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

[Teri]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1640549' date='Jan 7 2009, 07.46']Dude, it's called Google. There's nothing about endorsement. It's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Now, while it's true that the interpretation of the First Amendment is an organic thing, it is NOT true to say that the law on the subject is a matter of opinion. It's a multi-faceted test, called the Lemon test, in three parts. In order to NOT violate the establishment clause:

(1) The primary purpose must be secular
(2) The primary affect must neither inhibit nor advance religion
(3) There must be no excessive entanglement with religion

Here, the addition of "under God" to the oath probably fails the test. I mean, there's a [i]reason[/i] they dumped Newdow's pledge suit under standing requirements instead of actually touching the issue, you know? ;)[/quote]

lordcaspen got the wording wrong ("respecting" rather than "endorsing"), but I think his main point was that the constitution forbids [b]Congress making a law[/b] respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't forbid government offices or officials doing [i]other[/i] things that appear to promote a religion that don't involve passing a law.

The movement towards treating all official actions of any governmental body as if they were analogous to "making a law" as far as separating church and state is consistent with the [i]spirit[/i] of the establishment clause, and I agree with those goals, but I don't think it is [i]required[/i] by our Constitution.

[awesome possum]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1640446' date='Jan 7 2009, 06.41']awesome possum,

Then I can only guess that you must loathe Christianity on its face, since the greatest (read largest) part of that faith is practiced by spreading the good news. Your fondest wish would kill that practice, cripple individuals from practicing that faith.[/quote]

I disagree. The largest part is not spreading the good news, unless you mean going to church and listening to sermons as spreading the good news. If you mean those who knock door to door and ask or demand that you listen to their spiel about whether you're 100% sure you'd go to heaven if you died today... that's not practicing faith. That's trying to convert others to your faith or force them to listen to your beliefs, which has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's relationship between him or herself and their god.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1639823' date='Jan 6 2009, 16.07']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]

That is the thing, I do not care if you have made a bunch of good deeds or not, but the argument was that he has somehow done something praise worthy. Which I would argue he has not done. So far all of his suits are nothing more then stunts with no other value then being a thorn in other peoples sides.

There is a difference in being actually stripped of a right, and having the sense to be polite. The office of the president is to carry out the duties as outlined by the Constitution; the person should be afforded the choice of swearing to do so to their own conscious.

[Lord Mord]

awesome possum,

[quote name='awesome possum' post='1640734' date='Jan 7 2009, 10.43']I disagree. The largest part is not spreading the good news, unless you mean going to church and listening to sermons as spreading the good news. If you mean those who knock door to door and ask or demand that you listen to their spiel about whether you're 100% sure you'd go to heaven if you died today... that's not practicing faith. That's trying to convert others to your faith or force them to listen to your beliefs, which has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's relationship between him or herself and their god.[/quote]


There are some sects of Christianity which hold their parishoners to a fairly low standard: except Christ as savior, or that and go to church regular, or both of those and try to be nice.

However, most sects of my acquaintance also put another burden on the devout, and that is testifying about Jesus. Does this mean knocking door-to-door? The churches of my acquaintance are not explicit on that point, other than to say that it [i]need not[/i].

What it means is looking for opportunities, and yes, occasionally making opportunities to tell people, the more people the better, about your personal relationship with Jesus. Without you do that, you are a part of the problem of people going to hell, because you aren't giving them the chance to be saved. The exact way in which God measures your guilt on this point is sort of irrelevant, only because you are not saved by this work, but by grace, so ... you're [i]supposed[/i] to do it, but if you earnestly repent not doing it, then you can be saved anyway.


It's a little convoluted, but the one part that's clear is: [i]share the gospel[/i].

[Shryke]

[quote name='awesome possum' post='1640734' date='Jan 7 2009, 13.43']I disagree. The largest part is not spreading the good news, unless you mean going to church and listening to sermons as spreading the good news. If you mean those who knock door to door and ask or demand that you listen to their spiel about whether you're 100% sure you'd go to heaven if you died today... that's not practicing faith. That's trying to convert others to your faith or force them to listen to your beliefs, which has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's relationship between him or herself and their god.[/quote]

The Bible is fairly explicit in it's message to "Get out there and share the Good News with others". HOW you go about that may differ (some like me and Scot think that going door to door has the opposite effect, and just annoys people into disliking religion), but spreading the faith is a core tenet of Christianity.

