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

[potsherds]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645106' date='Jan 12 2009, 01.39']OiL,

That's very hard to do. Put as simply as possible making no mention of God, from my perspective, appears to by implication endorse the postion the God does not exist. As such a purely secular State is not neutral regarding religion.[/quote]
Oh for the love of little apples... *sigh* [counts to ten]

..
..
..

A few ways I could address this I guess. For one, why it's necessary to interpret a secular State as making one claim or another in re to faith. Another would be why you personally need some sort of State validation of your faith, which ought to be a private matter. Another would be why a State's actions must be interpreted in any way which says [i]anything at all[/i] about faith and religion. I am struggling how to ask this question you see, because I'm extremely puzzled as to why you must see a secular State as a faithless one, and why the hell this is a problem, and why the hell it matters to you that your faith is used in State affairs...and...stuff.

I'm really too frustrated to think clearly enough, sorry. For one so tolerant of so many different things, your opinion on secularism stands in the way of tolerance for those who lack faith as much as the opinions of mouth-breathing fundies.

I find it bitterly amusing that you are also the one in this thread which so much optimism for the future tolerance of atheists in this country. With respect, bullshit. It'll never happen.

[Tempra]

Was "mouth-breathing fundies" and "tolerance" used in the same sentence? Classic.

[El-ahrairah]

Although I am a hyperconservative reactionary Christian a few centuries after my time, I have come around to the belief that the SJOTUS should [i]not[/i] say "So help me God" in the inauguration. Firstly, it is not a part of the Constitutional Oath. Secondly, it does not affect whether the President-Elect says the words. And lastly, it makes a far more significant gesture is the words are said of the PE's own volition, not being repeated by rote, but proclaimed as a personal affirmation of faith.

Potsherds -

I am most amused that you are asking "why the hell' should the U.S. be a religious country. Perhaps "By Marx" or "Why the Darwin" would be more fitting for your position.

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1636273' date='Jan 3 2009, 08.53']Judging from any studies I've seen, you'll get an openly gay president long before an openly atheist one.[/quote]

It does kind of depend on how you define atheist. There's plenty of debate about Abraham Lincoln ("The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma"), for instance.

The US has also very likely had a closet gay president in James Buchanan, though that too is subject to debate.

[Ser Greguh]

Anyone who says that atheists are not victims has never had to live as an outed atheist in a conservative religious community. It is not a pleasant experience and these communities do not consist of pleasant people.

Moreover, it is trivially easy to point out that atheists as a whole face more explicit discrimination than almost any other group. A very quick sampling of some state constitutions (emphasis is mine in all examples):

Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 36 specifically requires belief in God (presumably the Christian god) in order to be deemed a competent witness or juror:

[quote]...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; [b]provided, he believes in the existence of God,[/b] and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.[/quote]

The Massachusetts State Constitution (Article 3) notes that all denominations of Christians are subject to equal protection under the law. No mention is made of non-Christians.

[quote]...[b]every denomination of Christians[/b], demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.[/quote]

Mississippi's State Constitution (article 3) specifically forbids atheists from holding office:

[quote]No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state[/quote]

North Carolina's constitution (Article 6 Section 8) has a virtually identical clause:

[quote]Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.[/quote]

Pennsylvania says the same thing in a roundabout double-negative way (Article 1 Section 4)

[quote]No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.[/quote]

Sensing a pattern? Welcome South Carolina into the fold (Article 4 Section 2)

[quote]No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being[/quote]

And Tennessee (Article 9 Section 2)

[quote]No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state[/quote]

And Texas (Article 1 Section 4)

[quote]No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, [b]provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being[/b][/quote]

But of course, we're just making this shit up, right?

edit: I said "segregation" in my initial post. I meant "discrimination"

