Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) has details, including links to the complaint and its Appendices. Newdow -- who filed the lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- is seeking the removal of "so help me God" from the oath to be read by Chief Justice Roberts, and exclusion of the clergy invocation and benediction. (Note that Newdow is not seeking to prohibit President-Elect Obama from saying "so help me God" in his oath.)
The lawsuit's Establishment Clause argument about the inaugural prayers is foreclosed by Marsh v. Chambers (1983), which held that legislative prayers are generally constitutionally permissible, even to the extent they may endorse religion, because of the long tradition of such prayers dating back to the same Congress that proposed the Establishment Clause.
I can't speak with equal confidence about Newdow's argument that the court should at least enjoin any prayer that focuses on a particular denomination, rather than just being generically Judeo-Christian monotheism (itself a denomination, but one that Marsh suggested was capacious enough for government work). See here for a hint of the debates in lower courts about when and whether denominationally specific prayers are constitutional, though there are many more cases on the subject than just the one I mention there. I should note, though, that Newdow's argument on this has been rejected before, in the decision rejecting his lawsuit about the 2005 inauguration. And a President's inviting a particular clergyman to say things at the President's inauguration might well be treated as an extension of the President's own right to express whatever views -- including denominationally specific views -- he wants to express as part of his own speech.
The Establishment Clause argument about the "so help me God" in the oath is likely also foreclosed by Marsh, given the long tradition of "so help me God" in oaths. (Oaths, after all, were supposed to be invocations of God, as opposed to affirmations, which were the constitutionally prescribed alternative for those who didn't want to swear to God.) There is of course a dispute about whether President Washington said "so help me God" in his oath. But it's clear that early oaths -- including the one for federal judges and Justices, plus several other examples from early Congresses -- commonly contained the phrase. The logic of Marsh would thus amply apply here.
The lawsuit's Free Exercise Clause and Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are foreclosed by the requirement that the government action must "substantially burden" the claimant's religious practice. Under the caselaw that has developed as to substantial burden, being offended at the government's use of religious language in a government ceremony would not qualify.
There is also the possibility that Newdow can't relitigate the matter now, because he had filed similar lawsuits over the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations; but I don't think this would bar the other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs might also lack standing to litigate this, but I doubt it, given that some of the plaintiffs claim they may be present at the inauguration. In any case, I leave those procedural questions aside here; people who are interested in them might want to read this decision about the 2005 inauguration.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Challenge To Inaugural Oath and Prayers Dismissed On Standing Grounds":
- Michael Newdow Sues Over Religious Speech at Inauguration:
Newdow needs to go away.
If Dr. Newdow really has his heart set on litigating this, then I think he should first get elected president, so standing would not be an issue. But then he (or Obama) could simply decline to ask God's help, couldn't he? He is out to stop the Chief Justice from asking Obama, whose father Newdow isn't, to utter those particular words as part of the oath. I think the proverbial snowball in Hell must have a much, much better chance than this particular litigant.
The long tradition argument is bogus because many things we have a long tradition of doing we at some point realized were unconstitutional. Prohibiting abortion for one thing.
The significantly burden argument is equally bogus. Objectively, having to swear on a bible is not a significant burden to anyone. It's just saying a bunch of words. Subjectively, it's pretty obvious that "under god" in a State ceremony could possibly offend Newdow's belief that government should not officially sanction such religious comments as much as swearing on a Bible offends others' beliefs that one should not swear.
When you learn that you've made a mistake, and you decide to keep doing it the same way, you've made yet another mistake.
Stare decisis is one thing when you're talking about rules of evidence, hearsay exceptions, or statutory interpretation. But just because we've been violating the Constitution for a really long time is no basis for affirming the continuation of such violation.
Imagine that argument being used (and it was) to justify Jim Crow and segregation at the time of the civil rights movement - we've always violated the constitutional rights of blacks, it's long national tradition, thus it's constitutionally permissible. The Constitutioni deserves better. To allow it to be violated merely because it's been violated a certain way for a really long time makes a mockery of the rule of law.
The Constitution states what the oath of office shall be, and the words "so help me god" are not in there. If the president wants to add it himself, I wouldn't be so vain as to said he significantly deviated from the official oath of office that his oath was not fulfilled. BUT - the person reading the oath to him, e.g. the Chief Justice of the United States, should not misread the official Oath of Office from the text of the Constitution and add, sua sponte, the phrase "so help me god" even if he knows ahead of time that the President-elect will add those words himself. Why can't we just follow the constitution when it comes to religion and drugs? It's not hard.
I'd like to see Obama NOT add the words "so help me god" and just read the oath of office as it was written by the framers. Sticking "god" on our money has not helped our economy, and Bush took the oath of office with the additional "god" wording, only to have his presidency turn out to be the worst in the history of America. Clearly sucking up to imaginary dieties doesn't work. Either that, or we're sucking up to the wrong god. As such, the only reason to add "god" to the oath of office, pledge of allegiance, and money is to placate shallow, naive, biggoted, selfish, intolerant, and just plain stupid religious people.
