The Invocation of the Divine in Civil Obligations: An Exhaustive Analysis of the Oath "Under God" and "So Help Me God"
Introduction: The Subjunctive Invocation and the State
The phrase "So help me God" serves as the linguistic terminal for the vast majority of solemn obligations undertaken in the Western legal tradition. It appears at the conclusion of presidential inaugurations, military enlistments, and witness testimonies, functioning as a bridge between the temporal authority of the state and the perceived eternal authority of the divine. While modern secular jurisprudence often categorizes this invocation as "ceremonial deism"—a rote formalism stripped of theological danger—a rigorous historical and theological analysis reveals a mechanism of profound gravity. The oath is, in its structural essence, a "conditional self-curse," a rhetorical device wherein the speaker voluntarily invites divine retribution upon themselves should they fail to adhere to the truth or their duty.1
The persistence of this phrase, alongside the mid-20th-century addition of "under God" to the American Pledge of Allegiance, represents a complex tension between a secular constitutional order and a religiously infused political culture. The United States Constitution explicitly prohibits religious tests for office in Article VI, yet the first statute passed by the First Congress—the Judiciary Act of 1789—codified the religious oath for federal judges.2 This duality has generated centuries of legal conflict, theological debate, and psychological inquiry.
This report provides a comprehensive examination of the meaning, history, and significance of the oath "under God." It traces the evolution of the oath from its ancient Near Eastern roots as a malediction to its modern status in Supreme Court jurisprudence. It explores the "Washington Myth" regarding the first presidential oath, the Cold War geopolitics that reshaped the Pledge of Allegiance, and the contemporary psychological evidence suggesting that, despite legal secularization, the invocation of God remains a potent determinant of witness credibility and juror bias.
Part I: The Mechanics of Malediction: Theological and Juridical Origins
To understand the significance of the oath "under God," one must look beyond its modern ceremonial function to its mechanics in pre-modern law. The oath was not originally a test of personal integrity or a promise to the state; it was a mechanism to deputize a deity as the guarantor of a contract.
The Oath as Conditional Self-Curse
Scholars of ancient jurisprudence define the oath (horkos in Greek, sacramentum in Latin) as a solemn appeal to a deity to witness the truth of a statement, coupled with an imprecation. The imprecation is the essential element: it is a calling down of divine judgment in the event of falsehood.3
The phrase "So help me God" is a grammatical contraction of a subjunctive clause. The full implication is "So may God help me [if I speak the truth]" or, conversely, "So may God not help me [if I lie]." Webster's 1828 Dictionary defined the oath explicitly as an act where the person "renounces [God's] favor if the declaration is false".4
In the ancient Near East, oaths were often accompanied by ritual actions symbolizing the curse. For example, in Hittite or Assyrian treaties, an animal might be slaughtered with the recitation, "If I break this treaty, may what happened to this animal happen to me." The Hebrew Bible reflects this in the term karat berit ("to cut a covenant"), implying the cutting of the sacrificial animal. In 1 Samuel 20, Jonathan makes an oath regarding David, invoking a curse upon himself: "May the LORD deal severely with Jonathan, and ever so severely, if I do not tell you...".5 This "imprecatory oath" placed the swearer in a position of extreme spiritual vulnerability.
