August 3, 2001

3:58 PM

So Help Me God: "Ninety-five percent of the people believe in God. An invocation of his name, in conjunction with the seriousness of telling the truth, has an importance beyond mere legal requirement," Sessions said Thursday. [via NextDraft]
posted by gleemax (66 comments total)

good lord.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2001

Doesn't he have something important to do?

This is inane.

Anyway, if a witness is going to lie, they won't mind adding another lie to it in the beginning. So isn't the whole oath somewhat pointless?
posted by whatnotever at 4:10 PM on August 3, 2001

And 95% of senators are total dorks.
posted by dopamine at 4:17 PM on August 3, 2001

Atheists: Defenders of Reality. We (atheists) remain one of the very few minority groups in America that the majority groups feel free to defame, blaspheme, etc.

My favorite response to my declaration that there is no supreme being: "You're an atheist? So, what, you like worship Satan?"

Bah - as if telling the truth without the lord's help is beyond the capability of mere mortals. Hypocrites.
posted by davidmsc at 4:17 PM on August 3, 2001

Moron. 95%??? Maybe in 1865.

>in conjunction with the seriousness of telling the truth, has an importance beyond mere legal requirement

If you are going to lie to the courts, you'll probably lie to God as well. God I hate the religious right.
posted by drgonzo at 4:18 PM on August 3, 2001

if a witness is going to lie, they won't mind adding another lie to it in the beginning. So isn't the whole oath somewhat pointless?

Not necessarily. I think it would depend on one's perception of the size of the lie, versus doing so under oath. Also, what if you're telling the truth under oath?
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 PM on August 3, 2001

"The statement, attributed to executive director Andrea Lafferty, said Sessions "exposed an undercurrent of anti-God bigotry" in the upper chamber."

Man oh man. How insane are some people?
posted by Doug at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2001

I love it when people just make up their own statistics. 95%? I doubt it.

Why not make people swear on Santa? I know for a fact 97% of people believe in Santa.
posted by kristin at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2001

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like Sessions is just trying to score political points by making a mountain out of a molehill. Politics as usual.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

< opinion>
If I'm right about what this actually means (see above), then those of you who have taken this opportunity to bash the religious right while remaining silent on similar Democratic grandstanding have just exposed yourselves as hypocritical ideologues. The issues change, but the political moves stay the same. Politicians on both sides of the aisle pull this sort of stunt all the time.
< /opinion>
posted by gd779 at 4:42 PM on August 3, 2001

Sen. Jeff Sessions wants witnesses before Senate committees to know that their testimonies are going before God, too.

um...wouldn't a believer-in-God already know this, being as the idea is that he is omnipresent and omniscient?
posted by rushmc at 4:44 PM on August 3, 2001

<opinion>
I couldn't give a rat's ass what party a politician is from, but if they're asking for more mentions of god in government affairs, they're all idiots that have forgotten why this country was founded and what "separation of church and state" means.

Personally, I like to demand that the senate has me add "so help me if I'm lying I swear I'll screw the skull of jesus' corpse" at the end of an oath.
</opinion>
posted by mathowie at 5:07 PM on August 3, 2001

what about the atheist who is made to swear that oath? isn't s/he already committing perjury by swearing to god?
posted by o2b at 5:09 PM on August 3, 2001

Anybody know where a person could find some real stats on this? I seem to remember reading something somewhere that said that it was more along the lines of 65% - 70% of Americans believe in the Christian god, the rest divided up amongst other monotheistic or pantheistic religions and atheists/agnostics more or less equally, but don't go by my faulty memory.

>they're all idiots that have forgotten why this country was founded and what "separation of church and state" means.

I'd be willing to bet that the Founding Fathers aren't nearly the Olympian masters of liquid-hydrogen-cooled intellect we think they were, and that they would freak out just as much about leaving "so help me God" out of the oath as Sessions did if they were around today.
posted by RylandDotNet at 5:11 PM on August 3, 2001

those of you who have taken this opportunity to bash the religious right while remaining silent on similar Democratic grandstanding have just exposed yourselves as hypocritical ideologues

Just because someone opposes the Christian right, doesn't always mean it's dogma or establishment itself that they're opposed to.
posted by skyline at 5:11 PM on August 3, 2001

So when a muslim takes the stand, do they say, "so help me Muhammed" or when a Jewish person takes the stand, "So help me, Jahovah."

