Marxist Pelosi Fixing Law to Eliminate God from Oath in House. Vote!

[Faun]

Pelosi to strike "so help me God" from oath taken in front of key House Committee

​

Liz Cheney said that the Democrat Party has become the Party of Karl Marx.

What do you think of this latest assault on American values by Nancy Pelosi?

The next step is throwing Christians to the Lions. Enough!

OK, I'm a radical believer in God. What's your take on this latest assault on tradition.. I mean, ...eh...power play??

Please vote. And keep the lockstep ninnyhammering to a minimum, please.

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

exactly, let our elected representatives vote on it, then we can vote on them in the next election. Same with Roe V Wade, put it to a vote, or better yet, a national referendum. Let the people speak.

They do vote on it, ya dumbass.

 

[Faun]

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

LOLOL

What keeps you from lying on this forum?

 

[WillPower]

Nazi Pelosi is a Catholic.
She's a member of an evil cult.

The current Pope is a communist who doesn't believe in God....just what good little boys do for the priests.

 

[Pogo]

Pelosi to strike "so help me God" from oath taken in front of key House Committee

​

Liz Cheney said that the Democrat Party has become the Party of Karl Marx.

What do you think of this latest assault on American values by Nancy Pelosi?

The next step is throwing Christians to the Lions. Enough!

OK, I'm a radical believer in God. What's your take on this latest assault on tradition.. I mean, ...eh...power play??

Please vote. And keep the lockstep ninnyhammering to a minimum, please.

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

Dood you are a complete retard.

WHO THE FUCK would file a "lawsuit"? "God"? And on what basis?

Don't bother to answer that, I already know you'll ignore this question so you can wallow in the sewer of your own ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN ---- you do **NOT** insert your own words into my post, I said nothing about gods being "partisan" or "nonpartisan", I said they are not PRESENT. Go learn how to read.

And again "Libs" (or "cons" or "parties") have nothing to say about "gods" because THEY'RE NOT A PART OF WHAT THE FUCK THEY DO. THEY HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP. PERIOD.

Once AGAIN for the obtuse --- WE DO NOT HAVE A THEOCRACY. And we're not about to as long as the Constitution exists. GET IT?

Actually, you are dead wrong here. America is "One Nation Under God", a resolution was passed in a bipartisan manner by the US Congress and signed by President Eisenhower to that effect. "In God we Trust" is on our money.

Indeed it was. And that's counterConstitutional bullshit, whether it was done or not. Further it refers to a national prayer, the very existence of which even without that phrase, is bullshit all by itself. We cannot be forced to worship The State. FUCK that. That prayer was contrived, literally, as an advertisement propaganda to sell flags to schools. That's literally what it is, and nobody in the world contrives such a fetish prayer except us and our former colony the Philippines.

Hell, there are still even now blasphemy laws on the books. Completely unConstitutional. I don't give a fuck if something exists, I care that it doesn't have a right to exist.

We run on a Constitution --- not on a fetish prayer drawn up as ad copy in 1892. K?

We are a non-sectarian state, but that doesn't mean that we don't recognize the sovereignty of Almighty God.

Actually that's exactly what it means.

Apparently the simple sentence "we are not a theocracy" continues to fly over your pointy little head. Write it on the blackboard five hundred times until it sinks the fuck in.

Pelosi should put it up to a vote then. If Almighty God should be driven from America, let the Congress vote on it.

You're a fucking troll. Onto Ignore you go. BUH bye.

so anyone who disagrees with your left wing opinions is put on ignore? must be a very long list. my list only includes assholes, you may become a candidate.

Nope. My IL consists of those with absolutely nothing to say. He qualified. In spades.

If you bothered reading the post history before jumping in that would be obvious. But you didn't did you.

 

[Polishprince]

Pelosi to strike "so help me God" from oath taken in front of key House Committee

​

Liz Cheney said that the Democrat Party has become the Party of Karl Marx.

What do you think of this latest assault on American values by Nancy Pelosi?

The next step is throwing Christians to the Lions. Enough!

OK, I'm a radical believer in God. What's your take on this latest assault on tradition.. I mean, ...eh...power play??

Please vote. And keep the lockstep ninnyhammering to a minimum, please.

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

Dood you are a complete retard.

WHO THE FUCK would file a "lawsuit"? "God"? And on what basis?

Don't bother to answer that, I already know you'll ignore this question so you can wallow in the sewer of your own ignorance.

The lawsuit will be filed on the grounds by people who believe this is one nation under God, and Pelosi was overstepping her bounds.

 

[Pogo]

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

LOLOL

What keeps you from lying on this forum?

