To Swear Or Not To Swear; And To What?

Here's an essay on the invoking of God at the inaugural, by Sally Quinn of the Washington Post.
It's followed by comments, one from me.

Here's Jon Meacham's contribution, taking the other side.

My oar in the water is about holding two ceremonies, one in a place of worship and one on the Capitol Steps, one with religious stuff, one without. Seems to me this approach takes into account Meacham's argument that religion and politics are both about people, and Quinn's point that church and state need to be separate.

How about separate but equal? It didn't solve racial trouble, but it might just work in this context. After all, we worship in church, and vote in government buildings. It's true that some clergy sound like politicians in the pulpit and some politicians sound like clergy in the courthouse. Both are subject to sanctions and dismissal by their constituents, people, worshippers and voters, not by a God or gods.

I don't agree with Quinn's assessment that invoking God is an affront to all non-believers. As I mentioned in the comment, agnostics can simply be amused. Then again, atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Co. get pretty exercised. Perhaps that's because, to me, atheists are practicing their own brand of faith, faith in the belief that there is no God. Agnostics just don't know, as Merriam Webster tells us.

Some of my best friends say that life without mystery would be empty and boring. I agree. It's all a mystery to me and I enjoy it just for the fun of it.

Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper