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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

I was making a specific response to Ken's point that seemed to suggest it was hypocritical for strict constructionists to not be bothered by additions to the oath of office. I didn't say the addition by a PE was Newdow's beef.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1643512' date='Jan 9 2009, 21.52']This is a rationalization and a false abdication of responsibility.

The CJ should decline, and say, "I apologize, sir/madam, but my constitutional duties forbid me from prompting you to invoke God."[/quote]

That would be a an outright lie though, and I do not figure it would be wise for the Chief Justice to lie to the Commander in Chief about The Constitution.

The argument that within the words crafted by our Founding Fathers there lies a prohibition against Members of the Government referencing god in public and official ceremonies lacks any leg to stand on. That is easily provable. The Framers of The Constitution themselves referenced god in public and official ceremonies as a matter of course.

It is pretty hard to argue that the people who wrote The Constitution intended to prohibit something they felt was very important and vital to personal freedom. There is no way the Founding Fathers would have been on board with say, baring the word god from posthumous award ceremonies/military funerals. I really do think think they would have been pleased with punishing officials for saying the G word when a Marine was about to hand a parent or spouse a crisply folded flag.

Not really sure they would be behind the idea of removing all the Crosses and Stars of David and Islamic Crescents from Arlington National Cemetery because separation of church and states bans religious symbols being displayed on land owned by the American Government.

As for the argument that the Chief justice is barred from embellishing for the sake of theatrics, The Constitution limits how the Government can use it's power, not what people say. It bars Roberts from requiring that Obama say “So help me god.” it does not bar him from prompting him to say it for the sake of a feel good moment.

[The Kreb]

I am a hard nutted atheist, leaning toward anti-theist, and I have to say, I think these motions by Newdow hurt the cause more than help it. Do most religious people REALLY care if the president mentions God during the innaguration? I garuntee you the overwhelming majority would not even notice if it was included or omitted. But FIGHT against the word being there, and all of the sudden even the mildly religious have something to rally against, bringing them together in favor of traditionalism. And so the spin cycle keeps turning.

[Lord Mord]

TheKassi,

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1643717' date='Jan 10 2009, 07.48']That would be a an outright lie though, and I do not figure it would be wise for the Chief Justice to lie to the Commander in Chief about The Constitution.[/quote]


So you would have us believe.


[quote]The argument that within the words crafted by our Founding Fathers there lies a prohibition against Members of the Government referencing god in public and official ceremonies lacks any leg to stand on. That is easily provable. The Framers of The Constitution themselves referenced god in public and official ceremonies as a matter of course.[/quote]


Who cares what they intended?

They also intended white men to vote in the stead of their slaves, and that same-sex sex in itself was and should be punishable by law.


I'm all for personal freedom, and I think Obama can say what he wants to during the oath-taking. As long as he meets the minimum requirement for the oath and is not wantonly disrespectful I see no reason he should not be considered duly sworn or assume office.

However, I think that the administering of the oath is an official role, to be executed by an appointee of the government. I am willing to grant that it may be a new spin on the first amendment, but not, I think, a wholly unwarranted one; certainly I don't think the question may be reasonably over simply because a handful of people have told me so, or because a bunch of guys in powdered wigs would have disagreed if they hadn't all died a hundred and fifty years ago.


[quote]Not really sure they would be behind the idea of removing all the Crosses and Stars of David and Islamic Crescents from Arlington National Cemetery because separation of church and states bans religious symbols being displayed on land owned by the American Government.[/quote]


I see a distinction there. The oath is designed to give shape to the power and nature of the executive office. To invoke God in its execution is to suggest that a connection to at least some god is necessary. The dead are sort of beyond filling any office. The symbols on their tombs give shape only to the respect the nation gives its fallen patriots.


[quote]As for the argument that the Chief justice is barred from embellishing for the sake of theatrics, The Constitution limits how the Government can use it's power, not what people say. It bars Roberts from requiring that Obama say “So help me god.” it does not bar him from prompting him to say it for the sake of a feel good moment.[/quote]


I see what you mean, but this is again predicated on a strict, which is to say, intentionally-left-lean reading of the article. I don't mean to say you are wrong, by which I mean that yours is not an unfair interpretation, but I do think you are wrong because whatever the origins of "SHMG" and our government's passive inclusion of it in the ceremony, I believe that yours is no longer a proper interpretation.

[Lord Mord]

The Kreb,

[quote name='The Kreb' post='1643724' date='Jan 10 2009, 08.00']Do most religious people REALLY care if the president mentions God during the innaguration?[/quote]


If they fight to include it, then they must care. It doesn't matter if they would have cared if nobody fought to have it removed: what kind of definition is that for caring?

I may as well say, "I don't care if somebody hits me: I'm a nice and peaceful guy." Would it surprise you to learn that, if it actually happened, I socked the guy back?


Caring has to be tested before we'll know that it's there at all.


[quote]I garuntee you the overwhelming majority would not even notice if it was included or omitted.[/quote]


Even if that were true, if the exercise itself is wrong then it needs to be stopped immediately, and there was no indication that was remotely on the horizon.