But then Sessions would probably be against that. And I bet his response would something inane like, "that's just not Christian."
posted by benjh at 5:38 PM on August 3, 2001

Personally, I like to demand that the senate has me add "so help me if I'm lying I swear I'll screw the skull of jesus' corpse" at the end of an oath.

Me: Convulsing with laughter
My Boss: What's so funny, young man?
Me: Well........
posted by Optamystic at 5:45 PM on August 3, 2001

"I'd be willing to bet that the Founding Fathers aren't nearly the Olympian masters of liquid-hydrogen-cooled intellect we think they were, and that they would freak out just as much about leaving "so help me God" out of the oath as Sessions did if they were around today." I bet Jefferson would love to here that.
posted by clavdivs at 5:49 PM on August 3, 2001

lets unthaw him. better yet, lets study his view on religion. then bash them.
posted by clavdivs at 5:51 PM on August 3, 2001

I withdraw the opinion part of my earlier comment. It was based on my understanding that nobody was proposing any change to the way that we swear people in. In fact, I had this great response all typed out for Matt, talking about how you can't take Sessions seriously, and the issue was politics not church/state, and the Dems do the same thing, etc, etc. But then I re-read the story, and I realized that Sessions is reportedly "considering" proposing an amendment to the Senate rules. And as weak as that is, if he is considering a substantive change then my previous post wasn't justified because a requirement of that sort would give you grounds to criticize the religious right. Sorry 'bout that.
posted by gd779 at 5:54 PM on August 3, 2001

Matt: great idea, but some of us aren't anatomically equipped for srewing Jesus' skull (see: Freud, Sigmund). I have this feeling using a dildo for the purpose might be considered doubly sacreleigous; and might require it's own amendment with respect to size, weight, materials, colour, representational shape/nonrepresentational shape, sparkles/no sparkles etc.
posted by galachef55 at 6:29 PM on August 3, 2001

you know 95% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I always liked this little saying :

You city hasn't had rain for 3 months -

some might do a rain dance

some might spend days praying for rain

an atheist digs a well.
posted by Satapher at 6:36 PM on August 3, 2001

A recent Harris Poll suggests that 94% of adults believe in God. That seems like an amazingly high number to me, but I guess in the back of my head I sort of just assume that a lot of the people I meet must think like me (agnostic). 83% describe themselves as Christian. By the way, the best statistic on that page is that only 99% of all Christians believe in God.

These statistics seem to support those numbers as well, but I find them a little questionable since I would be surprised to learn that the percentage of Jewish Americans is only 1.8%.
posted by willnot at 6:36 PM on August 3, 2001

You atheist people are odd. To be unsure about the nature of God is one thing; to write off the possibility of God altogether is just plain odd.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:42 PM on August 3, 2001

i could never quite understand polls. how can they question a mere 1000 people and come up with "94% of all adults believe in God"...

granted i was never into the study of statistics, but i really have a hard time believing that only 6% of us are athiests...

if so - wow, i am more of an outcast than i once thought =)
posted by skinjob at 7:10 PM on August 3, 2001

if they're asking for more mentions of god in government affairs, they're all idiots that have forgotten why this country was founded and what "separation of church and state" means.

James Madison, framer of the constitution and writer of the Establishment Clause, served on the committee that recommended the establishment of Congressional Chaplains. The very first Congress established not only congressional chaplains, but also chaplains for each branch of the military. If there were a "wall of separation" between church and state, wouldn't state chaplains be unconstitutional?

It seems to me that the Constitution was intended to protect religion from government, not the other way around. Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffre: "The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history... The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others... George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of 'public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.' History must judge whether is was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause."

The Supreme Court said in 1892 "This is a religious people. This is historically true... This is a Christian nation."

