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

[Meili]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1644696' date='Jan 11 2009, 13.43']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. The Pledge issue, this oath, setting up monuments to the 10 Commandments in court houses, the words on our printed currency, calling the tree in our capital the "Christmas" tree, etc. The complaint that these are trivial issues is missing the point, imo, because these "trivial" issues are the only ones where concrete actions can be taken against since the larger force of bias is well-permeated into our culture. My honest view is that in the U.S., atheists will forever be a minority and suffer certain types of mistrust. That's just the nature of this country, imo. We'll never achieve parity with the religious folks. That doesn't mean that we ought not to raise awareness of the issue, or to keep at the fights.[/quote]

I just wanted to say I couldn't have said this better and I agree with each word. Nicely put TP.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1647771' date='Jan 13 2009, 18.27']There is no need for neutrality or equality in a political affair.[/quote]

Need, in the sense of abiding by written law, sure. In that sense, there's no need to maintain a neutral stance on the issue for government officials.

Need, in the context of avoiding the appearance of favoring one religion over the other, or favoring religion over no-religion, as a measure of a politician's merit to be a representative to all of his constituents, is a different matter.


[quote]Starting dialog on something that is symbolic and trivial will only lead to the conclusion that the argument is merely symbolic and trivial and without a strong reasoned base.[/quote]

I suppose, if the partner to your dialog is quite unable to go past the rudimentary level of reasoning.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1647798' date='Jan 13 2009, 19.54']Need, in the sense of abiding by written law, sure. In that sense, there's no need to maintain a neutral stance on the issue for government officials.[/quote]

Well, if you are going to make it a court case, then it better have some basis in law, otherwise it's a PR function.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1647798' date='Jan 13 2009, 19.54']I suppose, if the partner to your dialog is quite unable to go past the rudimentary level of reasoning.[/quote]

Why? First impressions are hard to erase. Anyone praticing any sort of communication knows the importance of your opening arguments otherwise the audience will tune you out.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1647812' date='Jan 13 2009, 19.08']Well, if you are going to make it a court case, then it better have some basis in law, otherwise it's a PR function.[/quote]

Yet, again, Newdow's case (which I presume is what you're referencing here) is not about curtailing individual politician's expression, but the administrating of an official oath of office. In that case, yes, there is a basis in law. So are the cases concerning mottos on currency and the pledge of allegiance.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1648619' date='Jan 14 2009, 08.50']Yet, again, Newdow's case (which I presume is what you're referencing here) is not about curtailing individual politician's expression, but the administrating of an official oath of office. In that case, yes, there is a basis in law. So are the cases concerning mottos on currency and the pledge of allegiance.[/quote]

That claim would only be possible if Newdow wasn't also trying to stop all the religious expression taking place before and after the saying of "In god we trust" in his complaint.

It isn't just about the addition of the oath. That is simple documented fact, as the person giving the oath isn't the only one under fire. You could make a fair case that questioning the addition to the oath isn't about the curtailing of individual politician's expression if the the injunction didn't also target the efforts of Obama's staff.

Because he is trying to prevent the benediction and such, things that are in no way official, this case has a lot to do with curtailing the public expression of politicians.

Count one is about the oath.
Count two is all about the pageantry.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1648698' date='Jan 14 2009, 11.40']That claim would only be possible if Newdow wasn't also trying to stop all the religious expression taking place before and after the saying of "In god we trust" in his complaint.[/quote]

That is patently false. And repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. (PS, it's "so help me god.")

From a CNN article: [url="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/"]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/[/url]

[quote]Newdow told CNN that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs.

"If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him," Newdow said. "I think it's unwise."[/quote]

If Newdow were to, as you said, "to stop all the religious expression taking place before and after the saying of "In god we trust" ", then he would have included Obama in this suit and seeked an injunction against him, as well.