[Lord Mord]

14th Dragon,

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1640735' date='Jan 7 2009, 10.46']That is the thing, I do not care if you have made a bunch of good deeds or not, but the argument was that he has somehow done something praise worthy.[/quote]

I think praiseworthy is an unnecessarily loaded term in this context, but I don't think there's anything wrong with what he's done.


[quote]Which I would argue he has not done. So far all of his suits are nothing more then stunts with no other value then being a thorn in other peoples sides.[/quote]

I disagree. I think that even if he were wrong, he's raising an important point: if God is merely a relic as far as legal documents and proceedings are concerned, then why even suffer his presence there?


[quote]There is a difference in being actually stripped of a right, and having the sense to be polite. The office of the president is to carry out the duties as outlined by the Constitution; the person should be afforded the choice of swearing to do so to their own conscious.[/quote]

To my knowledge, no one is suggesting he hasn't that right. The suit, if it were going to be successful, would only enjoin the Chief Justice from prompting Obama to say, "... so help me God," not Obama from saying, "... so help me God" anyway.

[Meili]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1640735' date='Jan 7 2009, 12.46']That is the thing, I do not care if you have made a bunch of good deeds or not, but the argument was that he has somehow done something praise worthy. Which I would argue he has not done. So far all of his suits are nothing more then stunts with no other value then being a thorn in other peoples sides.

There is a difference in being actually stripped of a right, and having the sense to be polite. The office of the president is to carry out the duties as outlined by the Constitution; the person should be afforded the choice of swearing to do so to their own conscious.[/quote]

They don't seem to be stunts, he seem to genuinly want prayer out of school, I agree. Wants God off currency, I agree. Wants rreligious icons off public off government property. I agree. Wants god off the pledge. I agree. He is being polite, he is asking through the law and legal means to push his agenda, all the while following the law and not calling Christians or Muslims morons and fools. The religious proponets are the ones who are impolite. I have yet to see someone scream at a Christian for being a believer. Ask a atheist how many times they stand up for free speech and are regarding or even told straight out how stupid they are, how they need saving and what godless heathens they are. Fuck ask an abortion doctor what he is called.

Your view of polite is obviously different than reality.

[turinturambar]

[quote name='Relic' post='1636177' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.50']it shouldn't be in there, period.[/quote]
It's not in there. It's just a silly tradition. Personally, I'm an atheist, but I find it a bit ridiculous somebody's trying to get this taken out(when it's not even there). Who really gets offended by stuff like this?

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1640538' date='Jan 7 2009, 07.32']TheKassi - but that's what the suit is about. The suit is against the administrator of the oath (in this case CJ Roberts) saying SHMG, which gives a strong implication that it is part of the official oath, and [i]must[/i] therefore be repeated.[/quote]

That is the rationalization for the suit. No one actually believes it. No one really believes that Obama couldn't send the Chief Justice a note reading “Drop the SHMG please” and have his wishes respected. No one believes that refusing to add on SHMG would cost Obama the presidency. No one believes that Roberts would look him in the eye and say “Well, looks like we will be swearing in Biden today.”

An atheist is pretending this is a big giant issue because he wishes to prevent a demonstration of faith, as he finds that demonstration offensive. If Roberts and Obama stand up in front of the cameras right now and say “We have talked the oath over, and Obama has had it made clear to him that he doesn't have to say 'so help me god' however for the sake of tradition and out of respect for his beliefs, we have both agreed to add it in.” Michael Newdow isn't going to shut up and go away, even though it satisfies all of his complaints.

He will just change arguments. He will not be satisfied with a law that would require each president elect to be informed that he or she has the right to drop the four words from the presentation. This “seems to be part of the official oath” stuff is just a red herring. He wants to deny public officials the right to publicly display their faith because he doesn't like it.