I'm not a history expert, so I'll admit that I could be wrong here. But my point is this: John Quincy Adams said that "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Suppose we took that statement and compared it with a statement of the opposite sentiment: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it forever separated the principles of civil government from the principles of Christianity." You could ask a thousand Americans today which of these two statements is closer to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, most people would get it wrong.
posted by gd779 at 7:12 PM on August 3, 2001

Important, though obvious, note: The phrase "wall of separation" never appears in the Constitution. It was actually taken later from one of Thomas Jefferson's private letters. I believe that this is significant because, while a wall provides two-way separation, the original wording of the Constitution only seemed to intend one-way protection. The protection of religion from the state. It also explains my previous post a bit better.
posted by gd779 at 7:14 PM on August 3, 2001

The state needs to be protected from religion (and the religious) a lot more than religion needs to be protected from the state.
posted by Optamystic at 7:43 PM on August 3, 2001

Glad to see that the MeFi crew isn't immunue to flamebate!
This isn't about belief, it's about culture, theirs, yours, and ours - and no one ever settled a cultural debate without kindness, or swords ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:58 PM on August 3, 2001

i believe the idea of separation or the prevention of established religion in government was to prevent forced immigration to already established religious communities. (like telling someone they have to go to utah because that is where the Mormons are. this example shows why such an idea was needed.)
posted by clavdivs at 8:01 PM on August 3, 2001

"without kindness, or swords ..."
reverting ploughshares by General Motors.(sorry:)
posted by clavdivs at 8:04 PM on August 3, 2001

Optamystic: tell that to the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.

(That statement didn't trigger Godwin's Law, did it?)
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:05 PM on August 3, 2001

Glad to see that the MeFi crew isn't immunue to flamebate!

I presume that you're talking about me. But I quoted John Quincy Adams, William Rehnquist, James Madison, and the Supreme Court... I think maybe 2 sentences there were my own thoughts. I was merely establishing the historical point that the Founding Fathers probably didn't intend a strict separation, as Matt implied. If you disagree, support your position with historical evidence.

Like I said, it's a historical point. Where we go from here is an open question. But I do wonder about the reasoning behind people like Optamystic. So long as we retain our iron-clad protection against interference in the exercise of our religion, why must we scrub every trace of God from our government? What's so wrong with "so help me God"? I doubt seriously that anyone would protest if an atheist declined to say that.
posted by gd779 at 8:18 PM on August 3, 2001

gd779 I was talking about the original (gleemax) post, not yours. & you should know that, in the history of the US, thanks to the Quakers, that NO ONE has ever been obliged to swear on the Bible if they didn't wish to. Example = the US Constitution spells out he oath of office for the POTUS as " I do so solomly swear (or affirm) that I will .."
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:30 PM on August 3, 2001

What's important and unknown is the question people were asked and the answers made available to them. Am I unsure of the existence of God? Yes. Do I believe there is a force greater than me? Sure. Do I believe in a higher power? Yep. You ask the right question and you can report that I believe in god, when in fact I am an athiest.
posted by fleener at 8:32 PM on August 3, 2001

With the Harris Poll, the question people were asked is:

"I will read you a list of things some people believe in. Please say for each one if you believe in it, or not."

• God
• Heaven
• The resurrection of Christ
• Survival of the soul after death
• Miracles
• The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)
• The devil
• Hell
• Astrology
• Ghosts
• Reincarnation (that you were once another person)

What is not known is whether this may be a self-selecting sample. Is it possible that people who are less likely to believe in God would be less likely to agree to answer questions?

posted by willnot at 8:46 PM on August 3, 2001

Eh, the Founding Fathers were all Masons. ;)

Didn't we have a MeFi link to the Masonic conspiracy in laying out Washington, D.C.?
posted by solistrato at 8:56 PM on August 3, 2001

[S]olistrato, just because others have been silly is no reason for you to jump on the bandwagon! Masons indeed ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 9:03 PM on August 3, 2001

(That statement didn't trigger Godwin's Law, did it?)

