In God we trust

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1725624' date='Mar 19 2009, 13.02']i do wonder how many would recognize the legitimacy of the president's inauguration were the president-elect to add, instead of "so help me god," the following term:

[i][b]I swear by the name even of Iluvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon me if i keep it not[/b], to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from my possession.[/i][/quote]
Only keep the boldfaced part, the rest isn't relevant. But I like this one a lot better:

[i]Vanda sina termaruva Elenna-nóreo alcar enyalien ar Elendil Vorondo voronwë.
Nai tiruvantes i hárar mahalmassen mi Númen ar i Eru i or ilyë mahalmar eä tennoio.[/i]

"This oath shall stand in memory of the glory of the Land of the Star and the faith of Elendil the Faithful,
in the keeping of those who sit upon the thrones of the West and of the One who is above all thrones for ever."

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725710' date='Mar 19 2009, 13.40']I agree that all these doctrines are inherently artificial, like most human concepts. Then how should we treat our country?[/quote]
I agree with the idea of human equality. Even if we disagree on everything else, I take a good deal of pleasure in knowing we do agree on that, even if we come to it through different channels.

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725710' date='Mar 19 2009, 13.40']That wasn't what I meant to say. Pardon me for not being clear. It seems me both have that problem. Anyway, refer to post from above.[/quote]
I apologize, I don't mean to snipe you on this. I think he has every right to include an affirmation to God, but I agree with you that the idea that it is mandatory, or necessary is a problem. But, a lawsuit infringing on Obama's right to include an oath to God isn't hoping to change it, it's just trying to rile up the base on both sides and create this false notion that the country is split when it's just a small minority of people on both sides who really care about this.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1725742' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.04']I agree with the idea of human equality. Even if we disagree on everything else, I take a good deal of pleasure in knowing we do agree on that, even if we come to it through different channels.[/quote]

Now that we've starting agreeing on things, I think this argument is about to die... :)


[quote]I apologize, I don't mean to snipe you on this. I think he has every right to include an affirmation to God, but I agree with you that the idea that it is mandatory, or necessary is a problem. But, a lawsuit infringing on Obama's right to include an oath to God isn't hoping to change it, it's just trying to rile up the base on both sides and create this false notion that the country is split when it's just a small minority of people on both sides who really care about this.[/quote]

I have less issue with him bringing up god and more with his hand on a Bible and the inclusion of all sorts of religious figures making speeches at his inauguration, giving the entire ceremony a very religious overtone, but that's the same issue I have with a good number of presidents (*eyes the last one*). I do have to commend Obama as being one of the only presidents, especially within the last few years, to ever officially acknowledge nonbelievers as citizens of the United States.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1725706' date='Mar 19 2009, 10.39']You'll find far more detail about this topic in the Oath thread that was up around the time of the inaugeration, but in short:

There is a distinction between "The Oath" which makes no religious reference and "So help me God" which affirms the oath. Inserting religious statements into the oath would violate the Constitution. Affirming the oath with "so help me god" is separate and an exercise of first amendment rights.[/quote]

I don't think that's true. I think adding "so help me God" turns a public secular rite into a public religious one. The problem is that the addition of private religious sentiment to this function is not supported by authority; it adds nothing to the oath but a rather tacky advertisement of the president's personal religious views (in the most content-free, vague manner possible). If the president wants, in his inauguration speech, to passionately avow his belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, or assert his preference of the 1979 BCP to the 1928, or complain about how he just can't get decent white and black roosters for his magic circle anymore, then fine. But public state functions should not be occasions for advertisements of private opinions. Imagine if he inserted, for example, "and I hope Rush Limbaugh dies" or "Go Steelers!" at the end of the oath. Inappropriate, right? Why is the insertion of religious opinion any different?

