Some good points are being made here.

1)   I also wondered if Roberts' "So help you God" was possibly an underhanded test for Obama--trying to require that he, in the most public way imaginable, would distance himself from atheists.   Just reciting the oath back to Roberts, as in fact prescribed for that situation, wouldn't necessarily require any actual thinking about the oath.   Consider all the times so many American kids stood up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance without thinking at all about what they were saying--just trying to figure out, for instance---will I be able to finish those algebra problems before 3rd period when I have to hand them in?


(But this whole theory is probably entirely too Machiavellian--even for Roberts. It was probably just an honest mistake--though he made at least 2 of them in administering the oath.)

2) And I believe Donuel is right that this is the first time non-believers have ever been included positively as citizens whose views are worth considering.   And, interestingly enough, Obama has already paid a price for his inclusiveness:   several " religious spokesmen" have already criticized him for including unbelievers in his inaugural speech.

In fact the US has never been welcoming to atheists.   Perhaps that's why some are so strident on Mudcat--it's one of the few places they can come close to any sort of clout.

However, even Jefferson, whom atheists on Mudcat like, wrongly, to cite as backing them, was sufficiently aware that, as I recall, when Paine, who had established himself as a thorn in the side of the religious community, wanted to visit the White House, Jefferson felt he had to be careful about that visit.

But neither the people at that time who pilloried Jefferson as an atheist--and they did---nor the Mudcatters now who seek to claim him as one of their own--are correct. Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus--shocking enough in his day--but was not an atheist.   Anybody who feels differently is invited to provide evidence.