Jump to content

Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636194' date='Jan 2 2009, 11.18']Relic,



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.[/quote]

Less then 10% of Americans will be upset if he includes "So help me God", 80%+ will be upset if he doesn't include it, he wins if he includes it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watcher,

Here's a Youtube of Bush's 2005 oath of office.

[url="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n8kW2ytA0AA"]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n8kW2ytA0AA[/url]

Chief Justice Rehnquist does say "So help me God" as though it must be repeated. Newdow may have a better point than I thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636194' date='Jan 2 2009, 11.18']Relic,



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.[/quote]

What if he says "So help me, Allah"? or just leaves it at "So help me"... As a religious individual (Christian), who did NOT vote for Obama (and is fairly "[i]on-edge[/i]" over the possibilities of how the next 4 years could go... though I'm trying my hardest to be optimistic and give him a fair chance)... I, personally, would not have a problem with either. It's like placing your hand on the Bible when swearing an oath. If the Bible holds no personal meaning to the individual in question, then it is pointless for it to be there. Have them swear in with their hand on a cookbook, or an old issue of [i]Car and Driver[/i]... It'd have the same amount of meaning for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kungbruce' post='1636206' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.26']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 :)[/quote]

We've probably have already had one, or something similar, and didn't even know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Watcher' post='1636208' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.27']Less then 10% of Americans will be upset if he includes "So help me God", 80%+ will be upset if he doesn't include it, he wins if he includes it.[/quote]


yup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
Did the Chief Justice (or was there even one at the time? There was no president to appoint them before) who delivered Washington's first oath of office say the final bit? I'm guessing that he didn't, and Washington himself spoke it alone.

If all subsequent presidents did exactly the same and just added it by themselves rather than repeating the CJ's words, then I have no problem with it. If the CJ says "so help you God" then it's part of the oath, rather than an additional comment following it.

Of course the President informs the CJ of his preference beforehand, to iron out whether he'll say "swear" or "affirm", so the CJ probably wouldn't be forcing anything on him. It's both of their fault if the CJ says it.

ETA: eh, the thread moved faster than I can type.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So help me God."

Surely, George W Bush's 8 years has shown the value of such an oath. What he could have said was "God help us all."

[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?[/quote]

Nevermind Newdow although I agree with him on the pledge of allegiance. I for one always skipped over "under God" before I stopped saying the whole thing altogether in High School. Indoctrination, fuck yeah! So positively unAmerican! A great holdover from the Cold War years!

Moving on...

The situation would be a lot more interesting is this was a reaction to an individual choosing not to say it as part of the oath. Then it would be more akin to when FDR was elected to a Third and Fourth term, breaking GW tradition. What would happen to the Oath then, do you think it would be added?

"So help me God" could be seen as "In God We Trust" on US money; It's just wallpaper. However, if it ever gains more meaning than that or if some crackpot happens to believe he is doing God's will while in the Oval Office {Hint: Screw it, you know who I mean} then it could be a good time to take another look at Tradition.

Some people think God should be left out of the Oval Office while some people think we need more God. And it's always one of the Christian Gods. God help us if a Muslim, Jew or "other" should be elected to the Presidency. None of the above, ha.

It does make me wonder why the Oath of Office isn't sworn on the US Constitution.

Newdow is a crank but that doesn't mean he may not have a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
After taking two seconds to look into it, it looks to me like the claim that Washington started the "so help me god" section is[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States"] bullshit[/url].

Urban myths designed to make the founding fathers look more religiously inclined than they were. Gee, what a surprise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's only Wiki, but I found the article interesting: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_offic...e_United_States[/url]

There's no contemporaneous record that any President before Lincoln used "so help me God" (SHMG).
Even Lincoln can only be "proven" to have used it in his second inauguration; there's an alleged reply of his to someone requesting that "SHMG" be added during his first that says "God's name was not in the Constitution, and he could not depart from the letter of that instrument."
Technically, if one affirms rather than swears, one is obliged to omit "SHMG."
JQA swore on a book of law rather than a Bible.


