Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

So help me God, I wish people would stop with these silly lawsuits.

Fern

That's a pretty strange statement from someone who considers himself a Conservative. That's why we have civil courts to resolve our Constitutional issues. It's so much less messy than shoot outs at high noon.

You still believe in the Constitution, don't you? :Q

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

So help me God, I wish people would stop with these silly lawsuits.

Fern

That's a pretty strange statement from someone who considers himself a Conservative. That's why we have civil courts to resolve our Constitutional issues. It's so much less messy than shoot outs at high noon.

You still believe in the Constitution, don't you? :Q

It was a crappy pun/attempt at humor (gimme a break, I'm a tax accountant )

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

So help me God, I wish people would stop with these silly lawsuits.

Fern

That's a pretty strange statement from someone who considers himself a Conservative. That's why we have civil courts to resolve our Constitutional issues. It's so much less messy than shoot outs at high noon.

You still believe in the Constitution, don't you? :Q

The problem isn't the suit itself, it's that courts(ie judges) buy into these agenda suits too often despite the absurdity of the suit itself. This guy seems to want to make the gov't athiest whereas the First Amendment doesn't prevent there being religion within the gov't. It prohibits the establishment of a religion by the gov't - you know... the reason people fled the motherland?...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
This ought to please the P&N crowd.

CNN

Of course, doing so would piss off the other 90% of Americans who do believe in some sort of God or god...and would be political suicide on Obama's first day in office.

That oath has been taken without "God" a few times already, so what's your point?

 

[PrinceofWands]

While I support Newdow in many things, and he's correct that it's a grey enough area to debate, the Constitution clearly gives the President the option to swear to God during the inauguration. Because he is not required to do so, and can choose instead to affirm (as is true with every oath taken in America), I don't see it gaining traction.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Aha, Michael Newdow. That explains everything. That guy is a patriot.

Fixed for you.

:thumbsup:

Oh give me a fucking break. I'm an agnostic social liberal, but this guy's crusade (and it's exactly that) is over the top, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that this kind of shit is a contributing factor in the shift to the right among more God-fearing folks.

I find overzealous atheists to be way more fucking annoying than overzealous religious types.

Because I'm more fair and balanced than you, I find them equally annoying. That goes for anyone pushing their brand of stupidity down everyone's throats. Although to be fair, those who got "under god" included in the first place really started this whole mess.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Aha, Michael Newdow. That explains everything. That guy is a patriot.

Fixed for you.

:thumbsup:

Oh give me a fucking break. I'm an agnostic social liberal, but this guy's crusade (and it's exactly that) is over the top, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that this kind of shit is a contributing factor in the shift to the right among more God-fearing folks.

I find overzealous atheists to be way more fucking annoying than overzealous religious types.

FYI, Atheism by itself was defined as a religion by the Court. Either way, being overzealous in any form is just not right and is always more than annoying!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt some of this upto the person being sworn in? Keith Ellison from the Minneapolis District in the house of reps was sworn in using a Koran in 2006.

Meaning if Obama wished to, couldnt he ask not to say that?

You have no clue do you.....your facts a not even close to being correct!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ellison.asp
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014314.php
The Ellison Qur'an swearing-in follies
In "At swearing in, congressman wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues," Jane Lampman in The Christian Science Monitor (thanks to Long-time reader #6,004) discusses the controversy that has arisen over Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison's apparent plan to be sworn in on the Qur'an, and Dennis Prager's protest:

When America's first Muslim congressman, a Democrat from Minnesota, let it be known he will carry a Koran to his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 4, conservative pundit Dennis Prager called it "an act of hubris ... that undermines American civilization."
Prager brought this up with me when I was on his show recently. I wasn't surprised, of course, since this controversy has arisen before. But several things need to be clarified.

In the first place, the controversy is essentially over a photo-op. Congessmen aren't sworn in on a book. They line up and raise their right hands and are sworn in collectively. Then, if they choose to do so, they can wait on a long line to get a photo-op with the Speaker, in which the Speaker and the Congressman raise their hands, and someone holds a book -- the Bible, but it could just as well be anything else, as it is not a swearing-in but just a photo-op -- between them.
So no more mis-representing the facts please!!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

So help me God, I wish people would stop with these silly lawsuits.

Fern

That's a pretty strange statement from someone who considers himself a Conservative. That's why we have civil courts to resolve our Constitutional issues. It's so much less messy than shoot outs at high noon.