[quote]But FIGHT against the word being there, and all of the sudden even the mildly religious have something to rally against, bringing them together in favor of traditionalism. And so the spin cycle keeps turning.[/quote]


When it comes to the final and complete separation of theism and state action, a fight of some kind is either not going to happen because the faithful have seen the error of their unduly influencing ways, or else it is inevitable. I guess I don't understand what difference it makes where it starts.

[Watcher]

[quote name='The Kreb' post='1643724' date='Jan 10 2009, 09.00']I am a hard nutted atheist, leaning toward anti-theist, and I have to say, I think these motions by Newdow hurt the cause more than help it. Do most religious people REALLY care if the president mentions God during the innaguration? I garuntee you the overwhelming majority would not even notice if it was included or omitted. But FIGHT against the word being there, and all of the sudden even the mildly religious have something to rally against, bringing them together in favor of traditionalism. And so the spin cycle keeps turning.[/quote]

As I said before, I disagree that it does more harm then good because it starts a conversation. This issue is minor that isn't going to go any where. But it can used to direct the conversation to other more important issues. Hopefully it leads the mildly religious to become more aware of how overwhelming Christian America is and why atheists have to fight hard to no longer be the most hated group in America.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Watcher' post='1643772' date='Jan 10 2009, 12.27']As I said before, I disagree that it does more harm then good because it starts a conversation. This issue is minor that isn't going to go any where. But it can used to direct the conversation to other more important issues. [b]Hopefully it leads the mildly religious to become more aware of how overwhelming Christian America is and why atheists have to fight hard to no longer be the most hated group in America.[/b][/quote]

Victimization strikes again. Come on, the most hated group? You make it sound as if there is an all out war against atheists. I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants got you guys beat hands down.

[The Kreb]

We hare hated, but we are not victims. What needs to be fought against? Creationism in schools. Pledge of Allegiance? Innaguration? Bah. Small fries.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1643686' date='Jan 10 2009, 08.59']Aoife,

I was making a specific response to Ken's point that seemed to suggest it was hypocritical for strict constructionists to not be bothered by additions to the oath of office. I didn't say the addition by a PE was Newdow's beef.[/quote]

It is hypocritical. What would happen if instead of SHMG he added "And I take this office acknowledging there is no God"? Newdow wouldn't file a lawsuit. Doesn't that make him hypocritical?

[Watcher]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1643802' date='Jan 10 2009, 11.11']Victimization strikes again. Come on, the most hated group? You make it sound as if there is an all out war against atheists. I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants got you guys beat hands down.[/quote]

Yeah hate was probably too strong of a word, distrusted? dislike? I've seen several polls indicating that Americans trust people with any other type of faith then they do of people with no faith at all.

From [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist8.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist8.htm[/url]

[quote]University of Minnesota researchers conducted a telephone survey of over 2,000 households in early 2006. 4 They found that:

"...Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

Lead researcher, Penny Edgell, noted that Atheists:

"...offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years. ... It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common 'core' of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that 'core' has historically been religious. ... Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong. Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good'." 4,5[/quote]

[potsherds]

[quote name='The Kreb' post='1643808' date='Jan 10 2009, 18.19']We hare hated, but we are not victims.[/quote]
This is patently untrue. Perhaps [i]you[/i] are not a victim, but being an atheist in many parts of America can mean social ostracization, the loss of a job (public or private sector), and harm against yourself and your property. You're very lucky if you've never experienced any of that.


I have to agree with Watcher, in as much that I truly hope atheists as a group are coming to realize that things could and should change in this country. I would like to think that enough atheists are becoming angry enough to speak out, and Newdow can be as annoying as he wants as long as he starts a dialogue. I do fear that the greatest hurdle to overcome though is the large number of atheists who either don't care, or refuse to see the discrimination.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

I suspect that Newdow would cheer if Chief Justice Roberts lead the PE in that phrase but I would see the same endorsement problem there as with "SHMG." However, if the PE adds that phrase on his own that's his call.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1643828' date='Jan 10 2009, 12.40']Ken,

I suspect that Newdow would cheer if Chief Justice Roberts lead the PE in that phrase but I would see the same endorsement problem there as with "SHMG." However, if the PE adds that phrase on his own that's his call.[/quote]

So you don't consider Newdow argument hypocritical since he is saying that he just wants the oath read as is, but in truth is bothered by it because of the reference of God?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1643843' date='Jan 10 2009, 14.09']So you don't consider Newdow argument hypocritical since he is saying that he just wants the oath read as is, but in truth is bothered by it because of the reference of God?[/quote]

I don't know. It all depends on how he would react to your hypothetical.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1643729' date='Jan 10 2009, 08.09']Who cares what they intended?

They also intended white men to vote in the stead of their slaves, and that same-sex sex in itself was and should be punishable by law.


I'm all for personal freedom, and I think Obama can say what he wants to during the oath-taking. As long as he meets the minimum requirement for the oath and is not wantonly disrespectful I see no reason he should not be considered duly sworn or assume office.