[quote]It isn't just about the addition of the oath. That is simple documented fact, as the person giving the oath isn't the only one under fire. You could make a fair case that questioning the addition to the oath isn't about the curtailing of individual politician's expression if the the injunction didn't also target the efforts of Obama's staff.[/quote]

The suit also seeked to stop the invocation and benediction. Both are clearly religious in nature, and both are performed in conjunction with the swear-in ceremony, giving them the obvious weight of official endorsement. I think this is a worthwhile issue for the SCOTUS to decide whether it violates the 1st Amendment. The staff who're responsible for organizing the event are also named, possibly in their capacity of organizing this event. It seems reasonable, from what I know of the law.


[quote]Because he is trying to prevent the benediction and such, things that are in no way official, this case has a lot to do with curtailing the public expression of politicians.[/quote]

From the same article I cited:

[quote]Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; [b]the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California;[/b] and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr.[/quote] (Emphasis mine).

How can you say that an invocation and benediction ceremony organized by the government is "in no way official?" I would buy that if there weren't a committee set up for it. If the politicians set up a private organization, say call it Interfaith Coalition of Congress, and they want to hold an invocation and benediction on their own dime at a hotel near the inauguration site, then there'd be no problem.


[quote]Count two is all about the pageantry.[/quote]

I think your conclusion is misguided and built on incomplete consideration of the facts and context.

[Lord Mord]

I still don't understand.


Who loses if God is just left out?


I don't think my point about not putting God before the public good was very well addressed at all. Basically, it was dodged. "If that's what the people want ..."


As if popular consensus were a legitimate basis for morality. The argument for me is not about whether or not a conception is possible of the government as it is written presently, where talking about God by public officials in their public role is allowable. That would be fatuous. My argument is that there is a good argument for its being illegal as things are now, and moreoever that it [i]should[/i] be illegal -- nobody is harmed by not mentioning it, and the nation as a whole should not be paying people to endorse any religious faith or non-faith.

[Lord Mord]

Moreover ...


Look, it's one thing to take a political position and be held to it, come hell or high water, inasmuch as it is explicitly the President's role to make political decisions. Therefore, that the President should talk about those decisions, even when we hate them, even when we believe her ideas are poisonous, is absolutely right and proper.


Conversely, there is no obligation for the President to be religious, nor is it or should it be the President's role to make religious decisions. Therefore, that the President should talk about such decisions is completely extraneous. It is not enough that we may hate her religious positions that she should be silenced on that matter, but it is enough that those ideas should not come from the figurehead. Children should not receive any indoctirnation explicitly to do with faith from the most public face of power, and of the country itself, at the risk of alienating a minority -- and not merely atheists, but Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, et al.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1648748' date='Jan 14 2009, 10.11']That is patently false.[/quote]

You are correct. I will amend the statement. To be correct it would have to read: The overwhelming majority of the religious expression before and after the contested words.

I am sure we can agree on that wording.

Even if we can not, and even if it was only a tiny minority, it would prove your claim false. This case is about the oath, and “curtailing individual politician's expression.“

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1648748' date='Jan 14 2009, 10.11']How can you say that an invocation and benediction ceremony organized by the government is "in no way official?" I would buy that if there weren't a committee set up for it. If the politicians set up a private organization, say call it Interfaith Coalition of Congress, and they want to hold an invocation and benediction on their own dime at a hotel near the inauguration site, then there'd be no problem[/quote]

Because it carries no weight of authority. It is not Constitutionally required. It is all a dog and pony show to inspire joy joy feelings in supporters and voters. It effects nothing but those feelings. Obama can come out and say “I am the greatest living American Hero, and my birthday will be a holiday until the rapture!” and have ten thousand politicians and talking heads can come up and give a speech about why it was necessary.

But it would be nothing but some silly posturing. If he wished the absurd claim to have official weight, he would have to do more then simply speak words. People can choose to believe it or not. Something being said in a public forum by a member of the government is not automatically official. At least not until we erase most of The Constitution.