I also agree with the "kook but he has a point" line from above.

ETA: HA! Speaking of threads moving too quickly; OIL already linked the Wiki article. Also, it was Fatuous whom I paraphrased above -- I agree with you, definitely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chief justice instructed Nixon to place his hand on the Bible, and at the ends tells him to repeat, "so help me God." Same for Clinton. So did FDR, whose recording is the earliest I can find.

So while the words, "so help me God," aren't officially written into the oath, it has become a part of it unofficially, to the point that the administering justice always tacks it on. Now, it may be that this last bit is arranged beforehand -- the justice asks the president elect whether they want a bible and to swear by God, and naturally so far they all say yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636211' date='Jan 2 2009, 11.28']Watcher,

Here's a Youtube of Bush's 2005 oath of office.

[url="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n8kW2ytA0AA"]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n8kW2ytA0AA[/url]

Chief Justice Rehnquist does say "So help me God" as though it must be repeated. Newdow may have a better point than I thought.[/quote]

Newdow filed the same suit in 2001 and 2005 the lawsuit was rejected both times. I don't know if he added something new this time, but I doubt it'll go anyone this time either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be acceptable for the president to invoke the aid of God by whichever name he happens to refer to the diety by or to decline to include a refer to a higher power, whatever is his preference. In my mind it should be the individual's preference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest... I'm saddened by the intolerance of some people. Sure, get up in arms and say that religious people are treading on your rights... but don't then turn around and keep someone from expressing theirs.

I typically stay away from these threads, and now I remember why. It turns into a bash Christians event.

:leaving:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is bashing Christians in this thread? The thing people are concerned about here is freedom of religion, freedom from religion and the secular nature of the United States.

The Oath does [i]not[/i] contain the phrase "so help me God", so it should not be [i]recited[/i] as part of it. Any president-elect is of course allowed of their own free will to [i]say it[/i] following their recital of the Oath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Billy Clyde' post='1636254' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.21']I'll be honest... I'm saddened by the intolerance of some people. Sure, get up in arms and say that religious people are treading on your rights... but don't then turn around and keep someone from expressing theirs.

I typically stay away from these threads, and now I remember why. It turns into a bash Christians event.

:leaving:[/quote]

Where's the bashing in this thread?

Seriously this is where I get annoyed. To many discussion I've been in end with some Christian claiming I'm being intolerant for simply asking a question.

It is an honest question to ask, why does the President of the United States invoke God to help him run a secular country. Is it a violation of the First Amendment to do so?

So instead of leaving why don't you answer those questions? Personally I have no problem with it, if it's what the President really believes.Of course I'd rather if he left it off but that isn't going happen for a very long time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Watcher' post='1636266' date='Jan 2 2009, 15.42']Where's the bashing in this thread?

Seriously this is where I get annoyed. To many discussion I've been in end with some Christian claiming I'm being intolerant for simply asking a question.

It is an honest question to ask, why does the President of the United States invoke God to help him run a secular country.[/quote]

Tradition. And if he is religious, the invocation makes sense. I think your phraseology (i.e. "help him run") implies a closeness of the interaction between God's plan and man's understanding of that plan which goes against the teachings of the Christianity I am familiar with, and could be counted as deeply heretical.

For a President to believe he is privy to God's ineffable plan and is acting as His avatar on earth is hubris. And in secular terms, evidence of having the worst narcissistic personality type. It's tantamount to believing oneself to be God


[quote]Is it a violation of the First Amendment to do so?[/quote]

Not at all. It might offend his individual dignity, if he were atheist and in that case I would say it's a violation - but then he is the injured party and it's his and only his right to challenge it.
It is certainly not an "Establishment of Religion," as it places no organized church as the religion of the state. It doesn't even, if you want to interpret the clause broadly, impact your ability to worship or not worship according to your whim in any way whatsoever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kungbruce' post='1636206' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.26']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 :)[/quote]

Judging from any studies I've seen, you'll get an openly gay president long before an openly atheist one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...