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1644696' date='Jan 11 2009, 11.43']Polls showing people's refusal to vote for a known atheist is evidence enough that the general populaton does not trust an atheist to be the president. The force of custom and social mores can be as strong as the force of law. For instance, doubt you that despite the absence of any written laws prohibiting a Muslim from becoming the President, that we shall see one elected in the next 40 years? When Lieberman was the running mate in 2000, and when Romney was vying for the nomination in 2008, their non-Protetstant faiths were part of the sticking point for some people. And they're religious. Your argument on the technicality of the the law is a bit feeble, given the known cultural forces at work that has been demonstrated.[/quote]

Everything you just said applies to Obama. We have living proof that people's insane and hateful biases are not equal to the force of law. A black Gentlemen accused of being a Muslim and an Arab (As if being either freaking means anything) and publicly preforming the “terrorist fist bump” got elected.

There was a custom that only white protestant men born in America could be president. Kennedy was able to defy that custom for one reason and one reason only, dispute the worries of fools that he would blindly follow the orders of the pope. That reason was because the custom in question wasn't backed by the force of law. Around five or six decades later Obama defied that custom even more. Again, he was only able to do it because he wasn't prohibited by The Constitution.

The Governator doesn't get to defy that custom as of yet. There difference between Kennedy/Obama and Arnold LastnameIcan'tspell is that the first two only had to battle custom. The last has to battle the force of law. Kennedy/Obama get elected, people are annoyed. If Arnold wins an election, he will be barred from the white house unless the law is changed.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1644696' date='Jan 11 2009, 11.43']To relate back to the Newdow case: Many of the battles that atheists now choose to fight are more symbolic than substantive. After all, a word is just a word. But what those words symbolize is a trenchant bias against non-religious people backed by the force of culture and social norm. The cultural outlook is amorphous and undefined, so it is hard to push against it. Instead, we choose symbolic fights to raise the issue, to bring this hidden conflict to light.[/quote]

And thats the problem. Thats what makes this so screwed up. Activist Atheists are trying to bring the force of law against custom and symbols, making the claim that they need to in order to achieve legal parity. Well, Atheists have legal parity. So do Agnostics. Nothing bars me from getting elected and ordering that god be barred from the scene when I am sworn in save for my inability to get people to vote for me.

Activist Atheists are trying to get the expression of ideas banned. To outlaw customs.

There are a lot of worthy battles out there. Wrongs that need to be corrected. The Boy scout battle over getting to use prime government land for free while they shun Homosexuals and Agnostics/Atheists is a good example. The Tennessee State Constitution is another. There are a thousand other ways to fight the force of law, rather then customs.

The Truth is that Atheists/agnostics do have cultural parity. I have had way more people mock the color of my hair then mock my lack of faith. It has never been an issue with friends, with my jobs, or my relationship with law enforcement. A female Atheist is far more likely to get attacked because she is a woman then because she is an Atheist. A black Atheist is more likely to be attacked because they are black then because they are an Atheist. A Homosexual atheist is more likely to be attacked because they are Homosexual then because they are an Atheist.

Want proof? Here are the Hate Crime Statistics for religiously motivated attacks.

[quote]Of the 1,405 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:
69.5 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
10.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
7.5 percent were victims of a bias against other unspecified religions (anti-other religion).
4.3 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
4.1 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
3.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
0.4 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.[/quote]

A Jewish person is about a hundred and forty times more likely to be attacked for their faith then an Atheist or Agnostic. The figures are similar for Gay men. Also for Hispanics. According to the FBI a person is a about three times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime because they have a physical disability then because they are an Atheist.

Atheists and Agnostics are about the least persecuted group in America. People hate Activists. The people who get in people's face and rant about how the status quo oppresses them. They hate Muslim Activists. Homosexual rights Activists. The people who rant about the war on Christmas, or how the Easter Bunny is out to steal the thunder of Jesus. They hate Illegal immigrant Activists. They hate Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans. They hate Strict Constitutionalists and those who wish to legislate from the bench.
Atheists and Agnostics are however largely ignored. They are not hated. The only ones that get noticed are those who are militantly anti-religion.

