I think they're lying. And I think they know it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

It was added during the Eisenhower administration and was based on the story that Washington said it when he was inaugurated. There is certainly nothing wrong with a President asking for divine assistance, some of them needed all the help they can get.

What was added in the Eisenhower Administration were the words "under God" to The Pledge of Allegiance. (I'm old enough to have recited the Pledge in both forms.) There is debate over whether Washington actually said "so help me God" at his inaugural. No contemporary source mentions it.

The first actual record of a president using those words is in 1881 when Chester A. Arthur spoke them unbidden at the end of the oath. In this case the Chief Justice administered the oath by saying "Do you, Chester A. Arthur solemnly swear, etc." to which Arthur answered, "I do, so help me God."

That said for the Chief Justice to ask for it violates the Constitution.

Not according to Chief Justice Roberts. His contention is that the oath automatically ends at the last official word and anything anyone says after that is apparently okay because it's not said as part of the oath.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yep, that non Christian gentleman (who was perhaps the most un-emotional person I've ever read about, almost cold-seeming) added 'So help me God!' and kissed the Bible.

No contemporary source or eye (ear?) witness confirms that.

Hey, why do we swear on the Bible? (elbow in side)

Tradition. Remember all the wing nuts who said Obama was planning on taking his oath using the Koran? Obviously, he didn't but it would have been legal (Constitutional). So would just not using anything.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Harrumph!

John

You kind of lost me there, John.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I wonder why Jefferson didn't complain, hmmm.

Pete

I don't know, maybe he did. He was livid about it when he mentioned it to me.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

You kind of lost me there, John.

That can happen.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

RC, beyond "harrumph", I'd like to say that I don't post here just to hear the sound of my own voice. I try to engage people in a dialog and at least as much to learn as to "teach".

I want to hear your views and I want to believe that I'm open to persuasion if your views or anyone else's are sounder than my own. I would similarly hope that people with whom I might differ would give my views a fair hearing. Sadly, when someone absents himself from a discussion because he thinks he knows what someone else is about to say everyone loses.

Too many of these open forums end up as little more than echo chambers when one particular set of views becomes dominant and those with opposing views clam up or even just leave. I hope that doesn't happen here. There are many intelligent voices here with a wide variety of perspectives. I, for one, would like it to stay that way.

John

Oops, I responded to the "harrumph" comment before I read this.

I didn't completely absent myself from the discussion. Just quit adding my 2 cents worth.

I enjoy discussing a lot of things including politics. Even though I may not agree with them when its all said and done, I try to listen with an open mind. One thing I have found is that after all the conversation, there usually is not much offered to change my mind to a great extent anyway. There have been exceptions however. I would imagine, you could probably say the same if you were being honest.

I'm still curious as to what "harrumph" means??

RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I'm still curious as to what "harrumph" means??

RC

It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John

I see. Maybe I should be insulted then

RC

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John

I always like to resort to profanity.

That way everybody "gets it"!!!! Even people who don't speak the language.

Chas

[hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Charles

I always like to resort to profanity.

That way everybody "gets it"!!!! Even people who don't speak the language.

Chas

Hell, I'll drink to that