Rather, the longer the tradition, simply increases the likelihood that something is/was constitutional in the first place (at least, by any kind of originalist standard). (And citing undesirable results to prove a counter-point is never a valid argument because courts aren't the ones supposed to care about results in our system.)
This is why when new things are found to be speech, such as blogging, they are automatically protected by the first amendment.
The original intent of the "due process" clause was that any process that could be shown to actually be due one was entitled to. As standards of what process is due evolve, those new standards become protected.
This originalist standard is self-contradictory. The framers did not intend "free speech" to protect only those things they currently considered to be free speech. They did not intend "due process" to mean that process they considered due.
Similarly, the free exercise clause and establishment clauses don't prohibit what the framers felt was free exercise or would have felt was free exercise, but what in fact *is* free exercise. Because that's what a person means when he says "you have the right to free exercise". He means that if you can show something actually is free exericse, you then have the right to it.
Look, think of it as if it were someone defending a trademark. Big-business trademark defenders sometimes litigate absolutely headscratching-inducing cases because they know that if they relax and generously allow the "little guy" to infringe, they let themselves in for legal pain later. You can probably think of cases where companies have lost rights to trademarks for lack of proper defense.
Newdow seems to me to be doing something like the reverse. Instead of saying someone is taking his trademark, he's saying something analogous to, "the government is illegally forcing me to call my product [the government that I participate in and that purports to represent me] by someone else's trademark." He sees (correctly) the word "God" as belonging to the sphere of religion, and official prayers to God (correctly) as being the official practice of religion, and he fails to see how the official practice of religion can be reconciled with the legal principles of separation of religion and government.
I'm not a lawyer or law student (except for being a long-time reader of law blogs and legal cases) so I'm speaking with a layman's understanding here, but it does not seem as though I need to have legal training to understand that rulings that the sort of "official religion" that is indistinguishable from what Christians would do in the political situations in question is not the "church" that the "state" needs to stay away from endorsing.
"...it does not seem as though I need to have legal training to understand that the rulings (that the sort of "official religion" that is indistinguishable from what Christians would do in the political situations in question is not the "church" that the "state" needs to stay away from endorsing) may in fact be errors in need of correction."
What an idiot he is; He's such a terrible public face for atheism, you have to wonder if he's really a mole.
(2) I hope we never have to use at a national level the workaround my wife had to use when she served as a volunteer city police chaplain. At civic functions a chaplain had to introduce each prayer with something like this: "I'm about to pray a Christian (Jewish, Muslim) prayer. Please join me in praying however your tradition specifies." Clumsy but apparently necessary in our time.
Newdow came to my law school during his original suit and they had a forum or something for him. And he showed up in jeans and sneakers. I was impressed.
As long as an atheist could choose to affirm something ethically meaningful to them I don't have a problem with letting theists do the same. The key to me is understanding the oath/affirmation as the free speech of the speaker as an assurance to the nation.
At lower levels of government does anyone know of atheists being elected and choosing another form of oath/affirmation? I'd be interested to hear how it worked out.
I've never been a huge fan of political pageantry (the swim suit competition is usually horrific) but for some people it seems to be enjoyable. The oath always seems kind of pointless, someone who won't keep it won't worry about saying the oath and then doing what they want anyway.
To paraphrase Nixon: When the Framers do it, that means that it is not unconstitutional.
I have tremendous respect for Newdow, if for no other reason than he's putting himself in the line of fire for a good cause, making it likely that a "peace-loving, pro-life" religious person will assassinate him.
"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."
I realize you're joking, but there are people who argue that seriously. And it's 100% complete and utter nonsense. A guarantee of due process means that if you can show some process is due and you didn't get it, your rights were violated. It has nothing to do with what the framers did or might have considered due process.
Sorry I'm repeating myself, but this is perhaps the most important point I've ever tried to make in this forum.
Originalism is self-contradictory. The framers would not have said "due process means whatever process we happened to consider due at the time we wrote the Consitution". They would have said, "the due process clause entitles one to whatever process is in fact due".
This is a good point and obviously it should be made. But I am inclined to think it begs the more important question: Have we been violating the Constitution for a long time? The Founders apparently did not think that such things as oaths and chaplains violated the Constitution. Washington was, after all, the president of the Constitutional Convention. Why isn't his practice, and that of other members of the Founding Generation, precedential? It is not obviously unconstitutional. An argument can be made that it accords quite comfortably with the First Amendment, although another argument can also be made. The Founders, however, seemed to accept the argument that this practice is constitutional. Are court decisions the only government acts worthy of being respected as precedents?
consti
To argue from tradition or framer's intent is stupid. The framers wrote the oath, without any reference to any religion's diety. Original intent was to have the oath not contain "God".
Absolutely. And if we don't take steps to chill public displays of religion now, there's no telling what kind of insane religious notions will get perpetrated on us by these raving over-the-top right wing Christianists like...