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1648772' date='Jan 14 2009, 10.21']Who loses if God is just left out?[/quote]

No one. The question is “Who loses if god is forced out.”

If you give the Congress the authority to set such policy, you will most likely. Democratic leaders do not place limits on forms of expression that are popular with their power base. If they do use it, it is far more likely they will bring it to bare against unpopular forms of expression.

The First Amendment is in place to protect unpopular speech. Relax the hold on that leash, and it isn't the religious right that has to worry. For every letter that people send to congress reading “Please take god out of politics” they are going to get a hundred that say “Please bring traditional family values back to Washington.”

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1648748' date='Jan 14 2009, 13.11']The suit also seeked to stop the invocation and benediction. Both are clearly religious in nature, and both are performed in conjunction with the swear-in ceremony, giving them the obvious weight of official endorsement. I think this is a worthwhile issue for the SCOTUS to decide whether it violates the 1st Amendment. The staff who're responsible for organizing the event are also named, possibly in their capacity of organizing this event. It seems reasonable, from what I know of the law.

How can you say that an invocation and benediction ceremony organized by the government is "in no way official?" I would buy that if there weren't a committee set up for it. If the politicians set up a private organization, say call it Interfaith Coalition of Congress, and they want to hold an invocation and benediction on their own dime at a hotel near the inauguration site, then there'd be no problem.[/quote]

I do not think it does, such cermonial issues I believe have already been ruled on. Isn't that how congress can be opened with a prayer since such cermonial displays of faith were rules not in violation.


[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1648772' date='Jan 14 2009, 13.21']The argument for me is not about whether or not a conception is possible of the government as it is written presently, where talking about God by public officials in their public role is allowable. That would be fatuous. My argument is that there is a good argument for its being illegal as things are now, and moreoever that it [i]should[/i] be illegal -- nobody is harmed by not mentioning it, and the nation as a whole should not be paying people to endorse any religious faith or non-faith.[/quote]

Ok you lost me in here somewhere. Are you stating, based on the Constitution as written, such statements are in violation of the first amendment, which I disagree with based on current legal theory. Or that it [b]should be [/b] illegal?

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1648806' date='Jan 14 2009, 13.32']Conversely, there is no obligation for the President to be religious, nor is it or should it be the President's role to make religious decisions. Therefore, that the President should talk about such decisions is completely extraneous. It is not enough that we may hate her religious positions that she should be silenced on that matter, but it is enough that those ideas should not come from the figurehead. Children should not receive any indoctirnation explicitly to do with faith from the most public face of power, and of the country itself, at the risk of alienating a minority -- and not merely atheists, but Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, et al.[/quote]

But do believe there is a legal basis for such a relgious neutrality as the Constitution is written?

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1648992' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.47']You are correct. I will amend the statement. To be correct it would have to read: The overwhelming majority of the religious expression before and after the contested words.

I am sure we can agree on that wording.[/quote]

I will further amend it to say that it's about the religious expression carried out by officials with the implicit endorsement of the entire government behind it. It's not about individual politician doing an interview with CNN and averring his/her faith. It's about an entire ceremony paid for by tax money and organized by the elected government dedicated to the further entrenchment of theism.


[quote]Because it carries no weight of authority. It is not Constitutionally required.... But it would be nothing but some silly posturing. If he wished the absurd claim to have official weight, he would have to do more then simply speak words. People can choose to believe it or not. Something being said in a public forum by a member of the government is not automatically official. At least not until we erase most of The Constitution.[/quote]

It appears that we are using two different meanings of the word "official." You seem to use it to mean things that are backed by the force of law and/or Constitution, i.e., something that the citizens are obliged to follow. I am using it to mean actions taken by elected officials as they act in the capacity of elected people.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall pass no laws..." with regards to religion, and so you're right that the invocation and benediction fall outside of that definition. But then, it'll mean that you'd also be okay with setting up a granite monument to the 10 Commandments in court houses as long as it was not done by a law passed by Congress, no? Or hanging a picture of the Passion in the U.S. Senate with an altar for offerings to Jesus? Or any number of other possible events not precipitated by a law. After all, as long as it was not done as a consequence of a law, it will, as you say, have "no weight of authority."