Not a damn thing. He still owes me quotes about Sarah Palin he charged but can't find, and can't admit he pulled that charge out of his ass.

As for his puerile point on "Insh'Allah" et al (which is exactly the same thing in Arabic), it's wonderful to know he "has no issue" but it's also not the point, since Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and pagans are religions, not governments. Perhaps it's his way to try to redefine what the topic is but this appears to be yet another echoist incapable of fathoming the simple sentence "we are not a theocracy".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

Dood you are a complete retard.

WHO THE FUCK would file a "lawsuit"? "God"? And on what basis?

Don't bother to answer that, I already know you'll ignore this question so you can wallow in the sewer of your own ignorance.

The lawsuit will be filed on the grounds by people who believe this is one nation under God, and Pelosi was overstepping her bounds.

nothing is stopping people from saying those 4 words at the end of their oath, even if this new rule passed you could say those 4 words that your Lord and Savior told you not to if you feel that strongly about it

 

[Pogo]

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

No, those 4 words would not have any impact on me. If one believes in God then they know that God does not like us to lie and that God is always watching so adding those words changes nothing.

Do you feel it is ok to lie if you have not used those 4 words?

never ok to lie, but the oath has legal implications. bill Clinton lied under oath, so did Comey, Hillary, and several others. The legal significance is more important than the religions significance. I guess it could be legally significant without the last 4 words, but why are they offensive? Who do they harm?

so you would lie under oath? and if found out are you ready for jail time for perjury?

How does being or not being under oath make it a lie or not a lie? It's the same lie either way, is it not?

The only difference is that lying under oath can constitute perjury, and that's punishable by law. However it is not punishable by "God". It makes no (zero, NONE) difference whether that oath contained a "god" or not --- it's perjury.

So if perjury is punishable by law but not by "gods", what's the point of referring to an impotent entity who will be uninvolved with said punishment?

 

[Pogo]

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

Dood you are a complete retard.

WHO THE FUCK would file a "lawsuit"? "God"? And on what basis?

Don't bother to answer that, I already know you'll ignore this question so you can wallow in the sewer of your own ignorance.

The lawsuit will be filed on the grounds by people who believe this is one nation under God, and Pelosi was overstepping her bounds.

nothing is stopping people from saying those 4 words at the end of their oath, even if this new rule passed you could say those 4 words that your Lord and Savior told you not to if you feel that strongly about it

"Nothing is stopping people" -- EXACTLY. On the other hand something is forcing people TO say them. But the Fascisti like the idea of forcing their will on others.

The be all like

Authoritarians give me the urge to regurge.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

FIne, Pelosi should put it up to a vote. If she doesn't think it is an offense against the 1st Amendment, the courts will decide after the lawsuit.

Dood you are a complete retard.

WHO THE FUCK would file a "lawsuit"? "God"? And on what basis?

Don't bother to answer that, I already know you'll ignore this question so you can wallow in the sewer of your own ignorance.

The lawsuit will be filed on the grounds by people who believe this is one nation under God, and Pelosi was overstepping her bounds.

nothing is stopping people from saying those 4 words at the end of their oath, even if this new rule passed you could say those 4 words that your Lord and Savior told you not to if you feel that strongly about it

"Nothing is stopping people" -- EXACTLY. On the other hand something is forcing people TO say them. But the Fascisti like the idea of forcing their will on others.

The be all like

Authoritarians give me the urge to regurge.

Notice how not a single one of them will address that such an oath is against the very commands of Jesus Himself...

 

[Seawytch]

Once AGAIN ---- you do **NOT** insert your own words into my post, I said nothing about gods being "partisan" or "nonpartisan", I said they are not PRESENT. Go learn how to read.

And again "Libs" (or "cons" or "parties") have nothing to say about "gods" because THEY'RE NOT A PART OF WHAT THE FUCK THEY DO. THEY HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP. PERIOD.

Once AGAIN for the obtuse --- WE DO NOT HAVE A THEOCRACY. And we're not about to as long as the Constitution exists. GET IT?

Actually, you are dead wrong here. America is "One Nation Under God", a resolution was passed in a bipartisan manner by the US Congress and signed by President Eisenhower to that effect. "In God we Trust" is on our money.

Indeed it was. And that's counterConstitutional bullshit, whether it was done or not. Further it refers to a national prayer, the very existence of which even without that phrase, is bullshit all by itself. We cannot be forced to worship The State. FUCK that. That prayer was contrived, literally, as an advertisement propaganda to sell flags to schools. That's literally what it is, and nobody in the world contrives such a fetish prayer except us and our former colony the Philippines.

