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

[Dumas]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1637165' date='Jan 3 2009, 21.41']Shryke,



And those making that assumption are wrong.

Tempra,

No, there was a stink made about the Rep. being given his oath on a Koran. I thought it was a paticularly stupid stink but it was made nonetheless.[/quote]

And anyway, that oath was just a [url="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ellison.asp"] photo op [/url] for the folks back home. The one that counts is done en masse with everyone standing in the House chamber.

Edit: Damn, spent too much time at TV Tropes. Now I'm using their formatting on the boards.

[Meili]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1637124' date='Jan 3 2009, 19.50']I can't imagine I'm the only Christian who feels this way.

Quite frankly it's a tad presumptous of you to assume all Christians would react to your scenario based upon your assumptions about their beliefs.[/quote]

You are probably not but if so I would imagine you are among a miniscule number of Christians who feel this way. That is even if you would feel like you said you would in the case of 'in the name of Allah'. I might be acting presumptous but given the extent religion has changed history, almost always in violation of the same things are saving. No disrepect to you as a person, I am sure you are a great guy but when facing change or disagreement, it either comes down to fighting to make them believe what you want them to or if already in power forcing the change upon them.

Scot, you seem to have more legal knowledge than me and you clearly have more faith in me so I'll turn this around for you. Why would it be wrong to keep any sort of spritual reference out of the oath would that not be more in the spirit of Sep from Church and State? The freedom of speech argument can't be used here because I hardly feel someone who preffered slang and wanted to slip in the occassionall shit or fuck into the oath woukd be acceptable either and while it is an extreme example, it is appropriate. Why do you feel the need to let the leader of our nation take his oath of office while he incorporates his idea of a creator? What does that have to do with politics and the nation?

[Red Sun]

[quote name='El Chico' post='1636557' date='Jan 3 2009, 04.52']This is one of the things I don't understand. What are these "American values and culture" that conservatives are continually harping upon, and how is what we have now any worse or different from what came before?[/quote]

Usually, the "[insert country] values and culture" of today are not older than 100 or 150 years, and most come from 19th century. According to what was said previously about the history of the oath of office, it seems to be true in the U.S. as well.

In Germany, we had a little storm in the waterglass when Gerhard Schröder did not add "God may help me" to his oath of office and did not swear on the Bible, but it did not really have any consequences. However, so far, he was the only atheist in a public office in Germany.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Meili,

[quote name='Meili' post='1637294' date='Jan 4 2009, 02.00']You are probably not but if so I would imagine you are among a miniscule number of Christians who feel this way. That is even if you would feel like you said you would in the case of 'in the name of Allah'. I might be acting presumptous but given the extent religion has changed history, almost always in violation of the same things are saving. No disrepect to you as a person, I am sure you are a great guy but when facing change or disagreement, it either comes down to fighting to make them believe what you want them to or if already in power forcing the change upon them.[/quote]

I see forced conversion as worthless and missing the point entirely. I dislike Pascal's Wager for the same reason.

[quote]Scot, you seem to have more legal knowledge than me and you clearly have more faith in me so I'll turn this around for you. Why would it be wrong to keep any sort of spritual reference out of the oath would that not be more in the spirit of Sep from Church and State? The freedom of speech argument can't be used here because I hardly feel someone who preffered slang and wanted to slip in the occassionall shit or fuck into the oath woukd be acceptable either and while it is an extreme example, it is appropriate. Why do you feel the need to let the leader of our nation take his oath of office while he incorporates his idea of a creator? What does that have to do with politics and the nation?[/quote]

Well as I stated in my first post I see an injuntion against allowing the P.E. to add "so help me [prefered diety]" to the oath to be not just a violation of freedom of speech but of the P.E.'s right to freely exercise their faith as well. Cyrano argued that allowing the PE to use this phrase is analogus to a judge putting up a placard with the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. I disagree. That can be distingushed. The placard is a perminant fixture the phrase "so help me X" is not. Additionally, people in court are there because they have to be there. They are subjected to the placard whether they want to be or not. With the oath of office the is no such compulsion.