My take on the word "official" is more in line of the court rulings that bar High School principals and coaches from reciting the Lord's Prayer before a football game in front of the entire school. Elected people who are acting in the capacity of their elected office should not endorse one religion over another. This means that the when the Chief Justice was administering the oath to the President-Elect, he should not tack on his own favorite religious greetings. This also means that the Congress should not arrange for a demonstration of religion as an integral part to the inauguration ceremony. In both cases, it gives the impression, even though there's no force of law to back it, that the government is choosing one religion over the others.


[quote]It is all a dog and pony show to inspire joy joy feelings in supporters and voters. It effects nothing but those feelings.[/quote]

But it certainly affects more than the feeling of the supporters. It affects the feelings of the atheists, and possibly, the non-Christians.


Re: 14th Dragon

[quote]I do not think it does, such cermonial issues I believe have already been ruled on. Isn't that how congress can be opened with a prayer since such cermonial displays of faith were rules not in violation.[/quote]

That's crap reasoning. Ceremonial deism is bunk. It's the SCOTUS wanting to not upset 95% of the population but lacking a real legal justification for it.

That said, at the same time, we've had rulings that banned prayers before football games in high schools. *shrugs*

[Vendetto]

I think we need to put NewDow in Gitmo before Obama closes it. Put the fear of God in him >=]

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1649147' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.22']But it certainly affects more than the feeling of the supporters. It affects the feelings of the atheists, and possibly, the non-Christians.[/quote]

This seems to sum up the over all general tone of your post. We got the whole "Its only about the oath" line dismissed, so that sort of leaves this.

I guess I have two questions: Why should negative reaction to forms of expression draw legal attention?

Do you really think it is possible for a Representative to talk about any complicated and contested issue without offending a sizable chunk of the population. Take abortion as an example. How is it possible for a politician to argue that woman should have the right to choose/life starts at conception without offending a whole heck of a lot of people?

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1649313' date='Jan 14 2009, 18.13']I guess I have two questions: Why should negative reaction to forms of expression draw legal attention?[/quote]

Because this negative reaction is engendered by the expression that can be argued to be illegal, i.e., the government endorsing a religion. When the Chief Justice tacks on an extra phrase that explicitly favors one religious mindset over another as he administers the oath, that is a point where legal action can be taken. If the Chief Justice expresses his congratulations to the President Elect while not administering the oath and says "and may the almighty God be with you," there'd be no lawsuits. Similarly, if the invocation and benediction were not done using public money and officiated by government officials, there'd be no reason to sue.


[quote]Do you really think it is possible for a Representative to talk about any complicated and contested issue without offending a sizable chunk of the population. Take abortion as an example. How is it possible for a politician to argue that woman should have the right to choose/life starts at conception without offending a whole heck of a lot of people?[/quote]

So we are not talking about the Newdow case in specific anymore?

I think the sticking point here is that not all offenses are covered by our Constitution. Religious freedom, on the other hand, is specifically named in our Constitution.

Further, it is not that we will not allow a Representative to state that his/her support to ban abortion is based on his/her faith, but rather, we don't want them to open a session of the Congress with a prayer to the good Lord. I may be parting company with other atheists here, but I do not find it fruitful to insist that people leave their faith at the door when they go into the legislative chamber. As I explained in this thread earlier, law making is as much an enterprise in reflecting your constituents' will as it is about exercising personal judgment, and what, if not our moral, is there guide those judgments? And since religion is a corner stone for many people in developing their morals, it of course affects how politicians function. That is not [b]my[/b] grievance. I accept that religious law-makers will rely on their faith in their legislative decisions in the context of applying their personal morals on issues that require such a call. I would dearly love to elect an entire Congress of humanists, but that is not going to happen.