The logic of the oath, therefore, rested on the reality of the curse. If the swearer did not believe that the deity was an active agent capable of punishing perjury, the oath was void. This is why atheists were historically deemed incompetent to testify—they feared no divine retribution, and thus the state had no leverage over their conscience.4
Biblical Paradoxes: The Divine Mandate and the Dominical Prohibition
The tradition of the oath in Western Christendom is marked by a tension between Old Testament mandates and New Testament prohibitions. The Hebrew Scriptures command the use of the oath as a sign of allegiance. Deuteronomy 6:13 instructs, "You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall swear by His name." Here, swearing by Yahweh was an act of worship, distinguishing the Israelite from those who swore by Baal or other gods.6
However, the New Testament introduces a radical disruption. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus issues a seemingly absolute prohibition: "But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil" (Matthew 5:34-37). This is reiterated in the Epistle of James (5:12).7
The interpretation of this command has bifurcated Christian theology and civil practice for two millennia:
The Magisterial Interpretation: Mainstream traditions (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed/Calvinist) argued that Jesus was prohibiting frivolous or profane swearing in everyday conversation, not solemn judicial oaths. They point to the fact that Jesus himself answered under oath when adjured by the High Priest (Matthew 26:63-64) and that St. Paul frequently called God as a witness to his veracity (2 Corinthians 1:23, Romans 1:9).10 The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, explicitly states that a "lawful oath... warranted by the word of God" is a duty of the Christian when required by the magistrate.12
The Radical Reformation Interpretation: Anabaptists, Mennonites, and later the Quakers (Society of Friends), took the prohibition literally. They argued that the requirement to swear an oath implied a double standard of truthfulness—that a Christian's simple word was insufficient. They refused to swear, leading to significant persecution and disenfranchisement in England and the early American colonies.6
This theological dispute is the direct ancestor of the modern legal distinction between the "Oath" and the "Affirmation."
From Ordeal to Evidence: The Oath in Common Law
In early Germanic and Anglo-Saxon law, the oath served a function distinct from modern testimony. Trials were not inquiries into fact but appeals to divine judgment. The primary legal mechanism was the "wager of law" or "compurgation." A defendant accused of a crime would swear an oath of innocence and bring "oath-helpers" (compurgators) to swear, not that they witnessed the events, but that the defendant's oath was true.13
This system relied on the belief that no compurgator would risk their eternal salvation to support a liar. The oath was the evidence. As the jury system evolved in the 12th and 13th centuries—replacing trial by ordeal after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)—the oath migrated from the compurgators to the jurors and witnesses. The phrase "So help me God" survived this transition, remaining the bridge between the medieval fear of God and the developing requirement for factual accuracy.13
By the 18th century, the requirement for a religious oath was codified in English law. In Omychund v. Barker (1744), the Court of Chancery ruled that non-Christians (in this case, a Hindu merchant) could swear oaths binding on their own consciences (e.g., swearing by the Vedas). This established that the validity of the oath depended not on Christian orthodoxy, but on the general belief in a "Supreme Being" who punishes perjury.15
Part II: The American Founding and the "So Help Me God" Debate
The role of the divine invocation in the United States represents a complex interplay between a secular constitution and a religiously infused culture. While the Constitution bans religious tests, the statutory and ceremonial life of the nation has embraced the oath "under God" from the beginning.
The Constitutional Silence and Statutory Noise
The U.S. Constitution is notably secular in its prescriptions for oaths. Article II, Section 1 sets forth the exact text of the Presidential Oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The text ends there. There is no "So help me God" in the Constitution. Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 3 explicitly mandates that all legislators and officers "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".16
However, the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights, immediately introduced the religious phrase via statute. The Judiciary Act of 1789, signed by George Washington, established the oaths for federal judges and justices. It explicitly prescribed the text:
"I, [Name], do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons... So help me God." 2
This created a dual track in American law:
Constitutional Oaths: The text is secular, but tradition (starting potentially with Washington) adds the religious coda.
Statutory Oaths: The text often explicitly mandates the religious coda, though modern jurisprudence allows for affirmation to satisfy the requirement.2
The Washington Precedent: Myth, Fact, and the "Kissing of the Book"
A significant historical controversy surrounds whether George Washington added "So help me God" to his first inaugural oath in 1789. This debate highlights the tension between documented history and national myth-making.