I'm not sure what you're implying. Hitler was a devout Catholic. He was uneasily allied with the Vatican. The policies that led to the Holocaust were, at least partially, the result of Hitler's interpretation of Catholic beliefs. Hitler used the power of the state as a tool to further his religious agenda. Therefore, harm came to a large portion of the populace because of institutionalized religious bias.
posted by Optamystic at 9:06 PM on August 3, 2001

One quote you've heard, though probably not in it's broader context:

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

And one quote you probably haven't:

"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument-their intellect-which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously."
Galen Strawson (b. 1952), British philosopher, literary critic. Quoted in: Independent (London, 24 June 1990).
posted by NortonDC at 9:15 PM on August 3, 2001

Hmm...seems like they missed a few:

• the Boogeyman
• Santa Claus
• gremlins
• the Titans
• Homer Simpson
• Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Chupacabra
• the Bermuda Triangle
• fairies
• witches
• ESP
• anal probe-wielding aliens
• talking coyotes
• the Loch Ness Monster
• a sincere, honest politician
• ...

Aw, hell, I guess the list IS too long for them to have listed it in its entirety...
posted by rushmc at 9:34 PM on August 3, 2001

ParisParamus: You atheist people are odd. To be unsure about the nature of God is one thing; to write off the possibility of God altogether is just plain odd.

Spock: "A difference which makes no difference is no difference."
posted by davidmsc at 10:17 PM on August 3, 2001

NortonDC: I lived opposite Galen Strawson's teaching rooms in college, so kudos for that quotation. (His 'Mental Reality' is well worth reading.)


Optamystic: the same Hitler who wrote in 1941 that "Christianity is an invention of sick brains"?
posted by holgate at 11:04 PM on August 3, 2001

The part I'm still trying to parse through my poor little 6502 processor of a brain: anti-God bigotry?

Actually, I know very well what they're doing. This is part of a growing triangulation technique being used by the right wing, to redefine terms that have liberal origins but moderate acceptance. If I were to prevent someone from saying the oath to God, that would be bigotry. Merely giving them the option to do so or not (and surely intelligent, religious Christians -- such as John Ashcroft -- are capable of independently choosing to add the phrase at the end) is not bigotry.

Requiring that it be in the oath, however, is definitely bigotry, and probably unconstitutional. Except that future Chief Justice Scalia would probably find some way to invoke the founding fathers in upholding it.

(Watch how they try this trick with "hate speech" and "politics of personal destruction". The latter refers to destroying a person's personal reputation in order to neutralize them politically; Republican usage seems to include objecting to someone's political record when they are applying for a position of trust with the United States. Saying you think that a GOP position is {nasty word foo} is "hate speech".)
posted by dhartung at 11:25 PM on August 3, 2001

Optamystic: the same Hitler who wrote in 1941 that "Christianity is an invention of sick brains"?


Yup. Same guy.
posted by Optamystic at 11:56 PM on August 3, 2001

in places where chiristianity isn't as all comsuming, of which there is not too many in the world, there is no question of including or not including god. to a person from there, if it's written on the page and required, you say it, if not, no. that's how i feel about the pledge of allegience now that i said in elementary school. the purpose of the swearing is what's important, and sincerity isn't necessarily dictated by religion, unless you are religious. the word 'god' is just a word, not god himself or itself and so on, and if you give no importance to using specific terms as a rite, it doesn't matter. an obvious fact but interesting to note is that these were all law people, and maybe they believe in the artificially created law more than metaphysical deity.
posted by elle at 2:11 AM on August 4, 2001

hitler threatened to hang the pope if he did not comply with his evil. He put pictures of himself on church alters"It is an insult to God to believe in God" Is this an ontological viewpoint of god. (is the guy saying anything new) i like my saying: a good atheist should be able to defend god against themselves. Dhart. that is a brilliant observation (politics of destruction and all). NDC: the Jefferson was smashing. (ill cheer whom i like, whether they like it or not.)"Christianity is an invention of sick brains"? Mein kampf provides better examples then this little blurb.
posted by clavdivs at 7:20 AM on August 4, 2001

If "so help me God" means you are addressing the statement "I am telling the truth" to God or before God, you should at least be informed who or what this God is. Which god is God? Which god's rule is the American government enforcing?* What are the exact relations between the government and this god?