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725748' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.09']I don't think that's true. I think adding "so help me God" turns a public secular rite into a public religious one. The problem is that the addition of private religious sentiment to this function is not supported by authority; it adds nothing to the oath but a rather tacky advertisement of the president's personal religious views (in the most content-free, vague manner possible). If the president wants, in his inauguration speech, to passionately avow his belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, or assert his preference of the 1979 BCP to the 1928, or complain about how he just can't get decent white and black roosters for his magic circle anymore, then fine. But public state functions should not be occasions for advertisements of private opinions. Imagine if he inserted, for example, "and I hope Rush Limbaugh dies" or "Go Steelers!" at the end of the oath. Inappropriate, right? Why is the insertion of religious opinion any different?[/quote]

Holy crap! We agree on something!

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725754' date='Mar 19 2009, 11.12']Holy crap! We agree on something![/quote]

I believe in the separation of church and state, not because I think religion is evil, but because I don't trust the state to administer it. Look at the mess which is currently calling itself the Church of England, and look at the uniformly ghastly cock-ups that have resulted from the church & the state involving themselves in each other's business.

Besides, I think the state has an obligation to be fair to all its citizens. In the earlier days of the USA, when virtually everyone was Protestant, Calvinism as the state religion didn't much go against the grain. But today, there's a much more diverse citizenry, and the state can't be seen to favor one religious idea over another. It stacks the deck.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725761' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.20']I believe in the separation of church and state, not because I think religion is evil, but because I don't trust the state to administer it. Look at the mess which is currently calling itself the Church of England, and look at the uniformly ghastly cock-ups that have resulted from the church & the state involving themselves in each other's business.

Besides, I think the state has an obligation to be fair to all its citizens. In the earlier days of the USA, when virtually everyone was Protestant, Calvinism as the state religion didn't much go against the grain. But today, there's a much more diverse citizenry, and the state can't be seen to favor one religious idea over another. It stacks the deck.[/quote]

<3 to all of that ^^^

And for a second, I thought I've entered the Twilight Zone.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725764' date='Mar 19 2009, 11.23']<3 to all of that ^^^

And for a second, I thought I've entered the Twilight Zone.[/quote]

I'm not your enemy, Ocean. It's okay to disagree about things, really. :)

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725765' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.24']I'm not your enemy, Ocean. It's okay to disagree about things, really. :)[/quote]


I know! I was just being silly... or are you Bizzaro-Palaeologos?

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1725624' date='Mar 19 2009, 10.02']i do wonder how many would recognize the legitimacy of the president's inauguration were the president-elect to add, instead of "so help me god," the following term:

[i]I swear by the name even of Iluvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon me if i keep it not, to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from my possession.[/i][/quote]
I'd actually pay to see that. :cheers:

If you'd heard the way that most of my friends and family were carrying on, you'd think that Obama had sworn an oath to the Dark Lord in his innauguration (as if he'd ever make his allegiances such public knowledge).

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725768' date='Mar 19 2009, 11.26']I know! I was just being silly... or are you Bizzaro-Palaeologos?[/quote]

No, it's really me. But I think a lot of us get easily confused, especially on the Internet, about whether we're seeing passionate disagreement or passionate dislike.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725777' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.29']No, it's really me. But I think a lot of us get easily confused, especially on the Internet, about whether we're seeing passionate disagreement or passionate dislike.[/quote]

I don't see the point of disliking people I've never actually met. I hardly hold grudges anyway.

[Tempra]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725748' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.09']I don't think that's true. I think adding "so help me God" turns a public secular rite into a public religious one. The problem is that the addition of private religious sentiment to this function is not supported by authority; it adds nothing to the oath but a rather tacky advertisement of the president's personal religious views (in the most content-free, vague manner possible). If the president wants, in his inauguration speech, to passionately avow his belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, or assert his preference of the 1979 BCP to the 1928, or complain about how he just can't get decent white and black roosters for his magic circle anymore, then fine. But public state functions should not be occasions for advertisements of private opinions. Imagine if he inserted, for example, "and I hope Rush Limbaugh dies" or "Go Steelers!" at the end of the oath. Inappropriate, right? Why is the insertion of religious opinion any different?[/quote]

Without authority? Adding "So Help Me God" to oathes(not just the presidential oath) dates back to at least Judiciary Act of 1789. How can you say it is without authority? History and precedent are squarely on the side of SHMG being acceptable. The ball is in your court to prove otherwise and simply pointing to the first amendment is not enough unless you have a USSC decision to back it up.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1725747' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.08'], giving the entire ceremony a very religious overtone, but that's the same issue I have with a good number of presidents (*eyes the last one*).[/quote]

I don't blame you considering Mr. "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens".