It is just that simple, and it is just as wrong as trying to deny people the right to proclaim their denial of superstition.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1641290' date='Jan 8 2009, 08.29']That is the rationalization for the suit. No one actually believes it. No one really believes that Obama couldn't send the Chief Justice a note reading “Drop the SHMG please” and have his wishes respected. No one believes that refusing to add on SHMG would cost Obama the presidency. No one believes that Roberts would look him in the eye and say “Well, looks like we will be swearing in Biden today.”

An atheist is pretending this is a big giant issue because he wishes to prevent a demonstration of faith, as he finds that demonstration offensive. If Roberts and Obama stand up in front of the cameras right now and say “We have talked the oath over, and Obama has had it made clear to him that he doesn't have to say 'so help me god' however for the sake of tradition and out of respect for his beliefs, we have both agreed to add it in.” Michael Newdow isn't going to shut up and go away, even though it satisfies all of his complaints.

He will just change arguments. He will not be satisfied with a law that would require each president elect to be informed that he or she has the right to drop the four words from the presentation. This “seems to be part of the official oath” stuff is just a red herring. He wants to deny public officials the right to publicly display their faith because he doesn't like it.

It is just that simple, and it is just as wrong as trying to deny people the right to proclaim their denial of superstition.[/quote]

Actually, I disagree. I think that if Obama left it out, there would be more than a bit of a stink raised, and not by Newdow. I think he'd still be President, and would be recognised as such, but an awful lot of people think that SHMG is in the oath, or should be, and would think something was missing, even though it's still perfectly legal. (I also think that no, he probably wouldn't have been elected at all had he not made public demonstrations of faith during the election cycle. Certainly not if he'd made public demonstrations of a lack of religion. That is also part of where Newdow is coming from -- that religion and politics are still tied together in this country a lot more than people seem willing to see.)

And again, nobody is saying Obama can't say SHMG if he wants to. Even if Roberts doesn't say it, Obama can. As long as he says what's in the oath, he can append whatever the hell he wants -- he could probably even do an interpretive dance with improvisational free verse singing at the end, and it'd still be legal. (People might wonder about his sanity, or his dignity for the office, but that's different.) That, as far as I know, is all that Newdow's suit is asking for: The [i]administrator of the oath[/i], where applicable, should be restricted to the actual wording in the Constitution.

Newdow [i]would[/i] shut up about it if that happened, I think: Roberts says "...defend the Constitution of the United States." and Obama says "...defend the Constitution of the United States, SHMG." If you're right and Newdow wants to fight that a public official can't express any religious belief, he'd have to change his argument. He'd have to show that Obama adding SHMG is 1) him acting as President and not a private citizen and 2) therefore an endorsement of a particular religion that contradicts the Establishment Clause (or any other part of the Constitution). Since that hasn't even been addressed in any of the suits Newdow has brought on this topic, I think he wouldn't care enough to start a new suit. It's a private declaration of faith in a public setting, probably, unlike when it's seen to be part of the oath, or it is part of the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1641316' date='Jan 7 2009, 23.39']I think that if Obama left it out, there would be more than a bit of a stink raised, and not by Newdow. I think he'd still be President, and would be recognised as such, but an awful lot of people think that SHMG is in the oath, or should be, and would think something was missing, even though it's still perfectly legal.[/quote]

That isn't Michael Newdow's case. His claim isn't that citizens will become offended if Obama chooses not to add on the words. His case is that because “So help me god.” is being added on to the oath by Chief Justice Roberts, Obama has to say it in order to assume his duties.

And forcing Obama to acknowledge a higher power in order to assume his duties violates the separation of church and state.

Without that, Newdow's injunction doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1641316' date='Jan 7 2009, 23.39']And again, nobody is saying Obama can't say SHMG if he wants to. Even if Roberts doesn't say it, Obama can. As long as he says what's in the oath, he can append whatever the hell he wants -- he could probably even do an interpretive dance with improvisational free verse singing at the end, and it'd still be legal. (People might wonder about his sanity, or his dignity for the office, but that's different.)[/quote]

Michael Newdow is. And because, as you agree, the idea is ridicules, Michael Newdow's argument is a red herring. It is all just a method to get what he wants. He isn't protecting anyone's rights, as no one has to acknowledge a higher power if they do not want to.