If the US government can't at least put that in writing for you -- for example, "We are talking here about the Christian God as defined in this book I'm holding in my hand, and not about any other god or gods" -- then it shouldn't be able to force you to declare something to this "God" feller.

And if the government does make a statement like that, Americans will know they live in a theocracy.

----------------------------------

* And don't anybody try to pull that old multi-culti shit about all gods being the same god; that's a supremely arrogant attempt to co-opt and trivialize other people's religions as simply some sort of misinterpretation of yours. Did you ask them whether their god is your god? If people of other religions say you're wrong, are you still going to insist that their god is yours?
posted by pracowity at 7:53 AM on August 4, 2001

holy shit(scrambles to put worms back in can) Theocracy, holy shit, semantic re-enforcement of theocratical mindset. MY GOD YOU ARE RIGHT.(takes off hat)
posted by clavdivs at 8:12 AM on August 4, 2001

pracowity: That makes absolutely no sense. Because we're not willing to establish a specific and universal definition of God, we're not allowed to acknowledge his general existence? Atheists don't have to say the words "so help me God" if the don't want to. As Jos points out, nobody has ever been forced to do this sort of thing against their will.

To play devil's advocate against myself for a minute, I recognize the "slippery slope" nature of all of this. I can imagine an atheist being worried that the voluntary but expected public recognition of God could lead to the mandatory recognition of God and to a theocracy. But (questions about the likelihood of that aside) that's why the Establishment Clause is in the most inviolate body of law that we have: the Constitution. The right to religious freedom is one of our most cherished beliefs, and having an oath routinely include "so help me God" doesn't change that.

Besides, the vast majority of Christians would be the first to protest that sort of infringement; the "religious right" feels persecuted by popular society as it is. I've worked with people on that side of the fence, and there's no way anybody I know would run the risk of opening the door to governmental influence in religion. As James Madison said, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

So, I know it's kind of early, but I'm still hoping for somebody to challenge my position here. Either show me that I'm wrong when I say that most people have forgotten why this country was founded, or give me a good, coherent answer to the question I posed in the post before this one. Or both.
posted by gd779 at 8:58 AM on August 4, 2001

"What are the exact relations between the government and this god?" Establishment of definition prevents established religious thought."I do not believe in god" fine but hear what is said in meaning(god being the THESIS of truth- ANTITHESIS that which is opposite of truth(and im not establishing what truth is, as it should be self-evident) the Synthesis should be what man does to be increase truth. like an emulation. this argument is the oldest in the book. like adam playing mumblety-peg with the snake.
posted by clavdivs at 9:27 AM on August 4, 2001

If I were to prevent someone from saying the oath to God, that would be bigotry.

Hardly. People don't have the right to rewrite the text of a legal or governmental function to include their fantasies. The purpose of the oath is a) to inform or remind the swearer that he is expected to tell the truth and committing to do same, and b) to create a public record of his agreement to do so. People can make all the promises to God that they want in the form of prayer; it has no place in a bureaucratic exercise.
posted by rushmc at 9:52 AM on August 4, 2001

holgate--I was pointed toward the Strawson quote by newsgroup and email exchanges with Jim Morrow. Morrow's Towing Jehova is a remarkable book about the idea of God and the literal death of God, a novel that is sly and bold, respectful and sacrilegious in all the right spots.
posted by NortonDC at 10:07 AM on August 4, 2001

god being the THESIS of truth

I am confused.
posted by gleemax at 10:09 AM on August 4, 2001

p.s. benjh, muslims do not worship Muhammed. Muhammed is a prophet. Their God is Allah.
posted by jnthnjng at 12:19 PM on August 4, 2001

Towing Jehovah was great. I'll never think of mescal worms in the same way...
posted by Ptrin at 12:49 PM on August 4, 2001

Glory Grease
posted by crasspastor at 1:07 PM on August 4, 2001

just one example, some use science, some use religion, to help establish truth.
posted by clavdivs at 2:51 PM on August 4, 2001

I use the opposite of my ex-girlfriend's statements.
posted by gleemax at 11:55 PM on August 4, 2001

> Because we're not willing to establish a specific and
> universal definition of God, we're not allowed to
> acknowledge his general existence?

