Two Notable Events Regarding Presidential Oaths

First Notable Event - on December 10, 2010 the Library of Congress updated their website entitled Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events. Where it had previously credited George Washington with having added "So help me God" to his oath of office, it no longer does. If the reader scans down to the entry for Chester A. Arthur, the following modification appears:

September 20, 1881, and September 22, 1881 -- Chester A. Arthur

• First time the oath of office has been taken in the Vice President's Room of the Capitol.
  
• Two ex-presidents (Grant and Hayes) were present at this ceremony.
  
• Pronounced the words "So help me, God" after taking the oath; other presidents have followed this example.

This is pretty big news for a historical, detail-minded, forensic specialist like myself, but the Library of Congress staff members still have room for improvement. In the case of Theodore Roosevelt and his swearing-in ceremony of September 14,1901 the entry reads, "The only President not sworn in on a Bible." Ahem! TR was certainly not the only president who did not to place a hand on a Bible. The first instance goes back to George Washington's second inaugural ceremony where there were no plans for the inclusion of a Bible, and no one, unlike his first inauguration, ever reported a bible-sighting even at the last minute.

There are at least two other well-documented instances where a president-elect did not touch a Bible. A notable exception occurred at the inauguration of John Quincy Adams' inauguration where:

A March 4, 1825 diary entry by John Q. Adams says "... and pronounced from a Volume of the Laws held up to me by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, the Oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

The Washington National Intelligencer reported: "The President-elect [John Q. Adams] then descended from the chair and, placing himself on the right hand of the judges' table, received from the Chief Justice [John Marshall] a volume of the laws of the United States, from which he read, in a loud and clear voice, the oath of office."

- a hat tip goes to Mathew Goldstein. See So help me God in presidential oaths.

Another quite visible instance occurred at John Fitzgerald Kennedy's January 20, 1961 swearing-in ceremony. See the Critical Past video, John Kennedy takes the oath of Office, and notice JFK's left arm is simply resting at his side and his family Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, which, while hidden from view, is being held by James R. Browning, clerk of the Supreme Court.

According to Paul Boller, in his book Presidential Inaugurations, "some people questioned the validity of the [Kennedy] oath. But the White House [spokesperson, maybe Ted Sorenson] patiently explained that the Constitution didn't prescribe the use of the Bible at the inaugural ceremony and that it was simply a tradition that had begun with George Washington." (Click here and follow-up with Search Inside This Book.)

Second Notable Event - I recently came across a forthcoming book with the title, Inventing George Washington: America's Founder, in Myth and Memory, by Edward G. Lengel . This title will be released January 18, 2011.

Lengel is chief editor of The Papers of George Washington and a professor at the University of Virginia. The book should prove interesting.

In an early November 30, 2010 Amazon.com Customer Review (from the Amazon Vine Program), entitled When the legend becomes fact, print the legend, the author, Phelps Gates comments:

One chapter is a fascinating exercise in historical detective work about the presidential oath: during the Obama inauguration, commentators, including historians, often remarked that it was Washington who added "So help me God" to the oath. Is this true? Lengel gives a thorough and convincing answer (which I won't give away here).

If, on the outside chance, there's someone who is too impatient to wait for next year's release date to see the results of Lengel's "historical detective work," here's my recommended sneak peek reading list:

January 15, 2009 - "So help me God": A George Washington Myth that Should be Discarded - A January 12, 2009 History News Network article by Peter R. Henriques - posted by Ray Soller, an American Creation contributor.

January 18, 2009 - In the Beginning - The Oath Is a President's First Act, But Everyone's Not on the Same Page by Dan Zak, Washington Post Staff Writer.

August 27, 2010 - Grisold's Only Eyewitness Account of George Washington's 1789 Inauguration posted by Raglinen.

November 4th, 2010 - Five Reasons Washington Irving is Still Important Today - posted by a contributor at myfivebest dot com.

November 16, 2010 (retrieved as of) - Rufus Wilmot Griwold Summary - Dictionary of Literary Biography - posted by BookRags dot com.