We can disagree on that, but in order to do someone has to show how Obama is being forced to acknowledge a higher power in order to assume his duties.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, Newdow is very definitely not restricting Obama from saying it. He's only trying to restrict Roberts from presenting it as though it's part of the oath.

[url="http://volokh.com/posts/1230619105.shtml"]Volokh[/url] makes that point explicitly. (He also says that it's unlikely to work, as it's probably covered in [i]Marsh -v- Chambers[/i]. [i]Marsh[/i] is addressed in the full text below, as Volokh is aware, so he obviously disagrees with the complaint's conclusions there.)

If you read the [url="http://www.humanistlegalcenter.org/cases/Invocation/Newdow_v_Roberts_D_DC_complaint_2008-12-29.pdf"]full text of the complaint[/url], Obama isn't mentioned as a defendent. Newdow (et al.) are seeking injunctions against Roberts from altering the oath as he administers it, and the organisers / clergy for having an invocation and benediction as parts of the official ceremony.

[quote]If President-elect Obama (as a black man fully aware of the vile effects that stem from a majority's disregard of a minority's rights, and as a Democrat fully aware of the efficacy his Republican predecessor's "so help me God" oath additions) feels that the verbiage formulated by the Founders is so inadequate that he needs to interlard his oath with a purely religious phrase deemed unnecessary by the first twenty presidents, Plaintiffs have no objection at this time. The President, like all other individuals, has Free Exercise rights, which might permit such an alteration.[/quote]

Harsh, and derogatory, and extremely pointed, but there you go. Obama can say it all he wants, according to Newdow et al.

Also, Newdow's case is not that Obama must say SHMG in order to assume his duties. The idea is that having a governmental representative, in this case Roberts, alter the oath to include God -- whether or not Obama must repeat them -- violates the Establishment Clause.
[quote]When performed by the Chief Justice of the United States as part of the inauguration of the President, it wields enormous power in reinforcing the false notion that the United States is a nation where Monotheism is [b]officially[/b] preferred, thus stigmatizing Plaintiffs and others who hold contrary religious views.[/quote](Emphasis mine.)

Edited to clean up line breaks and formatting.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1641347' date='Jan 8 2009, 01.05']If you read the full text of the complaint, Obama isn't mentioned as a defendent. Newdow[/quote]

That is a technicality. The Presidential Inaugural Committee is listed as a defendant. These are people appointed by Obama to set up the Presidential inaugural ceremony. People working for Obama, acting in his name and by his instructions, are targeted. If Obama didn't want these people there doing what they were doing, he would boot them or marginalize them.

The stated goal of the document is to prevent anyone who has anything to do with the planning of the Presidential Inaugural Committee from doing anything religious.

Thus Newdow is actively working to prevent Obama from doing what he wishes with the Ceremony. He may say elsewhere that he has no objection to Obama expressing his faith in the Presidential inaugural ceremony, at this time of course, but he is working to bring the force of law against the people he placed in charge of setting up the event in order to stop them from doing the things he expects from them.

All the ranting about being deliberately targeted for harm is just preaching and self martyrdom. Has nothing to do with the case, because they know it will be ignored. All that has all already been decided. Several times.

Cut away all the pomp and ceremony and you are left with the aforementioned red herring. That because Roberts is saying it, it seems that it is official.

The Presidential inaugural ceremony, according to the constitution, only has to be twenty seconds long. Everything wrapped around it is fluff. Civil servants get to do what they wish with the fluff. Thats what Free Speech is all about.