If Atheists ever do manage to get themselves hated, and targeted for their lack of faith the same way Jewish people and the like are, it is going to because of people like Newdow.

[quote name='Ser Greguh' post='1645292' date='Jan 11 2009, 21.01']Anyone who says that atheists are not victims has never had to live as an outed atheist in a conservative religious community[/quote]


I have. Everyone was real nice. I got poked a lot, asked to come to church and the like, but I got pestered a lot more for being a five foot one and a half white redheaded woman in a tiny 90% African American town in Georgia then because of my open and blunt lack of faith.

Try being generous with fresh baked cookies next time you find yourself in a similar situation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Greguh,

Interesting citations. However, I have to ask, given the Religious Tests and Establishment Clauses of the US Constitution do you really think provisions requiring religious belief to hold office in various State Constitutions are enforceable?

One of the provisions you quote (Pennsylvania) sounds like an attempt to [i]prevent[/i] using the existence of someones religious belief to disqualify them for public office. I'd think the provision you cite is unnecessary in today's world but then again at least one member of this board (Stego who I respect but vehematly disagree with on this point)has said belief in religion should be grounds for denying people the right to vote? Perhaps Pennsylivania was planning for the future?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645534' date='Jan 12 2009, 04.03']Ser Greguh,

Interesting citations. However, I have to ask, given the Religious Tests and Establishment Clauses of the US Constitution do you really think provisions requiring religious belief to hold office in various State Constitutions are enforceable?[/quote]
It does speak to intent, which I believe is the point of this thread.

Edit: I have never felt a victim because of my lack of belief, but I will admit that where I accept my next job, within a DoD/military pipeline, this is a factor and it feels wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LoB,

If it speaks to intent we need to know [i]when[/i] the provisions were added to get a proper frame of reference. As to your second point it feels wrong because it is wrong. There are far too many fundementalist Christians in positions of authority in the Pentagon. Thank you GWB. :/

[Watcher]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1645223' date='Jan 11 2009, 21.46']Although I am a hyperconservative reactionary Christian a few centuries after my time, I have come around to the belief that the SJOTUS should [i]not[/i] say "So help me God" in the inauguration. Firstly, it is not a part of the Constitutional Oath. Secondly, it does not affect whether the President-Elect says the words. And lastly, it makes a far more significant gesture is the words are said of the PE's own volition, not being repeated by rote, but proclaimed as a personal affirmation of faith.[/quote]

Score one for Newdow :)

[quote]Activist Atheists are trying to get the expression of ideas banned. To outlaw customs.[/quote]

Activist Atheists are trying to get the law enforced. And your stat is almost meaningless. It is much harder to attack an atheist because there are no obvious signs on who is or is not an atheist. Very few atheist gather in a place as obvious as church or other institution. It is for most people completely off the radar and most are in the closest, so to speak. My predication is that the number of crimes against atheists will raise as we become more vocal.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ser Greguh' post='1645292' date='Jan 12 2009, 00.01']Anyone who says that atheists are not victims has never had to live as an outed atheist in a conservative religious community. It is not a pleasant experience and these communities do not consist of pleasant people.

Moreover, it is trivially easy to point out that atheists as a whole face more explicit discrimination than almost any other group. A very quick sampling of some state constitutions (emphasis is mine in all examples):

Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 36 specifically requires belief in God (presumably the Christian god) in order to be deemed a competent witness or juror:



The Massachusetts State Constitution (Article 3) notes that all denominations of Christians are subject to equal protection under the law. No mention is made of non-Christians.



