Role of religion and gender in the 2009 presidential inauguration

In his article “In the Beginning,” which appeared in the Washington Post on January 18, 2009, Dan Zak dissects the Presidential Oath of Office and inauguration ceremony unapologetically; he points out aspects of the oath that highlight the status quo on the separation of church and state and the status of women in politics. Zak points out the phrase “so help me God” was not originally a part of the Oath of Office; George Washington almost certainly did not say it as part of his Oath. Zak also points out the irony that the President-elect swears to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and then employs the phrase “so help me God,” which is not in the Constitution. He states that the Constitutional ruling on the matter is that “so help me God” is "a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country" that has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." He questions this ruling, asking, “Does repeating a prayer eventually sap it of meaning?”

Zak notes that the First Lady stands silently in the center between the Chief Justice and the President-Elect and “receives a peck on the cheek” at the end. Zak points out that the tradition of the First Lady attending the inauguration wasn’t truly born until the 20th century when Lady Bird Johnson stood, “at her loving husband's behest, wearing a brilliant red cloak in an ocean of black.” Zak authorizes the idea that this suggests women’s “increasing involvement in all levels of American society” by quoting a George Washington University “expert.” However, he follows this up by stating that ultimately, the First Lady’s only role is to move her eyes back and forth between her husband and the Chief Justice. Ultimately, Zak claims that this signals the First Lady’s “evolving but indefinite” role in society.

I agree with Zak’s assertion that although lawsuits will continually be filed against religious phrases used in government practices, they will remain there for the time being. Why? Because as Zak states, “Ninety percent [of Americans] wants God to remain on the US currency and in the pledge of allegiance.” Zak’s argument that religious and other forces have shaped American politics over time and will continue to pose significant problems is supported by Mark Noll in “God and Race in American Politics.” Noll argues that the central and defining problems for American politics have been “racial-religious-political entanglements” that have created moral dilemmas. However, it seems that another conflict is developing into an issue that is spoken about increasingly – gender.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the First Lady’s presence at the inauguration is a sign of women’s progression in politics. This writing itself is a testament to the lack of a substantive role for First Ladies in the inauguration. First, although Zak refers to male figures in the article, such as the President-elect and the Chief Justice by their last names “Obama” and “Roberts,” he refers to the First Ladies by their first name, citing “Hillary,” “Laura,” “Nancy,” and “Michelle.” Second, Zak suggests that one of the primary purposes of the First Lady at the inauguration is to serve as a fashion landmark; after all, Lady Bird Johnson was a “brilliant red cloak in an ocean of black.” When Zak refers to each First Lady, he does so to point out the color of her jacket. “Hillary in eggplant, then carnation pink. Laura in turquoise, then white.”

According to Zak, 86% of Americans believe in God and 90% of Americans want "God" to remain in government-employed phrases. What does it mean that more Americans want "God" invoked in government than the number that believe in God? What is the First Lady's role in the inauguration beyond wearing a designer coat and holding the Bible?