The Skeptical Argument:
Secularist organizations and some historians point out that no contemporary newspaper accounts or eyewitness diaries from 1789 record Washington speaking the phrase. The claim that he added it first appeared in a biography by Washington Irving in 1857—more than six decades after the event. The argument is that this was a retrojection of mid-19th-century religious revivalism onto the Founding era.2
The Evidence for Usage:
However, recent scholarship challenges this skepticism. Richard Gardiner's research (published in the White House History Quarterly, 2024) cites evidence of the phrase's usage by presidents much earlier than previously thought, identifying William Henry Harrison (1841) and Andrew Jackson as users of the phrase.2
Furthermore, while Washington's words are debated, his actions are not. Contemporary accounts confirm that Washington performed a "corporal oath"—he placed his hand on a Masonic Bible (borrowed from St. John's Lodge No. 1) and, crucially, kissed the Bible upon concluding the oath.18
The act of "kissing the book" is the non-verbal equivalent of "So help me God." It signifies touching the holy to seal the imprecation. This practice was standard in British law and was followed by every U.S. President until 1853, when Franklin Pierce (who struggled with religious doubt following the death of his son) chose to affirm and placed his hand on the Bible without kissing it.20
Whether or not Washington spoke the syllables, he established the liturgy of the inaugural oath as a religious act. The spoken phrase "So help me God" is definitively confirmed in the inauguration of Chester A. Arthur (1881), but the cultural expectation was entrenched long before.2
Part III: The "Under God" Addition to the Pledge of Allegiance
While "So help me God" traces its lineage to ancient self-cursing oaths, the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a distinctly modern political construct. Its significance is not imprecatory (a curse for lying) but declaratory (a statement of national identity).
Bellamy's Secular Intent (1892)
The original Pledge of Allegiance was authored in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and a self-described Christian Socialist. Bellamy's goal was to create a unifying patriotic ritual for schools, particularly to integrate the growing population of immigrants.
Crucially, Bellamy's original text read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 24
Bellamy deliberately omitted religious references. He considered "liberty and equality" (the slogan of the French Revolution) but settled on "liberty and justice" to avoid controversy. He did not include "God" because he believed the pledge should be a purely political vow of loyalty accessible to all, reflecting his belief in the separation of church and state.24
The 1954 Revision: A Cold War Weapon
The addition of "under God" did not occur until 62 years later, in 1954. The context was the height of the Cold War and the Red Scare. The drive to amend the pledge was spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, who began reciting the pledge with the addition in their own meetings in 1951.27
The campaign gained decisive momentum when President Dwight D. Eisenhower attended a sermon by Rev. George Docherty on February 7, 1954. Docherty argued that without God, the American pledge could apply just as easily to the Soviet Union. He posited that the defining characteristic of "Americanism" was not just liberty, but the belief that liberty is a gift from God, in contrast to the "Godless Communism" of the Soviets.29
Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. He stated: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in war and peace".30
The significance of "under God" is therefore geopolitical. It serves as a marker of the "American Civil Religion," defining the nation against an atheistic adversary.
Part IV: Legal Jurisprudence and the Rights of Conscience
The integration of religious language into civil requirements has faced continuous legal challenge. The Supreme Court has had to balance the tradition of the oath with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Article VI ban on religious tests.
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961): The Death of the Religious Test
Until the mid-20th century, many U.S. states maintained colonial-era provisions in their constitutions that barred atheists from holding public office or testifying in court. These were "religious tests" in the strictest sense.
The landmark case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) dismantled this framework. Roy Torcaso, an atheist appointed as a notary public in Maryland, was refused his commission because he would not declare a belief in God as required by the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Hugo Black wrote that neither a state nor the federal government can "force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." The Court held that the Maryland requirement invaded the appointee's freedom of belief and religion.32
This ruling rendered unenforceable the religious test clauses in eight state constitutions: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. While the text remains in these documents, it is a "dead letter" law.17
Ceremonial Deism: The Legal Survival of "Under God"
If religious tests are unconstitutional, why do "under God" and "So help me God" persist in official use? The Supreme Court has relied on the doctrine of Ceremonial Deism.
