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

[MaesterLuwin]

As a quick note, I think a lot of the non-Christians posting here are confusing "Christian" with "fundamentalist Christian." I'm a Christian, and I'd have no problem with a Muslim or an atheist president. I know a lot of other people who share my faith who feel the same way. As a Christian, I even believe that God shouldn't be referenced in the pledge or federal oaths.

So I don't like when posters say that they just wish that Christians would accept them as atheists. There are plenty of Christians that do. They're just not the ones on Fox News or conservative talk radio. According to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity"]this poll[/url], over 76% of the U.S. identifies as Christian, but only 25% are evangelicals.

Now you can't necessarily infer specific beliefs based on a poll like this, but it suggests that only one in three U.S. Christians is the proselytizing fire-and-brimstone type. Not a great percentage, but it still means that there's plenty of the more tolerantly inclined Christians out there.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Exa Inova' post='1639322' date='Jan 6 2009, 09.31']You dont understand
"So help me God" is a demand[/quote]


Sit down and shut up. That's a demand. So help me God is a request for help. The imperative mood covers both requests and demands.

[Shewoman]

Shryke, thanks for the point about Powell's fit of awesomeness. I missed that somehow.

[Lord Mord]

Yngwie Malmsteefn,

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1639111' date='Jan 6 2009, 01.19']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.[/quote]


I disagree. I believe that the President is only technically President on the introduction by the Chief Justice as such.



=================
Tempra,


I'm pretty sure that Exa Inova was making a joke ...

[awesome possum]

I don't see the big deal. I'm not a religious person at all, and for the most part think Christianity is a horrible thing to have happened to our planet. But even I can see that Newdow is nothing more than an attention whore trying to keep himself in the spotlight by trying to make a fuss out of nothing.

I don't care what the President-Elect ends his swearing-in with. He could say, "So help me dead babies" or "So help me Spaghetti Monster". A few words at the end of a repeated speech matter not compared to the fact that he'll be running the country. I find that, and the way he does it, a little more important than some symbolic words.

[Ken Stone]

Well behaved Secularists rarely make history. I've got nothing but respect for Newdow. He does more for a cause I believe in then I ever have done.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

What is a "Secularist?" More specifically what do "Secularists" believe?

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1639463' date='Jan 6 2009, 10.36']Ken,

What is a "Secularist?" More specifically what do "Secularists" believe?[/quote]

Maybe I just coined a term. I was referring to one who believes that the US is a secular country and should remain so. One of the braves souls fighting for the secular tradition over the encroachment of the liberal Christians who try to shove their God into every nook and cranny.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1639470' date='Jan 6 2009, 11.42']Maybe I just coined a term. I was referring to one who believes that the US is a secular country and should remain so. One of the braves souls fighting for the secular tradition over the encroachment of the liberal Christians who try to shove their God into every nook and cranny.[/quote]

Okay, how far do you take that position? Do you object to religious displays in public locals or just by Government officals?

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1639481' date='Jan 6 2009, 10.50']Ken,



Okay, how far do you take that position? Do you object to religious displays in public locals or just by Government officals?[/quote]

You win this time Scot, but I'll be back stronger than ever before.

[El-ahrairah]

Despite the fact that he will happen to be the president, Obama will be a United States Citizen, and as such has freedom of speech. There is no way to prevent him from making a reference to a God who, incidently, the vast majority of this country believes in.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1639458' date='Jan 6 2009, 11.32']Well behaved Secularists rarely make history. I've got nothing but respect for Newdow. He does more for a cause I believe in then I ever have done.[/quote]

Other then wasting time and focus on the trivial aspects of the seperation of church and state what exactly positives things has Newdow done?

[Meili]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1639481' date='Jan 6 2009, 10.50']Ken,



Okay, how far do you take that position? Do you object to religious displays in public locals or just by Government officals?[/quote]


How far? besides what Ken said, Standing up and teeling people without shame is a strart. Most 'atheists' do not even do that. 99% have adopted an I don't care, why argue attitude. If an extremist rationalist wants to get a monument down because it promotes a certain religion is a governement building he is an extremist.

If a Religious person is an extremist, they kill abortion doctors or hide in caves planning the next and bigger 9-11.

[Meili]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1639788' date='Jan 6 2009, 14.27']Other then wasting time and focus on the trivial aspects of the seperation of church and state what exactly positives things has Newdow done?[/quote]
I did not know a person had to have a long history of good deeds before he decides to speak up.

I would think he has accomplished more than anyone on this board has, namely showing atheists that you don't have to just sit back and ignore it. It is okay to stand up for your rights and not be bullied or have freedom stripped from religious people found on every street who speak about their god constantly.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1639111' date='Jan 6 2009, 04.19']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).[/quote]

What she said.