As long as Obama is legally sworn in at the words “United States” the rest is legally and constitutionally irrelevant. Roberts can end his part with the words: “Everybody hustle! Doo-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo” if he is so crazy. As long as Obama doesn't have to disco, it is merely distasteful. If people feel that there leaders will be expected to boogie down if they wish to serve, their ignorance is their problem.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1641277' date='Jan 8 2009, 00.51']They don't seem to be stunts, he seem to genuinly want prayer out of school, I agree. Wants God off currency, I agree. Wants rreligious icons off public off government property. I agree. Wants god off the pledge. I agree. He is being polite, he is asking through the law and legal means to push his agenda.[/quote]

It is the last part that is the annoying bit. The fact that he continously uses legal harrasment to push a minority agenda gets to be an annoyance. He has no interest in actually trying to convince a majority of the people that his view point has merit, only intrested in getting the courts to let him have his way.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1641316' date='Jan 8 2009, 01.39']And again, nobody is saying Obama can't say SHMG if he wants to. Even if Roberts doesn't say it, Obama can. As long as he says what's in the oath, he can append whatever the hell he wants -- he could probably even do an interpretive dance with improvisational free verse singing at the end, and it'd still be legal. (People might wonder about his sanity, or his dignity for the office, but that's different.) That, as far as I know, is all that Newdow's suit is asking for: The [i]administrator of the oath[/i], where applicable, should be restricted to the actual wording in the Constitution.[/quote]

Certainly any Conservative out there that considers themselves a strict constructionist should appreciate this viewpoint. I, for one, am sick of seeing the Supreme Court adding stuff into the Constitution that isn't there. There is a mechanism for adding stuff to the Con. It's called "Amendments".

[TerraPrime]

eefa:

It's a bit impossible to argue here, as TheKassi is claiming insight to Newdow's "true" motivation and agenda when you're arguing what Newdow had factually presented, so far. The two of you are literally talking past each other.

If one premises that atheists like Newdow are objecting to this out of a principled and reasonable ground, then one will be inclined to believe that this is about the Chief Justice's words, and that's it.

If one premises that atheists like Newdow are objecting to this out of some unreasonable and dogmatic desire to suppress all religions, whether it is legal or not, then one will be inclined to believe that the action won't stop even if this particular battle is won.

[Meili]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1641422' date='Jan 8 2009, 07.08']It is the last part that is the annoying bit. The fact that he continously uses legal harrasment to push a minority agenda gets to be an annoyance. He has no interest in actually trying to convince a majority of the people that his view point has merit, only intrested in getting the courts to let him have his way.[/quote]

Isn't that what activists do? Push a minority's rights so there can be equality. MLK did it without violence and he changed politicians mind. He does have an interest and you are right, he does want the courts to see it his way. Much like gays in California want the court to see it their way. Numerous groups want the laws changed. You say "he can have it his way', like that's a bad thing. I WANT the coin changed. I want prayer removed from public schools. I WANT science to be taught, not creationist shit. Just because he doesn't debate well, he is bringing to light things that [b]MANY[/b] people want. Instead of rallies (because most atheist's could care less about grouping together to show how stupid the idea of god is), we/him are trying to change it through the courts. It should be illegal and he is trying to let the courts decide. Like I said before, the guy looks like a douche and public wise, he isn't the best speaker on the issues. But the issues he does bring up are perfectly valid points.

[TheKassi]

I pretty much figure that you leave principled and reasonable ground behind when you start insulting the people you are trying to get to grant you concessions, claim that they are specifically crafting parts of an event to harm you and your children, spend pages trashing things they hold dear, and compare them to the people that attacked America on September Eleventh Two Thousand One, all in a single legal document.

Thats pretty much frothing zealot territory. If anything it is counter productive. If the Courts start treating long winded rants on the evils of religion seriously, it will only push the Republicans father into the arms of the religious right.

Which will cause the Democratic party to shout even louder that the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on being keen on Jesus.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1641692' date='Jan 8 2009, 12.43']Isn't that what activists do? Push a minority's rights so there can be equality.[/quote]

But he has not yet made the case that any sort of right, as defined by he constitution, is being violated.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1641934' date='Jan 8 2009, 14.49']But he has not yet made the case that any sort of right, as defined by he constitution, is being violated.[/quote]

But the Oath, as spelled out in the Constitution, isn't being followed either. Doesn't it give you even a slight pause that the Chief Justice can apparently ignore the Constitution at will and add whatever he wants to the oath? This isn't about religion v non-religion. This is about following the Constitution, or only following it when we feel like.