- and that's a wrap.

Three minutes on C-Span with Gordon Wood

or

Listening to What's in the Air and Watching the Waves

September 5, 2010 - In Depth with Gordon Wood - 1:20:15

Host (Peter Slen): One more question about religion and then we're going to move on, but this is from Ray Soller whom you have communicated with in the past, and he has sent us a new e-mail that you and he exchanged. He [on Aug. 31, 2010] had written to [both C-Span and] you:

In your book, Empire of Liberty, you, in a footnote, comment that "[t]here is no contemporary evidence that he [George Washington] also said 'so help me God' at the end of the oath; the matter is very controversial today."

Soller: What was skipped over by the host, Peter Slen, is that I had also cited the entire footnote:

See Forrest Church, So help me God: The Founding Fathers and the Great Battle over Church and State, (New York, 2007), 445-49. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789 declared that the oath to be sworn by the justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal judges included the phrase "So help me God," it is likely that Washington may have also used the phrase (1 Cong. Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, Sec. 8). I owe this information to Steven G. Calabresi.

Host: And that's in your footnote in Empire of Liberty.

Soller: Again, what was skipped over by the host is that I had also said:

My basic question is "Did Forrest Church get it right when he wrote the Appendix chapter, Did George Washington Say "So Help Me God"? I mean, in view of the facts that 1) the French ministerial report, which provided a detailed account of Washington's inaugural ceremony, recorded the president's oath of office without including the words "so help me God," and 2) the bulk of Washington Irving's 1857 narrative of the event is known to have been plagiarized from the memoirs of Eliza Susan Morton Quincy, who was a teenager at the time of the inauguration; how can you still favor the notion that Washington had added "so help me God" to his oath?

I also need ask why you feel that the Judiciary Act of [September 24] 1789 seems to have had more of an influence on how Washington recited the presidential oath than the first bill Washington signed into law on June 1st 1789 that contained the standard oath for all federal employees except for the president. Peter Henriques, the author of Realistic Visionary, A Portrait of George Washington, wrote a 1-12-09 History News Network article, "So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded, came to the opposite conclusion based on his review of the House and Senate deliberations regarding the standard federal oath.

Host: And then you [Gordon Wood, just an hour later,] wrote to Mr. Soller:

I have no idea whether he said that phrase and no one else does either. Everyone is guessing. George Washington was not someone who liked to create waves so that if the phrase was expected he probably would have used it. But I don't know with any certainty. [I find it fascinating that people today care so much. GSW]

Host: Now, Mr. Soller has e-mailed [both C-Span and] you here today [actually, four days earlier], and he said:

Thank you for responding, but I still hope the question, in one form or another, as to whether George Washington added "So help me God" to his oath will come up during the C-Span interview.

You are correct Professor Wood, ultimately, everyone is guessing, though some guesses are more reasonably formulated than others. However, it is not a guess to say that there are no firsthand accounts that support the notion of George Washington adding "So help me God" to his oath.

Soller: I didn't stop there. I also said:

It is unfortunate that the Senate Historical Office under the direct supervision of the Senate Rules Committee does not recognize what is actually known about GW's swearing-in ceremony when it comes to its Facts and Firsts website. Here, the website states in the entry for GW's inauguration on April 30, 1789,"First Inauguration; precedents set include the phrase, "So help me God," and kissing the Bible after taking the oath." No correction has been made even though staff members at the Senate Historical Office are currently aware of the inaccurate nature of their assertion, and this is a big reason why I care so much about this question.