At this point I am not sure about the limits to which an elected government official (such as the President or President elect) can invoke god without breaching the boundaries that separate religion and state. But I believe it is an worthwhile enough question that deserves its time in court so the judicial branch can weigh in on it. Which is why I am annoyed at the claims of the frivilous nature of the lawsuit.

Not being a legal expert, the judgement of the Supreme Court (or a lesser one) would be fine by me. If they can find time away from adjudicating on Anna Nicole's estate. I know they having already made a decision on a similar case but I believe this one has new aspects to it.

[awesome possum]

[quote name='Meili' post='1639823' date='Jan 6 2009, 14.07']I did not know a person had to have a long history of good deeds before he decides to speak up.

I would think he has accomplished more than anyone on this board has, namely showing atheists that you don't have to just sit back and ignore it. It is okay to stand up for your rights and not be bullied or have freedom stripped from religious people found on every street who speak about their god constantly.[/quote]

You'd prefer the people on every street to be non-religious people talking about their lack of god constantly?

My fondest wish is that no one talks about religion (or lack thereof), ever. Your beliefs should be between you and your god (or lack thereof), not everyone within shouting distance.

I'm a firm believer in Separation of Church and State, but I'm also a realist. Christians make up the majority of people in this country and will continue to do so for a very long time. I agree it's OK to stand up for your rights and not be bullied, but you don't do that by suing school districts or the government. That's like suing Wrigley Field because you don't like how they exclude other baseball teams in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame".

Newdow hasn't accomplished anything with his tripe. And to say he's shown atheists anything is a farce. He's like a giant gnat buzzing in Christianity's ear, who has done more to harm atheists than help.

[Watcher]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1639882' date='Jan 6 2009, 15.51']What she said.

At this point I am not sure about the limits to which an elected government official (such as the President or President elect) can invoke god without breaching the boundaries that separate religion and state. But I believe it is an worthwhile enough question that deserves its time in court so the judicial branch can weigh in on it. Which is why I am annoyed at the claims of the frivilous nature of the lawsuit.

Not being a legal expert, the judgement of the Supreme Court (or a lesser one) would be fine by me. If they can find time away from adjudicating on Anna Nicole's estate. I know they having already made a decision on a similar case but I believe this one has new aspects to it.[/quote]

Newdow brought up this case in 2000 and 2004. Both times it was dismissed, does he have something new this time? I did a little checking around but haven't found anything.

Awesome Possum:
Newdow has gotten a conversation going and that counts for a lot.

[IheartTesla]

Ok, I guess I was wrong (seems to be common today). I thought Chief Justice part was new, but looks like it was the same for Bush's two inaugrations as well.

[quote]Despite the fact that he will happen to be the president, Obama will be a United States Citizen, and as such has freedom of speech[/quote]

He can ask god to help him when he goes to church. There are limits to free speech, and censure when we cross certain bounds (see: fire in crowded theater, inappropriate sexual innuendo in workplaces, saying you like NCKLBCK in an internet forum)

[El Chico]

[quote name='RhaegarTar' post='1638984' date='Jan 5 2009, 23.11']/long post[/quote]


Huh. Well, while I don't agree with a lot of what you said (I think the "subcultures" and other influences played a much larger role than you're giving credit for) you at least gave an answer.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1639413' date='Jan 6 2009, 17.55']Yngwie Malmsteefn,

I disagree. I believe that the President is only technically President on the introduction by the Chief Justice as such.[/quote]

Honest question -- what leads you to believe that? Everything I've read indicates that the President's term (now) starts at noon on January 20th following the election. So for Obama, that's two weeks from yesterday. At that point, he takes the oath, and becomes President. Even if the 20th's on a Sunday, and the public celebration is held on the Monday, the person's still President from Sunday, when the oath's first taken, and not when introduced (by the CJ, by the person who swore the P in, both, neither, whatever). Or that's how I read it, anyway.

As I've said, it doesn't bother me much if he does say it any more than it bothers me if he has a copy of the Ten Commandments in his private office. He's a man with religious beliefs, he is going to use those beliefs to inform his actions as President (probably), and as long as I don't think he's imposing or endorsing that religion on the State, I can accept it.

I do think cyr's right with respect to the tying-in of religion, and its acceptance. We have an invocation and a benediction, both inherently religious, and the musical and spoken components may or may not contain sacred references. And yet it's "the way things are", and most people don't even notice.

Oh yeah -- I know that we've moved on a bit, Scot, but would you consider changing your thread title? Newdow's not seeking an injunction against Obama, after all, but the oath-giver (in this case, Roberts).