If you don't define it, swearing to it means nothing.
posted by pracowity at 3:26 AM on August 5, 2001

just one example, some use science, some use religion, to help establish truth.

Religion cannot establish truth; it can only redefine the concept of truth.
posted by rushmc at 9:58 AM on August 5, 2001

"If you don't define it, swearing to it means nothing'
that is what i was thinking.(and that which i could not type)
rushmc-i agree. truth and its definintion is ...shit, i c- minused PHIL. through school. science is the "best" model to establish truth empircally.(but ya gotta love Erasmus and Parson malthus and..shutup)
posted by clavdivs at 1:41 PM on August 5, 2001

If you don't define it, swearing to it means nothing'

Bah. Surely you can agree that each individual person can swear before his or her own conception of God (ie, whichever God he or she believes in) without requiring the government to lay down it's universal and specific definition of God? Everybody knows what "God" is, regardless of their individual opinion of him (or even her, because I suppose some believe in a feminine God), even regardless of whether they believe in God at all. I don't see the argument against the phrase "so help me God", and I certainly don't see the argument in favor of a strict separation of Church and state (meaning taking all religion out of state business; state clergy, the 10 commandments on the Senate walls, and Congressional prayer were all arguments I expected you to raise.)
posted by gd779 at 2:50 PM on August 5, 2001

I get the feeling that maybe people are taking me too seriously here, or something. Given the nature and number of posts that have followed mine, I have to assume that either nobody on Metafilter holds an informed opinion contrary to mine, nobody is reading this post, or my post has had a chilling effect on everybody else. I seriously doubt the first two, so let me just point out that I'm here (Metafilter) because this is the only place I'm aware of where the posters can debate "hot-button" issues while normally avoiding taking it personally. I hope that I haven't done anything to piss people off.
posted by gd779 at 2:55 PM on August 5, 2001

Of course, this post is about to drop off of the front page, so I guess it's a moot point now anyway. ;)
posted by gd779 at 2:57 PM on August 5, 2001

Everybody knows what "God" is, regardless of their individual opinion of him

What an arrogant, erroneous statement!
posted by rushmc at 10:26 PM on August 5, 2001

> I have to assume that either nobody on Metafilter
> holds an informed opinion contrary to mine...

You have to assume only that you interested no one enough to bother replying to whatever it was you apparently wish desperately someone would answer. I, for one, can't be bothered to go back and see just what that was.

And that's the second time you've asked in one thread. You're just pleading for someone to talk to you. Aren't you getting enough attention at home?

> Surely you can agree that each individual person can
> swear before his or her own conception of God (ie,
> whichever God he or she believes in) without requiring
> the government to lay down it's [sic] universal and
> specific definition of God?

You are erroneously linking two unrelated assertions.

Yes, people should be able to swear before any God they care to, if such a statement, this swearing before process, makes them feel better and does not waste too much time. They could make such an assertion before, during, or after their testimony. (Such swearing does not make them more likely to tell the truth, however, and should not be taken to mean that their testimony is more valid than someone who does not swear before an invisible being.)

No, the government should not make "God" a part of the legal process, with all of the presumed moral and legal authority of the government behind it, unless the government is also willing to explain exactly what it does and does not mean by the word God. Does it mean Allah? Does it mean Zeus? Does it mean Pan? Does it mean any particular leprechaun? Is it the god of the Old Testament? Of the New Testament? The Koran? Buddha? Vishnu? Brahma? Shiva? Is the government giving less than equal treatment to the religions of its citizens? Or is it carefully treating all gods equally?

Is the government afraid to say that it means all gods? Is it afraid to say that it does not mean all gods? What god do you think the government means?
posted by pracowity at 11:26 PM on August 5, 2001