You still believe in the Constitution, don't you? :Q

I guess George Washington didn't believe in the Consitution, eh, which is why he added those words to the oath of office.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: winnar111
I guess George Washington didn't believe in the Consitution, eh, which is why he added those words to the oath of office.

Yes, he also chopped down that cherry tree.

 

[Moonbeam]

Religious people should remember that they god they believe in does not exist any more than the god atheist don't believe in is the God who does exist. All this arguing is all about ego.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

I guess George Washington didn't believe in the Consitution, eh, which is why he added those words to the oath of office.

Maybe, if you did your homework, you could stop guessing, and you'd know the phrase, "so help me God" is not part of the official Presidential oath of office, and, unless you've got a previously unknown recording of Washington's inauguration, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that he included the phrase when he was sworn in.

Oath of office of the President of the United States

The oath or affirmation of office of the President of the United States was established in the United States Constitution and is mandatory for a President upon beginning a term of office. The wording is prescribed by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8), as follows:

1. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

.
.
"So help me God"

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his oath. In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath in full, a report from the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath. The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the event.

Evidence is lacking to support the claim that Presidents between Washington and Abraham Lincoln used the phrase "So help me God." A contemporaneous newspaper account of Lincoln's 1865 inauguration states that Lincoln appended the phrase "So help me God" to the oath. This newspaper report is followed by another account, provided later in the same year after Lincoln's death (April 15, 1865), that Lincoln said "So help me God" during his oath. The evidence pertaining to the 1865 inauguration is much stronger than that pertaining to Lincoln's 1861 use of the phrase. Several sources claim that Lincoln said "So help me God" at his 1861 inauguration, yet these sources were not contemporaneous to the event. Shortly after giving the speech, Lincoln stated that his oath was "registered in Heaven.", something some have taken as indicating he likely uttered the phrase "So help me God." Conversely, there was a claim made by A.M. Milligan (a radical Presbyterian minister who wanted the U.S. government to be officially Christian) that letters were sent to Abraham Lincoln asking him to swear to God during his inaugurations, and Lincoln allegedly wrote back saying that "God's name was not in the Constitution, and he could not depart from the letter of that instrument."

Other than the president of the U.S., many politicians (including Jefferson Davis, sworn in as president of the Confederate States of America in 1861) used the phrase "So help me God" when taking their oaths. Likewise, all federal judges and executive officers were required as early as 1789 by statute to include the phrase unless they affirmed, in which case the phrase must be omitted.

Since FDR, evidence exists to show that all recent presidents have added the phrase "So help me God."

A given President might include it in the oath for reasons ranging from genuine personal conviction to hypocritical political grandstanding.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My problem Harvey is that as it stands right now a President has the option of using it for whatever reason. This fellow who is brings the suit wants to take that right away. "So help me God" is completely optional and has nothing to do with the establishment of religion. I wouldn't support making it mandatory, and if someone sued to make it so there would be much howling here and I'd be mighty unhappy too. No, this man isn't a patriot, he's in opposition to choice. He is just the same as someone who would force someone by power of the government to follow his beliefs. In effect he replaces God with himself by using the power of the state. I can't abide that.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

No, this man isn't a patriot, he's in opposition to choice. He is just the same as someone who would force someone by power of the government to follow his beliefs. In effect he replaces God with himself by using the power of the state. I can't abide that.

I disagree for a couple of reasons.

1. I strongly supported Newdow's earlier suit to remove the words, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience because they impose the implied superiority of the Judeo-Christian deity on the otherwise secular pledge of loyalty to the nation, which is antithetical to the principle of separation of church and state that is at the foundation of our nation.

The words were not part of the Pledge as it was officially adopted. They were only added in 1954 at the urging of a number of religious organizations.

2. When spoken, the words screw up the musical - temporal cadance of the Pledge, which I find to be an otherwise much more lyically poetic and emotionally inspiring piece.

I believe Newdow is a patriot because he's willing to stand up and exercise his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religious beliefs in the face of the public hostility to his Constitutionally valid point.

He does not advocate forcing others to conform to his beliefs. He advocates not allowing the religious beliefs of one group to be imposed on others in official government functions.

I believe including the reference to any deity in the Presidential oath of office is inappropriate because we are a secular nation, the United States of America, not the united theocracy of any one group's deity.

 

[AbeLinc]

the principle of separation of church and state that is at the foundation of our nation.

You indicate this is a principle.