This concept, articulated by Justice William Brennan (dissenting in Lynch v. Donnelly) and later adopted in majority opinions, argues that certain religious references have, through "rote repetition," lost their purely religious significance and become "protected references to our cultural heritage." In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), several justices (concurring in judgment) argued that the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a prayer. Justice O'Connor noted that such references serve the secular purpose of "solemnizing public occasions".28
Essentially, the Court argues that "So help me God" is legal because, in the eyes of the law, it no longer means what it explicitly says (an imprecation). It has been neutralized into a ritual of gravity.
The Affirmation: Accommodation of the Conscience
To resolve the conflict between the state's need for binding testimony and the individual's religious or secular objection to the oath, the legal system provides the Affirmation.
Historically rooted in the Quaker refusal to swear, the affirmation is a solemn declaration made under the penalty of perjury, but without reference to a deity. In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the affirmation is legally identical to the oath.
Comparison of Legal Texts:
Feature
The Oath
The Affirmation
Invocation
"I swear by Almighty God..."
"I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm..."
Terminal Phrase
"So help me God."
(None)
Binding Mechanism
Divine Imprecation / Conscience
Conscience / Statutory Penalty
Legal Weight
Perjury applies
Perjury applies
Origin
Ancient / Common Law
Quaker / Statutory Accommodation
2
Part V: The Psychology of the Oath: Does God Make Us Honest?
While the law views oaths and affirmations as equivalent, the psychological reality is different. Does invoking God actually constrain behavior? And how do jurors perceive those who refuse to invoke Him?
The "Honesty Oath" Effect
Behavioral economic research indicates that the act of signing an oath—regardless of its religious content—can reduce dishonest behavior. A study on "honesty oaths" found that requiring participants to sign a statement of truthfulness reduced "big lies" (maximizing payoff through deceit) by approximately 27%, although it did not significantly reduce "shirking" (laziness). The oath appears to function by forcing a moment of moral deliberation, disrupting the intuitive temptation to cheat.43
Juror Bias Against the Affirmation
A more troubling finding comes from a 2023 study published in the British Journal of Psychology. Researchers investigated whether a witness's choice between an oath and an affirmation influenced jurors' perceptions of their credibility.
The results revealed a significant bias:
Perceived Religiosity: Witnesses who chose the oath were perceived as much more religious (Mean=3.92) than those who affirmed (Mean=2.34).
Perceived Credibility: Witnesses who swore the religious oath were viewed as more credible than those who affirmed.
Verdict Impact: Religious jurors who themselves would choose the oath were significantly more likely to convict a defendant who chose to affirm. This suggests that the "So help me God" phrase functions as a tribal signal. By opting out, a defendant signals "otherness," which unconsciously penalizes them in the eyes of a religious jury.14
Part VI: Contemporary Controversies in Military and Civic Life
The application of oaths in modern governance continues to spark controversy, particularly in the U.S. military and naturalization processes, where the tension between uniformity and individual conscience is acute.
The Military Oath Crisis (2013-2014)
The U.S. military oath of enlistment and the officer's oath both statutorily conclude with "So help me God" (10 U.S.C. § 502). Historically, the Air Force had allowed members to omit the phrase. However, in October 2013, the Air Force updated its instructions (AFI 36-2606) to make the phrase mandatory, effectively removing the opt-out clause.
This triggered a legal and public relations crisis when an airman at Creech Air Force Base was denied reenlistment because he crossed out "So help me God" on his contract. Following a threatened lawsuit by the American Humanist Association, the Air Force reversed its policy in September 2014, clarifying that the phrase is optional and that airmen may affirm.2 This incident underscored the fragility of the "accommodation" model when bureaucratic instructions override constitutional protections.
Naturalization and the "Bearer of Arms"
The Oath of Allegiance for new U.S. citizens is a comprehensive renunciation of foreign powers and a commitment to support the Constitution. It traditionally ends with "So help me God" and includes a promise to "bear arms on behalf of the United States."