All that said Newdow's case is not to prevent the PE from adding the phrase but to prevent the Chief Justice from saying the phrase as though it must be repeated. That has more teeth than an injuntion against the PE.

[IheartTesla]

I dont mean the situation is exactly analogous.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore#Federal_lawsuit"] According to wikipedia[/url]:

[quote]On October 30, 2001, the ACLU of Alabama, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center were among groups which filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, asking that the monument be removed because it "sends a message to all who enter the State Judicial Building that the government encourages and endorses the practice of religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular."[/quote]

The Chief Justice asking the President to ask god to help him do his work surely endorses religion in some form. Does it have to be a permanent feature? The endorsement is reason enough IMO.

[Meili]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1637412' date='Jan 4 2009, 08.00']All that said Newdow's case is not to prevent the PE from adding the phrase but to prevent the Chief Justice from saying the phrase as though it must be repeated. That has more teeth than an injuntion against the PE.[/quote]

I did not know that was how he was going about it. Prohibiting the ChiefJus from saying it makes more sense and does make more sense as a 'law' being passed goes. Thanks

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1636281' date='Jan 2 2009, 15.18']I guess by that logic judges can place the 10 commandments in their courtrooms, eh? There is no legal requirement for anyone, especially entering that courtroom, to actually obey those commandments.[/quote]
No, but if one had a copy on the desk in his private office, or one were to mention Jesus as part of the inspiration for awarding clemency, then I'd be pretty miffed if we had to deal with some loons lawsuit.

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,


I think that you, and perhaps cyrano as well, are still conflating the PE saying "so help me God," with the Chief Justice saying it.

If the Chief Justice says it, this is analogous, I think, to the judge having the Ten Commandments in her courtroom. The oath is delivered by the Chief Justice; if he says it, then it is politically, if not necessarily legally, part of the oath. In his official capacity, he is making his own faith a part of proceedings, and I can see where that would be wrong.

However, if the PE says it, that is [i]not[/i] analogous. I don't think that PE is an official government office, and in the meantime the PE has no actual office until the Chief Justice introduces. From that point and only that point forward is the PE, now just the P, in any wise acting in an official capacity, and as such he can endorse whatever he wants.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

lc,

Well, I don't think it's precisely analogus, but it is closer. I do agree having the Chief Justice say "So help me God" as though it must be repeated is problematic.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[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][quote name='Relic' post='1636216' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.29']yup.[/quote]Nope. Less than 10 percent of Americans will be upset if he includes it. A highly vocal 15 percent will be upset if he doesn't include it. 75 percent would not even notice if it was removed, but 50 percent would then be bullied into feeling guilty for not noticing by the 15 percent who does care, then the remaining 25 percent who found out later would then probably not care at all.

[quote name='cyrano' post='1636326' date='Jan 2 2009, 16.56']Just like "hysterical" for gay folk, "obnoxious" and "nutjob" and "crank" are the standard pejoratives for atheists.[/quote]I think that you are mistaking Scot's use of "crank". I do not think that he is really using this a pejorative for atheists.

[quote name='El Chico' post='1636557' date='Jan 2 2009, 22.52']This is one of the things I don't understand. What are these "American values and culture" that conservatives are continually harping upon, and how is what we have now any worse or different from what came before?[/quote]It is an idealistic construct that came about in the Post-WW2 '40s and '50s in a response to the living environment of the Great Depression, WW2, and then developed in response to the Cold War. It became increasingly obvious that these were standards which no family could truly fit and it caused psychological problems to families who either lacked the ideal or had the basic components of the ideal but were forcing it together.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mat,

[quote]I think that you are mistaking Scot's use of "crank". I do not think that he is really using this a pejorative for atheists.[/quote]

I didn't us "crank." The blog I quoted to start the thread did.

[Shewoman]

I'm Christian and [b]I'd be glad to see a Muslim president[/b]. I was disappointed that in all the hysterical "Obama's a Muslim!" moments in the campaign, no one (including Obama) asked what would be the problem if he was. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are so closely connected that they are far more similar than any of those individual religions generally cares to admit. I've had students in my world religions classes who aren't part of any of those religions and have difficulty telling them apart.