The problem I have is with the implicit endorsement of religion from government functions and actions, not each individual politician's expression of faith in their personal lives. I don't want HS principals leading a prayer before football game. I don't want to see "in god we trust" on our currencies. I don't want our Congressional sessions being opened by a prayer/invocation. I don't want to see our state government setting up a "Christmas" Tree. I don't want to see monuments to the 10 Commandments in front of our courthouses, even if the government didn't pay for them. I don't want the words "under god" being stuck in our Pledge of Allegiance. When people, individually, do these things, I have no issues with it. If the principal wants to pray in his office before he heads out to start the football game, I would not have any complaints. That's the distinction I make.

[Watcher]

:agree:

Like everytime I agree with you TP, very well said.

[Lord Mord]

TheKassi,

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1648992' date='Jan 14 2009, 12.47']The First Amendment is in place to protect unpopular speech. Relax the hold on that leash, and it isn't the religious right that has to worry. For every letter that people send to congress reading “Please take god out of politics” they are going to get a hundred that say “Please bring traditional family values back to Washington.”[/quote]


Well, I'll tell you. I'm not actually keen on the idea of Congress passing any laws limiting free speech in the way you mean. I'm just saying it's been done abroad, and things haven't completely fallen apart, so I hardly believe that ruling it out for all time, just up and out of hand, is sensible either.


As for the oath matter -- I don't think it takes an act of Congress. I think it just takes a SCOTUS that wants to take the necessary separation more seriously than has been done in the past.

[Lord Mord]

TP,


I agree with most everything you've said. And, as said before, you say it very well.


I agree with you, also, about not being able to ask your reps to leave their religious convictions at the door.

That said, I don't think it's too much to have them check their tongues about it. Do they have a humanist argument for their decisions? [i]Excellent![/i] Let them make it. Haven't any? Then they should vote how they like and shut up about it.


How can the floor of an erstwhile secular lawmaking body be the proper place for a discussion about what Psalm 32:3 means?

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1649387' date='Jan 14 2009, 17.35']Because this negative reaction is engendered by the expression that can be argued to be illegal[/quote]

You already conceded that The Constitution didn't prohibit things like the invocation and benediction preformed at such events. So, all that really wasn't an answer. If you take out the references to possible illegality, as you have done is state preference. It makes you uncomfortable/is offensive/hurts your feelings.

I am asking why the force of law should protect you from being offended, but not everyone.

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1649678' date='Jan 14 2009, 22.00']Well, I'll tell you. I'm not actually keen on the idea of Congress passing any laws limiting free speech in the way you mean.[/quote]

Lord Caspen, this was your idea.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1649147' date='Jan 14 2009, 17.22']That's crap reasoning. Ceremonial deism is bunk. It's the SCOTUS wanting to not upset 95% of the population but lacking a real legal justification for it.

That said, at the same time, we've had rulings that banned prayers before football games in high schools. *shrugs*[/quote]

Eh, if the SCOTUS ruled that such cermonial aspects were deemed to be unconstiutional then it would take about 1 day before the paperwork was started to ammed the constitution to allow it. Wether it is bunk or not bunk, there is a very low probablity of it being any different.

I put your second point under the fact that there is a certain difference in the jobs. Elected officials are repsentatives of their constituents, if they were elected based in part on thier views on thier expressions of faith, then it should not be disallowed in thier public duties. Teachers, principles, high school coaches are hired based on thier qualifications to educate the children of the district and thier relgious views are not to be included in thier hiring and firing, therefore, such expressions of faith conflict with their jobs and should be left out.

[Lord Mord]

TheKassi,

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1649819' date='Jan 15 2009, 03.13']Lord Caspen, this was your idea.[/quote]


No. If I wasn't clear, I apologize and I'd be happy to clarify. Did you happen to read the rest of that paragraph by any chance?