Hell, there are still even now blasphemy laws on the books. Completely unConstitutional. I don't give a fuck if something exists, I care that it doesn't have a right to exist.

We run on a Constitution --- not on a fetish prayer drawn up as ad copy in 1892. K?

We are a non-sectarian state, but that doesn't mean that we don't recognize the sovereignty of Almighty God.

Actually that's exactly what it means.

Apparently the simple sentence "we are not a theocracy" continues to fly over your pointy little head. Write it on the blackboard five hundred times until it sinks the fuck in.

Pelosi should put it up to a vote then. If Almighty God should be driven from America, let the Congress vote on it.

You're a fucking troll. Onto Ignore you go. BUH bye.

so anyone who disagrees with your left wing opinions is put on ignore? must be a very long list. my list only includes assholes, you may become a candidate.

You put people on “ignore” who keep providing you facts and evidence that is counter to your worldview.

 

[Seawytch]

Sneaking religion into government isn't "American values". It's actually anti-American values.

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

So why require that the words be part of the oath? They aren’t included in the Oath of Office for President.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

So why require that the words be part of the oath? They aren’t included in the Oath of Office for President.

And yet some of the presidents still say the words even though they are not required...just like what would happen in the House.

 

[emilynghiem]

Our communist democrats are no longer hiding their long-held beliefs or intentions. It seems Trump hasn't driven them mad at all; they've been mad since the Clinton (rapist/traitor) years. A House committee just tried to omit the "so help you God" part of an oath to tell the truth before them. Why? Because like Marx repeatedly said, a people who know of a Superior Being won't fall prey to their schemes to turn us into their slaves. The public outrage forced the committee to put the end of the oath back in, but they'll keep trying. Is Satan real? you bet he is. Does Evil appear and walk amongst us periodically with a new face and new lies? Of course...and here's the latest political manifestation:

Dear WillPower
I'd like to see all Govt and Party leaders
agree to uphold not only the Constitution and Bill of Rights
but the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
www.ethics-commission.net

By putting loyalty to public law, duty and trust
ABOVE loyalty to persons or party,
nobody could justify discriminating against
people or policies of different parties or creeds.

Our laws and decisions/rulings made by Govt
would have to include and represent the beliefs
of all people of all parties equally, or else keep
those out of govt and exercise beliefs independently by groups.

I'd like to see all Leaders pledge to uphold
agreed Constitutional standards on principles
policy and process. And anything that involves
different beliefs is resolved by agreement or it's kept out of govt.

The Founders made it perfectly clear that our Rights are bestowed on us by God, not man. Therefore, our Rights can't be denied by man and if they are, and if the Founders were truly Heaven-sent, He will step in like He did by putting a reformed sinner in the White House instead of a God-hating communist. My advice is don't push your luck with the Heavenly Father....he can do unimaginable things when He loses His temper.

Hi WillPower
1. Constitutional and natural laws
Yes, and by the same God Given natural laws
people have free will, and God respects our free will
to DECIDE to change our minds or words and act
more in accordance to reconcile with God's truth and laws.
This is done by FREE WILL do you agree,
in accordance with how God designed human nature.
Do you understand that trying to FORCE or punish people
into changing their minds is against God's design of human nature.
If YOU and I do not respond to force by judgment punishment
rejection or harassment, what makes you think this is an effective
way? If it goes against human nature, then it's also against God's design.
This would be contradicting the very laws you cite come by God and built into human nature.
Humans DO NOT RESPOND to being bullied into changing how we think.
Do you agree we are all designed this way by God or nature???

2. Christian and spiritual laws
The Lord or laws clearly follow the principle
that we get the justice we give.
If we forgive others, then we are forgiven.
If we DO NOT forgive others, then we are not either!
So again, by God's laws, you and I as believers would
be consistent to first seek to forgive in order for corrections
to be received instead of rejected by "unforgiveness."

Do you understand this principle as part of God's universal laws?

Thank you WillPower
Forgiving in order to invoke corrections
is not the same as enabling or tolerating wrongs to continue.
It is about the PROCESS of enabling wrongs to be corrected.

Forgiving first ALLOWS God's will and authority to enter
our relations through Christ Jesus so correction CAN be received
and relations restored for sake of true justice and peace.

Do you understand what I am saying about
God's laws in #1 and #2? Thank you WillPower
I pray that you and I receive and share corrections
in more effective ways by respecting the above principles.
and helping each other first before we expect to help others in turn.

 

[emilynghiem]

except for the FACT that this country was established on judeo/Christian values and the language of our constitution reflects those values and beliefs.

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion or a nation with no religious values.

Sorry if those facts offend you, maybe you would like north korea.