Mississippi's State Constitution (article 3) specifically forbids atheists from holding office:



North Carolina's constitution (Article 6 Section 8) has a virtually identical clause:



Pennsylvania says the same thing in a roundabout double-negative way (Article 1 Section 4)



Sensing a pattern? Welcome South Carolina into the fold (Article 4 Section 2)



And Tennessee (Article 9 Section 2)



And Texas (Article 1 Section 4)



But of course, we're just making this shit up, right?

edit: I said "segregation" in my initial post. I meant "discrimination"[/quote]


"Some state constitutions in the US require belief in God or a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for holding public office or being a witness in court. Examples include Arkansas,[11] Maryland,[12] South Carolina,[13] Tennessee[14] and Texas.[15]

A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements,[16] so they are not enforced."

The state constitutions should of course be fixed, but can you find some examples of these provisions being enforced?


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists[/url]

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645106' date='Jan 11 2009, 20.39']Put as simply as possible making no mention of God, from my perspective, appears to by implication endorse the postion the God does not exist. As such a purely secular State is not neutral regarding religion.

As I said above that's not a neutral postion in my view.

Yes. That's coming mighty close to establishing Roman Catholism as the US "faith" an act barred by the Establishment Clause. That said your position for neutrality is not neutral for the same reasons I outline above.[/quote]
Scot,
That's so profoundly wrongheaded it's just stunning. Maybe we should try to use a non-god analogy to help you see more clearly.

We want the federal government to be neutral about...oh, let's say it's official position on the US's favourite hockey team. Which of the alternatives to be listed on US currency is most neutral?

A. The Boston Bruins are #1. Go Bruins!
B. The Detroit Redwings rule!
C. NHL hockey is the best sport ever.
D. (nothing)
E. Hockey sucks!

A and B are obviously partisan, so you're claiming C is somehow the fair compromise despite ignoring the will of non-hockey fans. The only neutral one is D, no? It's not being unfair to hockey fans, though E would...just as an atheistic motto would be on the religious issue.

ETA: Maybe that's too trivial though. Let me try it again (I can sympathise with Potsherds difficulty in knowing where to even begin with that post.)
[quote][b]Put as simply as possible making no mention of God, from my perspective, appears to by implication endorse the postion the God does not exist.[/b][/quote]
Why don't you take a minute to think about all the other things in your life that make no mention of god. When you get a parking ticket, does it mention god anywhere? What about your Schedule D form, when you do your income tax? What? No god? They couldn't find room anywhere to mention god?

Intolerable! Your City's parking regulation department and the IRS are denying the existence of god by through their failure to explictly endorse him. The Atheists have already taken over! :lol:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OiL,

But the postion you advocate is more than just not mentioning God. It is denying public employees and elected officals the ability to say they think God does exist when acting in their official capcities.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645658' date='Jan 12 2009, 09.33']OiL,

But the postion you advocate is more than just not mentioning God. It is denying public employees and elected officals the ability to say they think God does exist when acting in their official capcities.[/quote]
Actually, I've never had a problem with the PE voluntarily saying SHMG, just the CJ. And I don't even really have that big a problem with that if seen in the light of offering any witness their own preferences in judicial swearing. If it's merely one of a variety of options (two of which are enumerated in the Constitution), I'm kinda OK with it.

In some other cases, they go too far past merely saying [i]they think[/i] god exists, they overstep into undeniable state endorsement territory, like Judge Moore.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OiL,

I agree with you regarding Judge Moore. The line, in my opinion, should be public employee's and elected officals shouldn't make representations that the Government believes God exists. That's what Moore was trying to do. That and being an asshat generally.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1645043' date='Jan 11 2009, 19.08']How would you feel if the currency your government issued had [i]"the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith, all others are false creeds"[/i] written on it, say? Any objections to that?[/quote]
Wonderful. :-D

Do we all get to be lapsed and non-practicing Catholics too?

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1645713' date='Jan 12 2009, 10.14']Wonderful. :-D[/quote]
That question wasn't directed at you. You get:
"How would you feel if the currency your government issued had [i]"Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is the One True Faith, all others are false creeds, particularly the Damned Papists" [/i]written on it, say? Any objections to that?"