Guest (Gordon Wood): That's right, but there is contemporary evidence that he did kiss the Bible – after the oath. So we had somebody who witnessed that. And the question then is did he say "So help me God"? Well, what's interesting is that the Judiciary Act of [Sep. 24,] 1789, which was passed shortly after his inauguration [April 30, 1789] in that same year, did prescribe for judges an oath, which does include "So help me God." So it may have been in the air. People might have expected it, although it is not in the constitution – the oath as prescribed in the constitution does not – does not say anything about God. So there's where we are. You can make up your mind. What I think is fascinating is the interest in this, because the stakes seem high for people. If you can show that he said or did not say that phrase, then certain things follow from that. I'm not sure we want our politics to hinge on that one fact.Host: Did the news accounts at the time [report it] – nobody reported it?

Guest: No, nobody reported it.

Host: So where does the contemporary evidence come from?

Guest: You mean at the time, there was no contemporary evidence?

Host: No, today.

Guest: It's from what I said before - the fact that he kissed the Bible and that the Judiciary Act which was passed that same year did prescribe for the oath for judges that they say "so help me God." So you can deduce from that that maybe he said it. That's all we have. It seems to me I'm happy to just leave it at that. But others, lots of people want it settled for reasons that have to do with contemporary political life.

Soller: Please note, on 1/25/2009 the Balkinization blog featured Steve Calabresi on the Oath Controversy (recall the footnote shown above), where Calabrisi settled the matter this way:

The addition of the words including the President’s name (in this case “Barack Hussein Obama”) and “so help me God” are permissible both because they do not take away any of the words the Constitution mandates and because two centuries of practice starting with George Washington himself have established that the addition of these words is permissible.

Soller: Yeah right?! - that's a line from Scot Turow's book, Presumed Innocent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Special thanks to Pinky, who alerted us all at American Creation to the September 5, 2010 C-Span interview with Gordon Wood; to Todd Andrlik over at Rag Linen for providing the link to the "contemporary evidence that he did kiss the Bible – after the oath"; and myself for providing Gordon Wood with a full transcription of the Lear letter to which he referred at 1:01:40 into the interview.

It's Incontrovertible, "So Help Me God" Stays Put

The Newdow v. Roberts case is still hovering about. In a recent ruling dated May 07, 2010, Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, effectively declared that when the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States administers the presidential oath, it's incontrovertible, "so help me God" stays put (at least, for now).

Unfortunately, when Judge Brown directed her attention towards Michael Newdow et al, and expressed her view dealing with the historical context surrounding the questioned practice of adding a religious codicil to the presidential oath, she appears to be woefully uninformed:

Plaintiffs do not claim President Obama's recitation of "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath injured them. See Br. [*18] for Appellants at 38. The President cannot be denied the prerogative of making such a religious reference, they concede, because doing so would abrogate his First Amendment rights. See Tr. of Oral Argument at 10-11. For sure, if it were otherwise, George Washington could not have begun the tradition by appending "So help me God" to his own oath; ... .

The obvious problem with this comment – for those who have examined Newdow's original brief or have otherwise done their homework – is there is no known firsthand account that descibes George Washington as having deviated from the presidential oath as explicitly defined by the United States Constitution. Consequently, the claim that George Washington started a tradition of adding "so help me God" is a bridge much too far, since it apparently took another 165 years for this so-called "tradition" to receive any public notice. (See here for an early prominent example dating back to 1961.)

In a concurring opinion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh compared the addition of "so help me God" to the presidential oath to the legislative prayer upheld in Marsh:

Like the legislative prayer in Marsh, the words “so help me God” in the Presidential oath are not proselytizing or otherwise exploitative. Moreover, like the practice of legislative prayer, use of “so help me God” in oaths for government officials is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. By many accounts, George Washington said “so help me God” when he took the first Presidential oath in New York on April 30, 1789. The First Congress – the same Congress that drafted and approved the First Amendment – mandated “so help me God” in the oaths of office for federal judges.

…

Under Marsh and other Supreme Court precedents, the Establishment Clause permits “so help me God” in the official Presidential oath.