Ultimately, I think religion should be a private matter as long as it doesn't break national/secular law. If an elected official wishes to make a religious reference, I think it is that person's right to do so. Being elected doesn't take away your right to free speech. And those who don't want elected officials who will make religious references are free to campaign for people who won't.

Actually, like so many things, a lot of this is Constantine's fault (the Roman Emperor, not Keanu Reeves). In 303 AD Christianity was outlawed (the only religion Rome ever outlawed). Constantine, finding his hopes of winning a war and ruling were diminishing because of stronger foes, noted that there was a religion that no one was making use of in the competition and co-opted it--or at least a branch of it--in 313, giving it favored status among the religions of the Empire. His influence on the early church wasn't all that Dan Brown would have us believe, but he did encourage his Christian group to organize, develop canon and creed, and so forth, eventually making it the only legal religion in Rome. That group immediately went after other Christian groups. By 380 it was the only legal religion in Rome.

Religion and politics in bed together is always a mistake.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Shewoman' post='1638706' date='Jan 5 2009, 18.30']I'm Christian and [b]I'd be glad to see a Muslim president[/b]. I was disappointed that in all the hysterical "Obama's a Muslim!" moments in the campaign, no one (including Obama) asked what would be the problem if he was.[/quote]

Actually, Colin Powell, in a fit of awesomeness, came right out and asked "WTF would be wrong if he was Muslim anyway?" on natinal TV.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1638563' date='Jan 5 2009, 16.25']Ser Scot,
I think that you, and perhaps cyrano as well, are still conflating the PE saying "so help me God," with the Chief Justice saying it.[/quote]

Perhaps. Your delineation of the President-elect from the President in terms of officialdom probably saves Warren's invocation as well.

But I was glancing through the schedule, and it appears Reverend Lowery will deliver a benediction at the inauguration, post swearing in. I dont know what a benediction is exactly, but it sounds quite church-y to me. We can quibble semantics and duties of PE's vs. P's all we want, but the take home message from all this inauguration business is that god is tied in inextricably to it.

[RhaegarTar]

[quote name='El Chico' post='1636557' date='Jan 2 2009, 22.52']This is one of the things I don't understand. What are these "American values and culture" that conservatives are continually harping upon, and how is what we have now any worse or different from what came before?[/quote]

I hope this answers your question:

Quoting:

America has always had its full share of subcultures. It also has had a mainstream Anglo-Protestant culture in which most of its people, whatever their subcultures, have shared. For almost four centuries this culture of the founding settlers has been the central and lasting component of American identity. (…)

American’s Anglo-Protestant culture has combined political and social institutions and practices inherited from England, including most notably the English language, together with the concepts and values of dissenting Protestantism, which faded England but which the settlers brought with them and which took on new life on the new continent. This culture thus included both elements of general British culture and elements peculiar to those fragments of English society from which the settlers came. (…)

With adaptations and modifications, this original culture persisted for three hundred years. Two hundred years after John Jay in 1789 identified six central elements Americans had in common, one of these, common ancestry, no longer existed. Several of the five others – language, religion, principles of government, manners and customs, war experience – has been modified or diluted (e.g., by the “same religion” Jay undoubtedly meant Protestantism, which two hundred years later would have to be modified to Christianity). Yet in their fundamentals Jay’s components of American identity, although challenged, still were central to American culture in the twentieth century. Protestant values have been of primary and continuing importance. With respect to language, the efforts of eighteenth-century German settlers in Pennsylvania to make German the equal of English infuriated Benjamin Franklin, among others, and did not succeed. The efforts of nineteenth-century Germans immigrants to maintain German-speaking enclaves in Wisconsin and to use German in schools eventually came to naught as a result of pressures for assimilation and the Wisconsin legislature in 1889 requiring schools to use English as their language of instruction. Until the appearance of large concentrations of Spanish-speaking immigrants in Miami and the Southwest, American was unique as a huge country of more than 200 million people virtually all speaking the same language.