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has developed a nuanced waiver system to handle objections:
The "Bear Arms" Waiver: Applicants can modify the oath to exclude the promise to bear arms if they can demonstrate a "religious training and belief" that forbids it. This standard, derived from conscientious objector cases (like United States v. Seeger), allows for non-theistic moral codes if they occupy a place in the life of the possessor parallel to that of God. However, the applicant must provide evidence (attestations, personal statements) and pass a "three-part test" of sincerity.49
The Secular Oath Waiver: In contrast to the "bear arms" modification, the request to omit "So help me God" requires no evidence. An applicant may simply request to "solemnly affirm" and omit the religious phrasing. This distinction highlights that while avoiding military service requires proof of deep conviction, avoiding religious speech is recognized as an absolute right.49
The House Judiciary Dispute (2019)
The polarization of the oath surfaced in Congress in 2019, when the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee (Chair Jerrold Nadler and Rep. Steve Cohen) attempted to omit "So help me God" from the oath administered to witnesses. Cohen argued, "I think God belongs in religious institutions... but not in Congress."
This move provoked a sharp backlash from Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Johnson, who raised a point of order that the omission broke with two centuries of precedent. Nadler eventually relented and re-administered the oath with the phrase, but the skirmish demonstrated that the "Ceremonial Deism" consensus is fraying. For one side, the phrase is a non-negotiable acknowledgement of the nation's foundation; for the other, it is an exclusionary religious test.4
Conclusion: The Persistence of the Sacred in the Secular
The meaning of the oath "under God" has traversed a profound arc over three millennia.
Malediction: In its ancient origin, it was a terrifying legal technology—a "conditional self-curse" that leveraged the fear of divine retribution to ensure honesty in an era before forensic science.
Moral Identity: In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it evolved into a marker of moral fitness and national belonging. To swear by God was to signal membership in the "civil religion" of the republic.
Ceremonial Deism: In contemporary jurisprudence, it has been hollowed out into a "patriotic exercise," saved from unconstitutionality only by the argument that it has lost its theological bite.
Yet, the psychological data and the recurring political controversies suggest that "Ceremonial Deism" is a legal fiction, not a social reality. For the juror who distrusts the affirmation, for the soldier who fights for the right to omit the phrase, and for the politician who defends it, the invocation of God remains heavy with significance. It is a "performative utterance" that continues to draw a line between the sacred and the secular, the believer and the skeptic, in the public square. The oath "under God" survives not because the state requires it—for the state must now offer an alternative—but because the culture continues to demand a guarantor for the truth that is higher than the state itself.
Works cited
Cursed Are You!: The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://dokumen.pub/cursed-are-you-the-phenomenology-of-cursing-in-cuneiform-and-hebrew-texts-9781575068749.html
So help me God - Wikipedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God
Oath of Office Historical Guide to Moral Leadership.pdf, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Oath%20of%20Office%20Historical%20Guide%20to%20Moral%20Leadership.pdf
"So Help Me God": Purpose of an Oath, and Nietzsche's shocking ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://americanminute.com/blogs/todays-american-minute/so-help-me-god-what-is-the-purpose-of-an-oath-american-minute-with-bill-federer
Implications of Jonathan's actions in 1 Sam 20:13?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://biblehub.com/q/Implications_of_Jonathan_s_actions_in_1_Sam_20_13.htm
What is the significance of the saying “so help me God”?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.gotquestions.org/so-help-me-God.html
Did Jesus Forbid Us from Taking Oaths? (Matthew 5) - Crossway, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.crossway.org/articles/did-jesus-forbid-us-from-taking-oaths-matthew-5/
Why does Matthew 5:34 advise against swearing oaths at all?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://biblehub.com/q/Why_avoid_oaths_in_Matthew_5_34.htm
“Do Not Swear at All” (Matt 5:34): An Imperative Against All Oaths?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.cabanalive.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Acts-8-9-Do-Not-Swear-at-All-Umoren-Anthony.pdf
Cornelius a Lapide on Matthew 5:34 - Catena Bible & Commentaries, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://catenabible.com/com/5838d8f6205c248f42e51d34
When It's Okay for Christians to Swear | Catholic Answers Magazine, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-its-okay-for-christians-to-swear
The Baptist Confession on Oaths - Grace Bible Theological Seminary, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://gbtseminary.org/the-baptist-confession-on-oaths/
Launch of “So Help Me God – A History of Oaths of Office”, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Speeches/2021-Speeches/Leeming_June21.pdf