According to the above mentioned historical-like sound bites, Judge Kavanaugh thinks he has completely validated the inclusion of "so help me God" during the administration of the presidential oath by citing practices "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." First off, the necessary obligations required for the presidential oath are spelled out by the United States Constitution, and unlike legislative prayer, this obligation has never been subject to legislative action or First Amendment concern. Secondly, Kavanaugh relies upon several legendary law journal shibboleths in building his case: 1) of the "many accounts" that describe George Washington's first inauguration none has ever claimed to have heard Washington recite the presidential oath but for what was actually prescribed by the Constitution; 2) the legislated inclusion of "so help me God" to the standard federal oath did not occur until the outbreak of the Civil War; 3) even if we assume that Washington could have added a non-constitutional "so help me God" to his oath of office, there still is a gap of ninety-two years before a subsequent president is known to have repeated this so-called "tradition;" and, finally, 4) even if one includes New York State Chancellor Robert Livingston, there is no known record of any judicial officer who prompted a president to conclude his oath with "so help me God" any earlier than FDR's 1933 inauguration.

It is true, but somewhat misleading, to say: The First Congress – the same Congress that drafted and approved the First Amendment – mandated “so help me God” in the oaths of office for federal judges. All Department of Justice employees swear to the standard federal oath. The oath for appointed federal judges does not replace this standard federal oath, which, as proposed by the First Federal Congress and signed into law on June 1, 1789 by President Washington, did not include the phrase "so help me God." In the special case of the additional judicial oath, it is not, as implied by Judge Kavanaugh, strictly prescribed as a singular mandate, because every judicial candidate has always been able to omit saying "so help me God" by affirming the oath.

Now, with all this said and just as one might expect, on June 9th, little more than a month after Judges Brown and Kavanaugh had their say, the undaunted Michael Newdow challenged their ruling, and filed a petition for an en banc rehearing of the case, Newdow v. Roberts. So, if Newdow's petition is granted, the cadre of D. C. district judges will get another crack at whether or not the correct wording of the presidential oath includes "so help me God." Stay tuned.

Slave Perks at Washington's Philadelphia Executive Mansion

During the years spanned by the first session of Congress the seat of the United States federal government was located at New York City's Federal Hall. When the first session of congress was over the government moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. President George Washington and his household ended up moving into a fairly plush residence owned by Robert Morris, which was in easy earshot from the Liberty Bell. A snippet selected from the article, The President's House in Philadelphia - A Brief History of the President's House in Philadelphia, by Edward Lawler, Jr. of the Independence Hall Association, describes how the Washingtons adjusted to their new accommodation:

In November [1790], when the presidential household moved in, there were up to thirty people living on the premises: Washington, his wife, Martha, and her grandchildren, Nelly and G. W. Parke Custis; Chief Secretary Tobias Lear, his wife, and the three male secretaries; eight enslaved Africans from Mount Vernon; and about fifteen white servants.

Slaves in the President's House

Pennsylvania's government was the first in the Western Hemisphere to take steps to abolish slavery. In 1780, it enacted the Gradual Abolition Law — prohibiting further importation of slaves into the state. But the law also respected the property rights of Pennsylvania slaveholders by freeing only the future children of enslaved mothers. Children born or living in the state before March 1, 1780, remained enslaved for life (or until 1847, when legal slavery finally ended in Pennsylvania). The 1780 law was lax regarding non-resident slave-holders living in Pennsylvania on a temporary basis. It provided a mechanism for these enslaved to legally obtain their freedom, provided they established a 6-month residency in Pennsylvania. To prevent this, non-resident slaveholders simply interrupted the residency by taking their slaves out of the state before the 6-month deadline. A 1788 amendment prohibited this rotation of slaves in and out of Pennsylvania. But Washington knowingly violated this amendment to the Gradual Abolition Law. He [privately] maintained that his presence in Philadelphia was a consequence of its being the national capital, that he remained a citizen of Virginia, and he was careful that neither he nor his slaves spent the six continuous months in Pennsylvania necessary to establish legal residency. Nine enslaved Africans worked in the President's House: Oney Judge, Austin, Moll, Giles, Paris, Christopher Sheels, Hercules, Richmond, and Joe (Richardson). Click here to read biographical sketches. Gradually, the enslaved Africans in the presidential household were replaced by white German indentured servants.