4 words at the end of an oath have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

So why require that the words be part of the oath? They aren’t included in the Oath of Office for President.

Dear Seawytch
The importance, point and purpose of the Oath of Office is what matters.
All people in Govt service should COMMIT to uphold the laws and duties
of office, expose corruption wherever discovered, and never be a party to their evasion.
www.ethics-commission.net

We ought to start public education and enforcement of these laws, particularly
* the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on Equal Protections of the laws
* the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, including not putting loyalty to PARTY or persons
above public duty and trust, but seeking to find the most Economical means of accomplishing tasks
(ie to avoid govt waste or corporate abuses for private profit or political gain in conflict with public interest)
* the Civil Rights act applied to all Public Institutions to prevent "discrimination by creed" race color gender or national origin

Seawytch if everyone agreed to enforce these same standards, uniformly for govt corporate organization media and citizens,
we wouldn't have room for any abuse to go unchecked, and couldn't discriminate or bully to coerce or exclude people
on the basis of party or creed. We'd all have to commit to upholding Equal Constitutional inclusion and protection for all people.

How about that for an Oath of office?

 

[Seawytch]

* the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, including not putting loyalty to PARTY or personsa bove public duty and trust,

You know who is President, right?

 

[Redfish]

true, but what is offensive about them? if you don't believe in God, then the oath means nothing to you and you can justify lying under oath as both Clintons and many others have done.

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

No, those 4 words would not have any impact on me. If one believes in God then they know that God does not like us to lie and that God is always watching so adding those words changes nothing.

Do you feel it is ok to lie if you have not used those 4 words?

never ok to lie, but the oath has legal implications. bill Clinton lied under oath, so did Comey, Hillary, and several others. The legal significance is more important than the religions significance. I guess it could be legally significant without the last 4 words, but why are they offensive? Who do they harm?

so you would lie under oath? and if found out are you ready for jail time for perjury?

The oath has the same legal implications with or without the last 4 words. In many places those 4 words have been optional for years and years.

legal, maybe. morally, not the same to anyone of any religion. Adding "so help me God" adds something for anyone who believes in a higher power.
You can disagree, rant and rave, but you will not convince me or any other believer that it has the same meaning either way.

 

[Seawytch]

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

No, those 4 words would not have any impact on me. If one believes in God then they know that God does not like us to lie and that God is always watching so adding those words changes nothing.

Do you feel it is ok to lie if you have not used those 4 words?

never ok to lie, but the oath has legal implications. bill Clinton lied under oath, so did Comey, Hillary, and several others. The legal significance is more important than the religions significance. I guess it could be legally significant without the last 4 words, but why are they offensive? Who do they harm?

so you would lie under oath? and if found out are you ready for jail time for perjury?

The oath has the same legal implications with or without the last 4 words. In many places those 4 words have been optional for years and years.

legal, maybe. morally, not the same to anyone of any religion. Adding "so help me God" adds something for anyone who believes in a higher power.
You can disagree, rant and rave, but you will not convince me or any other believer that it has the same meaning either way.

And nothing is stopping the religious individual from saying it. Why would you want to force someone who is not religious to say it unless you like the idea of a theocracy?

Why didn't the founding fathers see fit to put it in the Oath for President? According to the OP, beautress, that would make them Marxist.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, if the changed the oath to "so help me Allah" would you find it offensive? or would the oath just mean nothing to you?

Do you really think that those 4 words have ever stopped anyone from lying?

I have no issue with muslims using Allah, Buddhists using Buddha, Hindus using Vishnu, or pagans using "the earth". Atheists can use "so help me nothing".

and yes, it would keep me from lying, I cant speak for others, how about you?

No, those 4 words would not have any impact on me. If one believes in God then they know that God does not like us to lie and that God is always watching so adding those words changes nothing.

Do you feel it is ok to lie if you have not used those 4 words?

never ok to lie, but the oath has legal implications. bill Clinton lied under oath, so did Comey, Hillary, and several others. The legal significance is more important than the religions significance. I guess it could be legally significant without the last 4 words, but why are they offensive? Who do they harm?

so you would lie under oath? and if found out are you ready for jail time for perjury?

The oath has the same legal implications with or without the last 4 words. In many places those 4 words have been optional for years and years.

legal, maybe. morally, not the same to anyone of any religion. Adding "so help me God" adds something for anyone who believes in a higher power.
You can disagree, rant and rave, but you will not convince me or any other believer that it has the same meaning either way.

If it means that much to you, you will still be free to add it. Those 4 words are not part of the Presidential Oath of Office yet many presidents add the words themselves.

I have to ask, do you consider yourself a Christian? Do you follow the teachings and commands from Jesus?