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725748' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.18']Imagine if he inserted, for example, "and I hope Rush Limbaugh dies" or "Go Steelers!" at the end of the oath. Inappropriate, right? Why is the insertion of religious opinion any different?[/quote]

It's inappropriate because it's tasteless. Not because he doesn't have the right to close in that manner and it doesn't mean that a lawsuit should be filed to prevent him from including wishes for Rush Limbaugh's demise or request to honor seperation of sports and state.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1725407' date='Mar 19 2009, 07.28']I hate both sets, and would cheerfully beat them within an inch of their lives.[/quote]
And somehow, [i]I'm[/i] the petty asshole. :lol:

Look dude, you think I'm [i]upset[/i] about this? It's pretty far off my radar. A boarder asked questions about why it could offend people and I tried to help him out.

My Peter Pan money paid for my whisky last night; I'm doing just fine.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1726069' date='Mar 19 2009, 14.58']And somehow, [i]I'm[/i] the petty asshole. :lol:

Look dude, you think I'm [i]upset[/i] about this? It's pretty far off my radar. A boarder asked questions about why it could offend people and I tried to help him out.

My Peter Pan money paid for my whisky last night; I'm doing just fine.[/quote]
I don't know what boarder you were referring to, but... For what it's worth. I think you helped me to get quite a bit closer to understanding it. :cheers:

[Lord Mord]

El-ahrairah,

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723340' date='Mar 17 2009, 21.28']It is necessary now for at present religion is attacked to a far greater extent. And I'm well aware about McCarthy, that was my point.[/quote]


I respect religion, and would just soon that faith endured. I just don't see why it should be protected at this expense. I mean, I agree with the others who say there are more pressing things going on, but at the same time, when this issue comes up, I'd just as soon be on the right side of it, and I think it is a slight against the non-religious and polytheistic non-majority, and very probably an unconstitutional one.


Even assuming it were not on its face illegal, and even if we agree the harm is, in itself, very small, why should any harm be suffered? To protect religion?


Why should it be the government's job to protect religion? Let God take care of his own, and the religious to take care of each other. If they start to disagree because God doesn't appear on our money, or if they find it harder to recruit ... Then isn't the religion based on the wrong things?


Shouldn't the force of its emotional appeal be enough to sway people? Does God [i]need[/i] product placement to advance his cause? Doesn't that make Him ... kind of paltry? Mind you, if He exists, I don't think he can be paltry, but you're positing that he does exist and that his power to recruit should not be impaired by a lack of salesmanship on the part of the government. Your position, then, makes him sound like PepsiCo, which, proportionate to the universe, is very, very small.


I think if he exists, his power must be infinite and he doesn't need the government.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1726087' date='Mar 19 2009, 15.08']I don't know what boarder you were referring to, but... For what it's worth. I think you helped me to get quite a bit closer to understanding it. :cheers:[/quote]
:cheers:

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725761' date='Mar 19 2009, 12.20']I believe in the separation of church and state, not because I think religion is evil, but because I don't trust the state to administer it. Look at the mess which is currently calling itself the Church of England, and look at the uniformly ghastly cock-ups that have resulted from the church & the state involving themselves in each other's business.[/quote]


What what? If there's a list of ghastly outcomes from various churches, the Church of England would rank pretty low on that list as far as I am concerned.

[Watcher]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1725527' date='Mar 19 2009, 09.00']Of course that doesn't mean they were wrong, but it does mean that you have to come up with some kind of justification for the separation of church and state besides "hey look, some of the Founding Fathers believed in it". As far as withstanding the test of time, that's open to debate; there is a very precarious consensus at the moment, and the principle of separation has been disputed for years (and in practice, ignored in this country pretty completely until about 50-75 years ago).[/quote]

There are many good reasons to have wall between the church and State. My original point was only addressing Ocean of Notions claim that the phrase isn't directly in the Constitution so it is irreverent.