Scot,
[quote]The line, in my opinion, should be public employee's and elected officals shouldn't make representations that the Government believes God exists.[/quote]
That's pretty much exactly what [i]"in god we trust"[/i] on the currency does.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OiL,

Well, I haven't addressed IGWT on U.S. currency. For the record I think you are right. That said it isn't the tack the Court has taken. I thinkit refers to IGWT as "Constitutional deism."

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Watcher' post='1645559' date='Jan 12 2009, 04.49']Activist Atheists are trying to get the law enforced. And your stat is almost meaningless. It is much harder to attack an atheist because there are no obvious signs on who is or is not an atheist. Very few atheist gather in a place as obvious as church or other institution. It is for most people completely off the radar and most are in the closest, so to speak. My predication is that the number of crimes against atheists will raise as we become more vocal.[/quote]

Firstly, they are not trying to get the laws enforced. They are very specifically not trying to get the laws enforced. Another member of this board has shown that the highest court in the has ruled against scores of violations in state constitutions.

Yes instead of trying to get the state constitutions fixed, as they should be, and prevent what may one day become actual challenges to the right of men and women of reason to lead when they are elected into office they fight over trivialities like words on currency and meaningless words people do not have to say. They fight symbol and custom with the force of law. Or try to.

The Constitution of the United States of America limits the powers of government to force compliance with religion on anyone. They do not prevent expressions of ideas. A Representative can argue publicly that a black person should not be granted the right to vote. They can stand up and scream crazy racist and white supremacist babble. They can lead crowds of idiots in chants of white power at their swearing in celebrations.

Hopefully any idiot so ignorant and stupid would choke to death on their own ridicules bile if they choose to do so, but they can do so.

What a Representative can not do is try and keep a black person from accepting a place at their side. At least not without having The Constitution changed. The same applies to silly religious rallies.

Secondly, and on the issue of the statistics, there are Atheist churches. There are Atheists demonstrations. There are vast Atheist gatherings for lectures while people blame religion for all of today's problems. There are people who are professionally Atheist, earning a living from advancing the cause of Atheists or just condemning religion. There are Atheists that identify themselves publicly.

All your arguments apply equally to Homosexuals. Generally you can not tell someone is gay just by looking at them anymore then you can tell someone is an Atheist just by looking at them. Both however have their own religious buildings, activists, gathering places and so forth.

Homosexuals are however persecuted at a vastly higher rate then Atheists. Anyone who wishes to harass an Atheist will not have anymore trouble finding one to childishly push around or attack if they desire it then they will a homosexual.

Yet one group is ignored, while the other is not. It is one of the things that tick of Atheist Activists so much. Not matter how hard they argue, or how brilliant a person is, or what a quality case they present for the irrationality of believing in a higher power or the supernatural in general, they are all dismissed as irrelevant. Not worth listening to.

[Lord Mord]

I guess I don't understand why God ever needs to be even allowed in expressions by government officials in their official capacity. They aren't private citizens anymore, so their speaking engagements are no longer in any meaningful sense of the word "private" -- it's not a matter of one woman addressing a paying audience, or even a broadcast audience, but instead, eseentially, one nation addressing itself.

When that nation talks about God, with any reference to its awesomeness or truth or the imposition of its will, it is reinforcing to itself God's existence -- the which, if he is real, he doesn't need, and if our faith is real, we don't need either. In the meantime, to observe his reality or the possibility of his retribution, while it does not establish a national religion overtly, nevertheless leaves implicit that this particular club is members-only, with one stark qualification.

Conversely, what harm does eliminating it do? The only way that including God becomes [i]necessary[/i] is when there is some wish on the part of the individual to make heavenly edict trump reason, which is a poison to a free society, at least when it comes from the people who have all the guns behind them. Eliminate it, and the only people who really lose are those we want to keep out of office anyway.