Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Here's the L.A. Time's Blog entry: [url="http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/12/barack-obama-at.html"]http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/...k-obama-at.html[/url] From the blog: [quote]America’s most irritating atheist is at again. That tiresome Michael Newdow and a bunch of other anti-God types have filed suit to bar prayer and references to God at President-elect Barack Obama’s swearing-in on Jan. 20. Newdow also filed lawsuits to remove prayer from President George W. Bush’s inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005, and you may also remember him as the crank who tried to get the phrase “under God†eliminated from the pledge of allegiance[/quote] "So help me God" is not part of the oath of office. It was tagged on by Washington and adopted by all other Presidents as they took the oath of office. Given that "So help me God" is not required by the Constitution and is a voluntary addition by the individual taking the oath how is restraining them from saying it not a violation of that individual's right to free speech and free exercise of religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Hot Pie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm an aethist and I find this pretty darn retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote]and you may also remember him as the crank who tried to get the phrase “under God†eliminated from the pledge of allegiance[/quote] So he's a crank now is he? That's all I need to know about this "opinion" piece. [quote]Given that "So help me God" is not required by the Constitution and is a voluntary addition by the individual taking the oath how is restraining them from saying it not a violation of that individual's right to free speech and free exercise of religion?[/quote] Presidents are not individuals. Dont know how many times we have to circle this wagon before someone will get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 cyrano, [quote name='cyrano' post='1636165' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.35']Presidents are not individuals. Dont know how many times we have to circle this wagon before someone will get the point.[/quote] No. Presidents are the office and the individual. As individuals they do not give up the right to freedom of speech or free exercise of religion. Because there is no legal or Constitutional requirement that the individual say "So help me God" there is no establishment problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 it shouldn't be in there, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Relic, [quote name='Relic' post='1636177' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.50']it shouldn't be in there, period.[/quote] That's my point. It's not in there. Each individual taking the oath [i]chooses[/i] to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636179' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.52']Relic, That's my point. It's not in there. Each individual taking the oath [i]chooses[/i] to say it.[/quote] What do you think will happen if someone DOESN'T say it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Relic, People would bitch. That said the people bitching would have no grounds to act because the oath was recited as required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636189' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.14']Relic, People would bitch. That said the people bitching would have no grounds to act because the oath was recited as required.[/quote] have you ever read the Tomas Jefferson bible, out of curiosity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Watchman Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Relic' post='1636186' date='Jan 2 2009, 18.12']What do you think will happen if someone DOESN'T say it?[/quote] The earth asplodes To be honest I don't see what difference it makes. Who cares if the President decides to say 'So help me god'? I'm all for the seperation of state and church, but there are traditons, and if Obama wants to stick to that American tradition, then why shouldn't he? In fact, it probably would be beneficial to his image, what with some campaigners throwing 'Obama is a Muslim' about. So, it's not like it makes a blind bit of difference to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Relic, [quote name='Relic' post='1636191' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.15']have you ever read the Tomas Jefferson bible, out of curiosity?[/quote] No, I haven't. That said I'm well aware that Jefferson was somewhere between a Dieist and an Agnostic. That matters not a whit to me as a religious individual. For the record, if P.E. Obama says "So help me God" people are going to bitch. He loses no matter what he chooses to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Night Watchman' post='1636193' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.17']The earth asplodes To be honest I don't see what difference it makes. Who cares if the President decides to say 'So help me god'?[/quote] Akin to shooting yourself in the foot, politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Hot Pie' post='1636160' date='Jan 2 2009, 18.29']I'm an aethist and I find this pretty darn retarded.[/quote] This. But at the same time, I would be happy if there [i]just happened to be[/i] no religious references when Obama is sworn in. The president is elected by people to serve people and a secular nation, so it seems silly to call on God when he's sworn in. As far as the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance, it [i]should[/i] to go away. It was added as a political ploy in the 50s to differentiate between the godly americans and the ungodly communists, and doesn't belong in the pledge of allegiance to a country who purportedly stands for freedom of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636194' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.18']For the record, if P.E. Obama says "So help me God" people are going to bitch. He loses no matter what he chooses to do.[/quote] Do you think he could have gotten elected if he didnt pose for pictures outside of Sunday Mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote]Liberals who support gay marriage are upset because of Warren will have a prominent place at the ceremony. Conservatives are upset because Obama will have a prominent place at the ceremony. And now atheists are upset that God will have a prominent place there, too. Obama wasn’t kidding when he said he’d bring everyone together.[/quote] :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walpurgisborn Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='cyrano' post='1636165' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.35']Presidents are not individuals. Dont know how many times we have to circle this wagon before someone will get the point.[/quote] Are they subsumed into the democratic hivemind then? Of course they're individuals. But they're also individuals who have certain responsibilities and duties due to their position, both socially and legally. Forcing them to forego all religious language is not one of those. Scott's right here, the guy's an ass and I hope he ends up paying for wasting the courts time with this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 He's not suing Obama, he is suing Chief Justice Roberts from adding in "So help me God" at the end of the oath. His argument is that adding it on makes it part of the official oath. I think his actions are over the top and his lawsuit will go nowhere. But he is starting a conversation, which is good. Religion is so ingrained in America life that most people don't even think about it. There is a legitimate question about why that phrase is included and if it is appropriate to use in a multicultural society. I recently read an interesting blog that the American atheist movement is where the homosexual community was about 40 years ago. Angry and just finding its voice with about as much acceptance as they had back then. Newdow is a gadfly but he is going to be one of vocal leaders in this growing movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Relic, [quote name='Relic' post='1636197' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.20']Do you think he could have gotten elected if he didnt pose for pictures outside of Sunday Mass?[/quote] Probably not. But how do you prevent that perception problem? Injoin the President and all public officals from attending Church? Watcher, That is an interesting distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636202' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.23']Relic, Probably not. But how do you prevent that perception problem? Injoin the President and all public officals from attending Church?[/quote] No, that's extreme. You have to start small tho. Removing "God" from Political oaths, court room proceedings, and so on is a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Actually from that point of view, it would be good if the president-elect didn't reference God when he was sworn in. Three or four swearings in with no religious references, dropping things like "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, no "God bless America"s and maybe the US is ready for its first atheist president :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.