Being the curious creature that I am, I contacted Mary V. Thompson, Research Historian at Mt. Vernon Estate & Gardens, and author of the book, "In the Hands of Good Providence" - Religion in the Life of George Washington, to find out more about how Washington maneuvered around the Pennsylvania emancipation laws. The ever responsive Mary Thompson replied by pointing me to her article, Different People, Different Stories: The Life Stories of Individual Slaves from Mount Vernon and Their Relationships with George and Martha Washington, which informs the reader:

It was during their years in Philadelphia that the Washingtons realized that there might be a problem with the status of their slaves who were in the city. On April 5th of 1791, Attorney General Edmund Randolph called on Martha Washington in the Philadelphia executive mansion, to let her know that three of his slaves had just told him they were going to take advantage of a Pennsylvania law, which allowed them to claim their freedom after six months residence in that state. (54 - Tobias Lear to George Washington, 4/5/1791, The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, Volume 8). When informed about this development, George Washington suggested, as a precaution against his and Mrs. Washington's slaves attempting a similar exodus, that they be sent back to Mount Vernon.

As a result, Washington devised a solution to his dilemma, which involved the planned distribution of a timely set of slave perks. The Mary Thompson's article goes on and describes the scheme:

The strategy he hit upon, which he said he wanted done "under pretext that they may deceive both them and the Public," was to send them home to Mount Vernon with the story that they were either accompanying Mrs. Washington, were needed to cook for her at home, or to give them the opportunity to visit their own families and friends. This would effectively prevent any of those who were old enough to claim their freedom, from meeting the residency requirement after their first six months in the state.(55 George Washington to Tobias Lear, 4/12/1791, The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, 8:85-86).

Two weeks after Randolph's initial conversation with Martha Washington, Austin was sent home, as Washington explained to her niece, for the purpose of seeing his friends." Mrs. Washington showed that she, too, was capable of deception when it came to dealings with slaves, because she went on to say that "his stay will be short indeed[.] I could but illy spare him at this time but to fulfill my promise to his wife.(56)

Washington's secretary, Tobias Lear, later consulted with the Attorney General and fleshed out a more detailed plan to prevent any of the Mount Vernon slaves from being emancipated because of the Pennsylvania law in the future, but it differed little from the original strategy devised by the president and the first lady. Interestingly, Lear, who was a New Englander, was greatly troubled by both the plan and his part in it, and confided to Washington that "no consideration should induce me to take these steps to prolong slavery of a human being, had I not the fullest confidence that they will at some future period be liberated, and the strongest conviction that their situation with you is far preferable to what they would probably obtain in a future state. ... (57 Tobias Lear to George Washington, 4/24/1791, The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, 8:131-132).

Edward Lawler also wrote a companion article, Washington, the Enslaved, and the 1780 Law. Here, Lawler counted up the out of state excursions for the President and his wife, Martha. According to Lawler, "The Washingtons made 14 trips from Philadelphia to Mount Vernon between March 1791 and October 1796, and used the trips to rotate their slaves out of Pennsylvania." The longest of which was Washington's tour of 1887 miles through the southern states (April 7 to June 12, 1791). Now, all together, that's a bundle of frequent travel miles, and that's not even counting the likely thousand trips back and forth from the slave quarters to the executive mansion via their underground slave tunnel. The usual way in which plantation slaves redeemed their accumulated perks was by enjoying a plantation owner sponsored dance, whiskey, and a big meal feast. You gotta figure that during the slave respites' in Mount Vernon the place had a lot of parties, 'cause in Washington's mind a perk, such as inscribed on the Liberty Bell, was out of the question - I do not think they [the slaves] would be benefitted by the change [to a free status], yet the idea of freedom might be too great a temptation for them to resist. At any rate it might, if they conceived they had a right to it, make them insolent in a State of Slavery. Washington to Tobias Lear, 4/12/1791

