What is an oath?

AP: President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

This is the kind of stuff ignored by most but interesting in a way. Why take an oath at all? Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn't take an oath but rather took an affirmation. Mennonites too avoid swearing oaths...

James 5:12, "Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned."

The Catholic tradition interprets that passage to mean that Christ was admonishing his followers to be honest in their dealings so that they could be trusted, so they wouldn't have to swear oaths for minor things. An oath, according to this understanding, is calling God in as a witness in serious matters, a promise to act for the good of the public when failure to do so would have dramatic consequences, or a promise to tell the truth even when it might have an impact on someone you like. An oath places you under the pain of serious sin if you don't do what you promise. The "so help me God" part is an acknowledgement that what you promise to do is likely to be difficult. You know you'll need help.
Cops, soldiers, and judges take oaths.

Obama of course should be able to say "so help me God" if that's what he wants to say, if that's what he believes, that there is a God and he can help.

The Tennessee angle is interesting in the wake of what Kent Williams did and what his caucus had him sign - a pledge, a promise but not an oath. Some have made fun of such pledges or interpret them in the political realm as a sort of fascist tactic. I think they misunderstand. A pledge implies that the one asking for it takes this issue very seriously. They emerge as the result of NOT being able to trust another's word... implicitly, we don't trust Kent Williams' word therefore we'll ask him to take a pledge. There is no need to ask a trustworthy person to take a pledge.

The reaction to Monica-gate was noteworthy. Some scoffed that it was about sex while others saw that it was about perjury, lying under oath, a serious matter that weakens the foundation of society.

It would be easier to sympathize with those who mock oaths and pledges if, at the same time, they acknowledged that what Clinton and Kent Williams did tend to harm the public good. And, Democrats have no monopoly on dishonesty. Remember "read my lips?"