Could you share with us that portion of the Constitution that provides this ?principle? and or subsequent amendments that provide an absolute guarantee that Church and State shall never mix in any way, shape or form?

Appreciate your response.

 

[scruffypup]

Great take on it Harvey.

I supported Newdow's earlier suit on the pledge of allegience, but thought the supreme court copped out bynot hearing it due to him not having custody of his daughter, which as a father, felt it was a slap in the face of father's rights as well.

I think that the supreme court took that route due to Newdow having a good case and the court not wanting to open that can of worms for the public.

Now this new case, I think is frivilous however, since it is an option of the president and personal choice of the president, not a requirement. It also does not impose anything on any other American by having the president say certain words, or be "blessed" by his religious choosing.

I would like to see another person take the pledge of allegience suit up again. The Christian influenced certain aspects of our day to day life through government "sponsored" things (pledge, currency, etc) in the 50s under the guise as fighting communism and should not have been allowed. These should be changed back in all honesty.

 

[Cogman]

If the word is taken out, whatever, if it is left in, whatever. How does mentioning the name of a being you don't believe in suddenly cause discrimination. Do people feel discriminated against when I mention the great spaghetti monster of garlac six?

The world will be no worse or better if this suit happens, so why should we even care about it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AbeLinc

the principle of separation of church and state that is at the foundation of our nation.

You indicate this is a principle.

Could you share with us that portion of the Constitution that provides this ?principle? and or subsequent amendments that provide an absolute guarantee that Church and State shall never mix in any way, shape or form?

Appreciate your response.

I have two responses. The first requires some reading. I'll post this link and some significant text. You can pursue the rest the info at the link and other links from that page for more info.

Separation of church and state in the United States

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
.
.
Article 6 of the United States Constitution

Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution.

Bill of Rights

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As 19th century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed:

1. ?The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself?. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.?

An August 15, 1789 entry in Madison?s papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government imposition of religious beliefs on individuals. The entry says: ?Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....?

My second response is that your writing style, your question and your sig all suggest you may be a person named Pierce Law, a malicious wingnut troll who was banned years ago as MrPALCO and who was just banned over the past few days as Julius Shark and David Victorious (see earlier post in this thread).

I hope you are not the troll. If you are not, welcome to the forums. I hope my reply addressed your question.

If you are the same malicious POS, get the fsck out of here. :|

 

[Dave B]

"Separation of church and state in the United States

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. " - Harvey

There is a group that believes they do not have a religious bond but a family affiliation to the one Jesus. Do you believe that the "separation clause" (dubious at best) that has been accepted as the conventional wisdom can carry over to family ties claimed by this group? Is this group barred from the process of government?




"The Christian influenced certain aspects of our day to day life through government "sponsored" things (pledge, currency, etc) in the 50s under the guise as fighting communism and should not have been allowed. These should be changed back in all honesty. - scruffypup"


You single out Christians. Why is that? Are you against the Christian belief?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dave B
"Separation of church and state in the United States

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. " - Harvey

There is a group that believes they do not have a religious bond but a family affiliation to the one Jesus. Do you believe that the "separation clause" (dubious at best) that has been accepted as the conventional wisdom can carry over to family ties claimed by this group? Is this group barred from the process of government?

"The Christian influenced certain aspects of our day to day life through government "sponsored" things (pledge, currency, etc) in the 50s under the guise as fighting communism and should not have been allowed. These should be changed back in all honesty. - scruffypup"

You single out Christians. Why is that? Are you against the Christian belief?

Let me guess... Julius?

 

[umbrella39]

How nice. So many first time posters showing up in this thread. It is refreshing to see 12 year olds so interesting in politics.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
This ought to please the P&N crowd.

CNN

Of course, doing so would piss off the other 90% of Americans who do believe in some sort of God or god...and would be political suicide on Obama's first day in office.

It's possible for a religious person to want our nation's government to be secular and to agree with this lawsuit.

 

[Zebo]

nm

 

[GoPackGo]

It seems to me these "hard core" athiest sure have a lot of time and money to bitch.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
This ought to please the P&N crowd.

CNN

Of course, doing so would piss off the other 90% of Americans who do believe in some sort of God or god...and would be political suicide on Obama's first day in office.

It's possible for a religious person to want our nation's government to be secular and to agree with this lawsuit.

Yep. A lot of churches did not want the "faith based money..." Bush was pushing as they knew it would put Gov inside religion.

We already know, from the middle east, what happens when the Gov is run by religion. They need to be seperate for a reason.