Competing Traditions

What's clear is that there are competing traditions. Just look here and here. Even here, over at Explicit Athiest, where Mathew Goldstein, has written a blog in response to Jonathan Rowe's blog entry of a week ago. His thoughts follow:

Jon Rowe understands history, but not non-establishment

In his recent blog Competing Traditions & Abstract Ideals that Trump Dominant Historical Practice [Monday, April 19, 2010], Jon Rowe made the following misdirected comments regarding the recently federal court decision that the National Day of Prayer Act "has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

The harder questions are how to get there in a 1) constitutional and 2) policy sense (the two aren't always supposed to be the same).

Do we need a naked public square where the state is always silent on religious beliefs? Or perhaps a more open pluralistic public square where the state, in its public supplications, sometimes says things that you or I agree with, sometimes not.

I'm willing to endorse the latter position as long as its understood that if the pious Christians get the state chaplain microphone, sometimes the Hindus and the atheists get it too.

And I think that pluralism perfectly "fits" with the ideals of the American Founding.

Regarding the question about whether we need a "naked public square where the state is always silent on religious beliefs?": There are two major misconceptions in that one sentence. The first falsehood is the adjective "naked," the second falsehood is the phrase "always silent".

It should be obvious that a public square where government is silent on the truth of, or need for, religious beliefs would not be "naked." Such a public square would be fully clothed with the associated partisan voices of the individuals who are citizens of this country. This court decision does not strip the public square of any individual belief or expression. Government employees, including elected officials, can go to any public square and add their voices on any subject as free individuals on the same terms as everyone else, just like everyone else. What government employees don't get to do is speak on behalf of government on matters of religious beliefs just because they are government employees or elected officials. That makes the public square equitable, it doesn't render the public square naked. There is a critical distinction here that Jon Rowe, and other opponents of non-establishment of monotheism and theism, keep failing to acknowledge. A President’s statements of his own beliefs about prayer are less likely to be viewed as an official endorsement than a permanent statement from the government in the form of a statute encouraging all citizens to pray to "God" every year.

This court decision does not require that the state be "always silent on religious beliefs." Again, there is a critical distinction here that Jon Rowe, and other opponents of non-establishment of monotheism and theism, keep failing to acknowledge. In her decision, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb asserted that government involvement in prayer could be constitutional provided that it does not call for religious action, which the prayer day does. "It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," Crabb wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience." Exactly right. Why is this distinction between acknowledgement and promotion so difficult for those who oppose non-establishment of monotheism and theism to acknowledge? Could it be that their reasoning is clouded by anti-atheism animus? Maybe there is a prevailing anti-atheist bias in this country as evidenced by Judge Scalia's attitude? Have you considered that possibility and its implications for this discussion, Jon Rowe?

Regarding Jon Rowe's final prescription for a policy of inviting non-Christians and atheists to the state chaplain microphone: How does that comment apply in the context of the NDOP Act? The NDOP Act allows for no accommodation of atheists and atheists don't want a National Day of Blasphemy Act. Multiple competing establishments of religion are not better than no establishment of religion and the constitution calls for the latter. In any case, there is no justification for a state chaplain microphone. There is no chaplain at my place of work, indeed there is no chaplain microphone at the workplace of anyone I know. I guess that means we all have naked workplaces where the state is always silent on religious beliefs. Can Jon Rowe explain why there is this need for introducing a chaplain microphone into official business at government workplaces?

While it is true that 'pluralism perfectly "fits" with the ideals of the American Founding', it is also an irrelevant, trite, one-sided statement. Anything ranging from every citizen has a different belief to every citizen has the same belief fits with the ideals of the American Founding. It is not true that pluralism of beliefs is a goal of government according to the constitution, and an active government role in sponsoring a diversity of beliefs is what Mr. Rowe appears to favor. The constitution no more permits the government to promote a diversity of different beliefs then it permits the government to oppose a diversity of different beliefs. Furthermore, it is not the role of government to select which beliefs it will favor and which it will not favor regardless of the quantity or diversity of the beliefs it theoretically could choose to favor. People can pray individually and in voluntary groups before and after business and during breaks, privately or publicly. Why is that insufficient? Why must government sponsor prayers and assert in laws that a single God exists?