However, I think that the administering of the oath is an official role, to be executed by an appointee of the government. I am willing to grant that it may be a new spin on the first amendment, but not, I think, a wholly unwarranted one; certainly I don't think the question may be reasonably over simply because a handful of people have told me so, or because a bunch of guys in powdered wigs would have disagreed if they hadn't all died a hundred and fifty years ago.[/quote]

Because you argued that the Chief Justice would have been prohibited by The Constitution from accepting Obama's hypothetical request.. Unless you amend The Constitution, The Constitution says what the Founding Fathers intended it to say.

If you want to argue that we should change things so that bringing up god in public ceremonies would be punishable, that is fine. It is your right to attempt to remove the protections for religious freedom that were included in The Constitution. The Constitutional duty crack is however BS.

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1643729' date='Jan 10 2009, 08.09']I see a distinction there. The oath is designed to give shape to the power and nature of the executive office. To invoke God in its execution is to suggest that a connection to at least some god is necessary. The dead are sort of beyond filling any office. The symbols on their tombs give shape only to the respect the nation gives its fallen patriots.[/quote]

Sorry, but even the most crazed evangelical doesn't believe the Government requires that you must believe in god to get into office. It doesn't suggest any sort of connection to god is necessary to do anything.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1644344' date='Jan 11 2009, 00.59']Sorry, but even the most crazed evangelical doesn't believe the Government requires that you must believe in god to get into office. It doesn't suggest any sort of connection to god is necessary to do anything.[/quote]
:bs:

Aside from the absurdity of making a blanket statement speaking for "even the most crazed evangelical", this ignores statements like the following, from an Epicospalian (far from the most notoriously crazy denomination) former president:
[quote]Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.[/quote]

[Meili]

[quote name='The Kreb' post='1643724' date='Jan 10 2009, 10.00']I am a hard nutted atheist, leaning toward anti-theist, and I have to say, I think these motions by Newdow hurt the cause more than help it. Do most religious people REALLY care if the president mentions God during the innaguration? I garuntee you the overwhelming majority would not even notice if it was included or omitted. But FIGHT against the word being there, and all of the sudden even the mildly religious have something to rally against, bringing them together in favor of traditionalism. And so the spin cycle keeps turning.[/quote]

You might be right. I like what he is trying to do but it does just motivate the sheep even more and they get more vocal anytime someone challenges thier belief (like science heheh). I am just happy to meet another anti-theist on the site :cheers: I don't come out and say it in debates or when talking to people. I think the people are fine and dandy, just wrong. But their religions themselves? I fucking loathe them. They are a plauge on this planet and I despise them. Soooo, nice to meet you.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1644369' date='Jan 10 2009, 22.37']Aside from the absurdity of making a blanket statement speaking for "even the most crazed evangelical", this ignores statements like the following, from an Epicospalian (far from the most notoriously crazy denomination) former president:[/quote]

1) He isn't interpreting Constitutional Law. He is stating his loony toon opinions. Show me someone arguing that The Constitution legally prevents Atheists from serving in the office of President, that the Supreme Court could overturn an election for no other reason then the candidate elected was an atheist, if you wish to challenge the statement.

2) Pat Robertson once argued that Bruce Lee was a Demon Sorcerer. He did so on National Television. His evidence was that it was impossible for the one inch punch to knock a football player back without demonic assistance. Once he watched Bruce Lee one inch punch a football player "across a room" thus Bruce Lee is a Demon Sorcerer.

Demon Sorcerer.

If you disagree that Pat Robertson is the most Crazed Evangelical in light of the above, we will have to agree to disagree.

Even Pat Robertson, the looniest of the toons, concedes that America could elect an Atheist president if they wished to. He argues that they don't because faith is important to them. He has often used this argument to illustrate why liberal ideas like tolerance are going to be defeated.

Even broken minds are right twice a day. No legal connection is made between faith in superstition and elected office.

[TerraPrime]

TheKassi:

So what else does Pat Robertson do or belief that we should know about? I don't know about other people, but I am keen on knowing what general trends of behaviors I can disregard on the basis of Robertson's actions. It sure will save a lot of time.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1644412' date='Jan 11 2009, 01.01']TheKassi:

So what else does Pat Robertson do or belief that we should know about? I don't know about other people, but I am keen on knowing what general trends of behaviors I can disregard on the basis of Robertson's actions. It sure will save a lot of time.[/quote]


If you do not like me using Pat Robertson as the prime example of bat shit craziness that is fine. Perhaps there are other evangelicals crazier, and I shouldn't give him such a title. It is a fair criticism.

But perhaps you can show me who these people that believe The United States Constitution prohibits atheists from accepting the highest office of the land are? I am sure there are a lot of people who have let some ridiculously stupid stuff fall our of their mouths, but no one is actually trying to bring the force of law against Atheists who wish to try their hand in DC as far as I know.

There are some real Constitutional threats when it comes to Atheists in the form of state constitutions who defy The Constitution, but even those are not enforced. They are in dire need of correction because it is theoretically possible that one day someone might try to enforce them, not because people are being forced to acknowledge a higher power in order to serve.