Oath Act would require people giving House committee testimony to say ‘so help me God’ when sworn in
Does the religious reference belong in an ostensibly-nonreligious body like Congress?
Context and what the resolution does
When Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in 2019, several committee chairs eliminated the phrase “so help me God” from the oath that witnesses are required to recite before giving testimony.
The Oath Act would explicitly require that clause, with this phrasing for all congressional testimony: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
It was introduced in the House on March 26 as H.Res. 281, by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA4).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that giving your word before what they believe to be a higher power transforms what could otherwise be considered mere “news of the day” into something larger — indeed, something immortal.
“This resolution is simple. It would require witnesses before all House committees to take the same oath that is used in every courtroom in America, from small claims court all the way to the Supreme Court, when testifying before Congress,” Rep. Johnson said in a press release.
“The intention behind [the phrase ‘so help me God’] was to express the idea that the truth of what was being said was important not just in the moment, but would go into eternity, and someone was watching and would ultimately be our judge,” Rep. Johnson told the New York Times. “Some would call that mere symbolism, but to many of our founders, it was deeper than that.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that removing the phrase builds a better wall between church and state, no longer forcing secularists or agnostics to swear towards an entity in which they may not believe.
“The change not only protects the freedom of conscience of those who would rather not swear a religious oath,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s Senior Advisor Rob Boston wrote in 2019, “but [the existing oath phrase ‘under penalty of law’] also provides an important reminder that there’s a serious penalty for lying under oath — as some people have learned lately.”
(That was a reference to the then-recent guilty plea of lying to Congress by President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.)
“After all,” Boston continued, “what do we actually gain by pressuring an atheist to swear in the name of a deity he or she does not accept?”
Odds of passage
Rep. Johnson’s prior 2019 version attracted 41 cosponsors, all Republicans. It never received a committee vote.
The resolution has attracted a somewhat smaller 16 House cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Rules Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Democratic-controlled chamber.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Want more? Follow GovTrack by email, on Twitter, and for our “A Bill a Minute” video series — on Instagram, or on YouTube.
Like our analyses? Support our work on Patreon.