'So Help Me God'? Does oath swearing in courtroom scenarios ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/British-J-of-Psychology-2023-McKay-So-Help-Me-God-Does-oath-swearing-in-courtroom-scenarios-impact-trial-outcomes.pdf
Re-thinking the Process for Administering Oaths and Affirmations, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2140&context=dlj
So Help Me God: Religion and Presidential Oath-Taking, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1461&context=concomm
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
Did George Washington Actually Say "So Help Me God" During His ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/did-george-washington-actually-say-so-help-me-god-during-his-inauguration/
Oaths — Civics 101: A Podcast, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.civics101podcast.org/civics-101-episodes/oaths
Why Trump Will Be Sworn Into Office With a Bible - Time Magazine, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://time.com/7207967/trump-inauguration-oath-of-office-bible/
Oath of office of the president of the United States - Wikipedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States
9 Things You Should Know About Inauguration Day, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-inauguration-day/
Should We Swear on the Bible?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.biblestudy.org/question/swearing-on-the-bible.html
Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance - USHistory.org, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
The Strange History of the Pledge of Allegiance, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-strange-history-of-the-pledge-of-allegiance/
The Pledge of Allegiance - Knights of Columbus, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/pledgeAllegiance.pdf
U.S. Pledge of Allegiance | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Religion ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/procon/US-Pledge-of-Allegiance-debate
Pledge of Allegiance has under God added | Research Starters, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/pledge-allegiance-has-under-god-added
Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2004/03/19/under-god-pledge-of-allegiance-constitutionality/
“So Help Them God? Pledges and Oaths of Office in the American ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.democracyandme.org/so-help-them-god-pledges-and-oaths-of-office-in-the-american-democracy/
Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/torcaso-v-watkins/
Constitutionality of Religious Qualifications for State Public Office, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1806&context=dlj
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) - FindLaw Caselaw, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/367/488.html
The Lingering Bigotry of State Constitution Religious Tests, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=rrgc
US states cannot actually enforce a ban on atheists holding public ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://fullfact.org/online/atheist-ban-public-office-US-missing-context/
"So Help Me God" and Kissing the Book in the Presidential Oath of ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=wmborj
Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 88 (Thursday, June 27 ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2002-06-27/html/CREC-2002-06-27-pt2-PgH4125.htm
What's the Difference Between Oaths and Affirmations?, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://notarypublicunderwriters.com/917-oaths-vs-affirmations
The Difference Between an Oath / Affirmation and an Acknowledgment, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.asnnotary.org/img/Oath-Affirmation%20v%20Acknowledgment.pdf
Oaths and affirmations - Judicial Commission of NSW, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/oaths_affirmations.html
(PDF) How the honesty oath works: Quick, intuitive truth telling under ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351980398_How_the_honesty_oath_works_Quick_intuitive_truth_telling_under_oath
Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working? | PLOS One, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244958
Do honesty oaths really make us behave honestly? | BPS, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/do-honesty-oaths-really-make-us-behave-honestly
Jurors who swear a religious oath may be biased against ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/jurors-who-swear-religious-oath-may-be-biased-against-defendants-who-make-secular
(PDF) 'So Help Me God'? Does oath swearing in courtroom ..., accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369764960_'So_Help_Me_God'_Does_oath_swearing_in_courtroom_scenarios_impact_trial_outcomes
oaths - Air Force JAG Corps, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.afjag.af.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GW_7pLHI73A%3D&portalid=77
Chapter 3 - Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers - USCIS, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-j-chapter-3
Oath of Allegiance - Project Citizenship, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://projectcitizenship.org/become-a-citizen/faq/oath-of-allegiance/
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america
A fight over 'So help me God'? God help us, accessed on January 14, 2026, https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/signs-times/fight-over-so-help-me-god-god-help-us
