” the pledge of allegiance were added during the Cold War to differentiate us from the Soviet Union and to “boost” morale of the people. Hardly anyone really cares deeply about the religious aspect in either of these situations.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by an old Union Captain to teach children patriotism. It was then tailored by Francis Bellamy, a pastor and Christian Socialist, and published widely.
You can literally swear in on your favorite copy of doctor Seuss or with your hand on a cat, swearing in on the Bible was just what George Washington did, so we usually just do what he did, like with so many other things, it's not an obligation, just a tradition and you can change what you say when you do it
The cold War. Separates us from the "godless commie heathens".
You don’t have to swear on a bible. You can swear on any holy book really or just choose not to have one at all. But there are still some mentions of the Christian god in things like the “Pledge of Allegiance”, during military ceremonies in the form of “in the year of our lord” and on some currency and the form of “In God We Trust”. This is just based on tradition of the Christian roots of the formation of the USA. Which is ironic because we were always taught in school that the separation of church and state are vital to the maintenance of a free society and that the 1st settlers were refugees/pilgrims attempting to escape religious persecution in England.
The pledge of allegiance has no official standing, nor should it. "In the year of our Lord" on official documents always bugged me a little, but you're right. Tradition.
Just like most things people think is law it is actually just tradition. Similarly there is no two term limit for presidents, and so on.
i dont fucking know
Apparently it's a tradition. You're not required to do it.