The political and legal institutions the settlers created in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries embodied in large part the institutions and practices of England’s late sixteenth and early 17th century “Tudor Constitution.” These included: the concept of a fundamental law superior to and limiting government, and the division of power among separate institutions and governments; the relative power of the legislature and chief executive; the merger of “dignified” and “efficient” functions in the chief executive; a two-house legislature; the responsibility of legislators to their local constituencies; a legislative committee system; and primary reliance for defense on militia rather than a standing army. These Tudor patterns of governance were subsequently fundamentally changed in the United Kingdom, but their central elements persisted in the Untied States well into the twentieth century.
During the nineteenth and until the late twentieth century, immigrants were in various ways compelled, induced and persuaded to adhere to the central elements of Anglo-Protestant culture. Twentieth century cultural pluralists, multiculturalists and spokesmen for ethnic and racial minorities testify to the success of these efforts. (…) In 1967 Harold Cruse declared that, “America is a nation that lies to itself about who and what it is. It is a nation of minorities ruled by a minority of one – it thinks and acts as if it were a nation of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”

These critics were right. Throughout American history, people who were not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants have become Americans by adopting American’s Anglo-Protestant culture and political values. This benefited them and the country. American national identity and unity, as Benjamin C. Schwartz has said, derived from “the ability and willingness of an Anglo elite to stamp its image on other peoples coming to this country. That elite’s religious and political principles, its customs and social relations, its standards of taste and morality, were for 300 years, America’s, and in basic ways they still are-despite our celebration of ‘diversity.’ Whatever freedom from ethnic and nationalist conflict this country has enjoyed (and it has been considerably less than our national mythology would have us believe) has existed thanks to a cultural and ethnic predominance that would not tolerate conflict or confusion regarding the national identity.” Millions of immigrants and their children achieved wealth, power and status in American society precisely because they assimilated themselves into the prevailing American culture. Hence there is no validity to the claim that Americans have to choose between a white, WASPish ethnic identity, on the one hand, and an abstract, shallow civic identity dependent on commitment to certain political principles, on the other. The core of their identity is the culture that the settlers created, which generations of immigrants have absorbed, and which gave birth to the American Creed.

[RhaegarTar]

I apologize for the long post, but people have been asking me to answer that question on these boards for several years. I thought i'd give it a try.

[The Progressive]

[quote]With adaptations and modifications, this original culture persisted for three hundred years.[/quote]

So basically for 300 years, the American culture has been in a continuously state of change.

[The Iceman of the North]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1638810' date='Jan 6 2009, 01.44']Perhaps. Your delineation of the President-elect from the President in terms of officialdom probably saves Warren's invocation as well.

But I was glancing through the schedule, and it appears Reverend Lowery will deliver a benediction at the inauguration, post swearing in. I dont know what a benediction is exactly, but it sounds quite church-y to me. We can quibble semantics and duties of PE's vs. P's all we want, but the take home message from all this inauguration business is that god is tied in inextricably to it.[/quote]
It's PE (Obama) vs. Chief Justice (Roberts), not PE (Obama) vs. P (Obama).

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Originally, yes, but not at this point in the discussion (e.g. the benediction post-oath, and the distinction between Obama doing something as President and doing the same thing not as President).


lordcaspen and cyrano, technically Obama will become President as soon as he finishes the oath, right? So even if he chooses to say "SHMG" after the oath, without the CJ's prompting, he's doing so as President, not a private citizen. Would you consider that to be the same type of expression of faith as having a copy of the Ten Commandments in his office? Or is it different, because of its public nature? It's only a personal statement, surely, but where does his individual right end and his role as "The Government" begin?

(For the record, I have no problem with him saying it of his own accord. I do have a problem with it being treated as though it's an official part of the oath of office. I had never thought of it before, but something about having a benediction -- inherently a religious invocation -- as an official part of the inauguration celebrations bothers me, whereas the idea of President Obama going to Lowery for a private benediction doesn't bother me at all.)

[Exa Inova]

You dont understand
"So help me God" is a demand