As Jon Rowe knows, the constitution was written by refugees seeking freedom of conscience and freedom from religious tyranny. They wanted a land where government would not tell them which church to support, what religious rituals to engage in or what to believe or disbelieve. They knew there can be no true religious liberty without the freedom to dissent. Whether to pray, or believe in a god who answers prayer, is an individual decision protected under our First Amendment as a paramount matter of conscience. Jon Rowe is mistaken in his refusal to acknowledge that the NDOP, which annually compels partisan religious speech on the president of the United States as an act of government, is a direct, and rather blatant, violation of the Bill of rights, just like Judge Scalia is mistaken when he says the constitution permits the disregard of atheists and polytheists.

What we hear from Coulter is how tolerant everyone is of everyone else's beliefs, that they respect atheists, that they favor pluralism and diversity, but the atheists are not tolerant, they are the problem. When I compare the NDOP Act with Coulter's words there is complete mismatch. The NDOP Act declares that a God exists and we should all pray to that God. The NDOP Act compels the president to annually issue a proclamation to that effect. Where is the pluralism and diversity here? There isn't any, its monotheism only. Where is the respect for atheists and polytheists here? There isn't any, we should all believe in a God and pray to that God. Who is being intolerant here? Its the monotheistic majority, not the atheist or polytheist minorities.

State Lawmaker Wants to Amend Iowa's Constitution

Here's a January 11, 2010 online news story from Radio Iowa, Lawmaker restates her oath after “God” flap, by O. Kay Henderson:

A Republican legislator is unhappy the words, “so help me God,” have been dropped as Iowa lawmakers recite the oath of office to begin a new term in the legislature.

Representative Dawn Pettingill of Mount Auburn raised the objection after two new lawmakers were sworn in in the Iowa House in opening ceremonies earlier today. She says there’s a long tradition of appealing to the divine when taking office in Iowa.

“It has been said in the oath of office since 1939 here in Iowa and it’s included in the oath for federal senators and congressman,” Pettingill says. “I think we should have had a discussion before it was removed.”

Pettingill didn’t notice the change last year when all 100 newly-elected members of the Iowa House were sworn in using an oath without the words: “so help me, God.” Mark Bransgaard, the chief clerk of the House, says there was no conscious decision to drop the phrase.

“I didn’t have a copy of the oath so I went to the constitution and copied it, unawares that we’ve said, ’so help me God’ in the past,” Bransgaard says. “I mean, we can go back to saying that if the members choose to do that.”

Representative Pettengill took matters into her own hands and asked for time to speak on the House floor today so she could restate her oath and add: “so help me God.” Pettingill plans to sponsor a resolution to try to put that phrase in the oath for good.

This is the section of the Iowa Constitution outlining the oath of office members of the legislature are to recite:

Oath of members. SEC. 32. Members of the general assembly shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear, or affirm, (as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of senator, (or representative, as the case may be,) according to the best of my ability.” And members of the general assembly are hereby empowered to administer to each other the said oath or affirmation.
[end article]

Lawmaker Dawn Pettingill may want to do some additional research before sponsoring "a resolution to try to put that phrase in the oath for good," because according to the 1857 Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article I, Section 5 that type of change would require a constitutional overhaul:

SEC. 4. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office, or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, ... in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion, ... .

In a previous blog I pointed out how authors Kramnick and Moore were right to single out Utah as having a "unique State Constitution." I guess I need to take that back. The Iowa Constitution apparently protects religious liberty, as spelled out in Article I Section 4, just as well. The big differences between the two states seems to be that Utah office holders are aware of what their constitution says regarding the addition of "so help me God" to the end of their oath.