Even atheists must do the part with God?

As far as I know, it may usually (always?) be omitted. Oddly enough, it didn't require a Supreme Court decision, because the precedent was set with the first such oath: the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first to specify a legal oath ending with "so help me God", and it at the same time explicitly included an opt-out clause, after which that has been accepted practice.

See Sec. 7 here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00...

The fact that this accommodates atheists, however, is a bit of a coincidence: such opt-out clauses were initially included because Quakers objected to swearing oaths to God.

"So help me God" should be omitted since it doesn't even make any coherent sense. Might as well say "So help me snorkleflurp".

Edit: The reason I say that phrase doesn't make any sense is because "God" has so many inconsistent, incoherent definitions that it seems nonsensical to request help from it. No idea what "God" even is.

It makes sense. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God

that's a recursive argument.

Welcome to human nature.

It is amazing how many of our daily behaviours are due in part to circular reasoning, and not just those attributed to religious beliefs.

It just signals other people in his social sphere that they can question his religiosity of he fails to uphold his oath, nothing more.

I'd be surprised if the three-letter agencies don't screen out atheists. They screen in Mormons [1].

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didn...

Then again, "Business Insider," and a number-of-things article.

Sorry, I just picked the first result on Google. I learned this tidbit from a previous posting on HN; apparently the CIA (or NSA?) recruits heavily from Brigham Young University.

It was the CIA.

There is the possibility that they trend towards Mormons due to some belief/statistic that they are more likely to respect authority, or unquestioningly follow orders.

On the other hand, Mormons do a lot of missionary work where they learn the local language, in addition to customs, etc. This is also something extremely valuable to intelligence organizations.

There's a reserve/guard unit (can't remember which) in Utah that is comprised largely of Mormons who became linguists for the Army. Supposedly, it's the most talented and diverse group of linguists ever assembled, and they have people who speak languages that no other person in the Western world knows.

And also not-so-Mormon RPI.

Convenient for the folks in Provo, I suppose.

No. The Constitution prohibits religious tests as a condition of office, and allows either an oath ("so help me god") or an affirmation[1] to be used.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_in_law

When I joined the military, I was given the option to take the pledge without a reference to God. I suspect the same option is given to people in any government organization.

but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens.

no religion is for the soul. it's all about control.

    but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens.

What would happen? (serious question)

In almost all cases, your religious preference would be respected, and no one would give a shit. Unless of course you actually did mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because this would be an obvious attempt to demean another person's religious beliefs.

Yes, Christians are in the majority in the military, but they are also required by regulation and therefore law to treat everyone with respect. There are Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Mormons, Mennonites, Taoists, Bhuddists, Harri Krishnas, Jedis, and many more in the United States military. I've even had a friend who claimed to observe traditional Norse beliefs.

Every official event that I've been to has had some sort of Christian benediction, which is technically unethical, but at the same time, if it brings comfort to the overwhelming majority of my friends who may soon be risking their lives in combat, isn't it more damaging to attempt to deprive them of it?

    Unless of course you actually did mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, 
    because this would be an obvious attempt to demean another person's 
    religious beliefs.

Do you hear the hypocrisy, the conceit? Who gets to decide which fairy tales are blasphemous? Whose moral outrage is justified when others dare to disagree with their religious beliefs?

Please stop.

...just imagined how anti-buddhist would be for a buddhist to say "so help me buddha!" and can't stop laughing :)

Well, there are some millions of people who disagree with you. I include myself in them.

Not that it matters, I just wanted to state the contrary.

"Contrarywise, said Tweedledee"

Perhaps they should all be fired.

Perhaps they don't know what the Constitution means.

Perhaps they should have to solemnly swear to read it as well.