Oh, wait a minute. That was my rant for if McCain-Palin got elected and Newdow sued. Sorry, I don't have anything prepared for Barack Obama, much less Obama inviting Rick Warren to play Chaplain-for-a-Day. Um, I suppose I support the hell out of it and think we should have a lot more of it.
Then why did they include the wording in the Constitution without any refence to a diety?
If the wording of the oath was not in the Constitution, then all these arguments about what Adams did, or Monroe, or tradition, might make sense. But the oath is in there, and the Chief Justice is adding in religious speech that the framers never intended. What else can the chief justice change?
The fact that the framers included "swear (or affirm)", says to me they were going out of their way to make it religion neutral; since some religions of the day had a proscription against swearing.
You are spot on. In this case, not only can one find a long tradition of asking for God's blessing, the tradition spans the entire history of the nation from the Declaration to the present day. That the tradition was continued even in legislative acts seeking to forbid governmental establishments of religion ought to inform a reasonable person that it does not violate the constitution.
Would Mr Newdou argue with a straight face that Jefferson's Virgina Act For Religious Freedom, which ensured religious freedom and forbade the establishment of religion, is itself a violation of the Establishment Clause because it states that almighty God is the source of our rights? Would he argue that Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is likewise unconstitutional because it states "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence" ? If Jefferson is not to be relied on for the meaning of the establishment clause, what then of the "Wall of Separation" doctrine?
We should deny his right to petition AND to play in any reindeer games!
Which would seem to require doing away with all oaths, given that oaths are by definition an invocation of G-d, whether or not named in the oath. Instead, we have a lawsuit to prevent someone adding 4 words that make the nature of the oath more specific.
Yep, letting someone say the word "G-d" while taking the oath of office breaks your bones and picks your pocket, and if Jefferson had thougt harder about it, the First Amendment would have clarified that such a thing constitutes an establishment of religion.
Folks, this stuff just satirizes itself.
But there is no such thing as benign expression of science.
Good thing Newdow picked his battles.
People sarcastically complain about "Obamamessiah," but most of these same people seem completely happy for Presidents in general to put on a show invoking God's blessings and insight into what is supposed to be a job that we the people hired them to do. Which, last time I checked, did not involve us electing a laity, given that we already have the power to choose our own.
Eugene, do you find these arguments to be generally persuasive or helpful?
That decision was the begining of the end for America.
I take it you're not being sarcastic. Would you care to explain this? Do you mean that-
a- The founder meant for the exceptions clause to allow for this to happen?
b- The judiciary act was written properly (being written by the Founders and all)?
c- The Founders never meant for their to be judicial review?
Point well made. Stated otherwise, a "long tradition" (particularly one that began with the Founding Generation) is an argument that a particular practice is not a constitutional violation.
Thales:
Nobody is arguing that early Congresses were "incapable of acting unconstitutionally." It is fallacious to argue that everything the Founding Generation did must have been either constitutional or unconstitutional. In fact, some of the things they did were quite constitutional and some were pretty clearly unconstitutional. A strong argument can be made that the Alien and Sedition Act violated the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment. Just that argument was made at the time, by Jefferson and others. The Alien and Sedition Act was, for starters, an "act of Congress." What "act of Congress" is implicated when the chief justice and the president-elect add the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath? Further, the Alien and Sedition Act did not become a "long tradition," but was widely reviled and repealed after a short span.
You miss the point of why some religions had a proscription against swearing. In the 18th century, to "swear" an "oath" was to invoke God. That's what swearing an oath meant, and what makes the difference between "swear" and "affirm."
The fact that the Constitution included "swear" and not just "affirm" takes some force from the argument that a constitutional oath must be strictly non-religious. In historical context, a non-religious oath was an oxymoron.
I don't blame you though, it's not your fault. Just like with being homosexual, being religious is not a choice. You're born that way. Both religion and homosexuality are mental disorders. Hopefully one day scientists will find cures for both conditions, though the only danger in being a homosexual is from people who are religious, ironically enough. But just because one mental disorder affects 95% of the population doesn't mean we should violate the constitution to appease them since only 5% of the population will be bothered. We're not a democracy, we're a republic. Majority does not rule - the framers were very clear that pure democracy, where 51% of the plebiscite always gets its way, is a horrible evil and this country was never set up to be such a system. Read Federalist 10 for starters.
Jefferson wrote in a letter to Reverend Samuel Miller on January 23, 1808, in response to Miller's proposal that he "recommend" a national day of fasting and prayer: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. ...But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."[3] [4]
Where did I discuss this? I was talking about the Marsh v. Chambers decision.
My understanding is that the idea of the judiciary as the final arbiter of Constitutionality was a surprise to Jefferson et al.
The original expectation was that each branch would independently obey the Constitution co-equally, with no branch seen as more competent in that office than any other. Hence the "least dangerous branch" of Hamilton.
Then Chief Justice Marshall comes along and re-aligns the whole shooting match.]
What a bargain. I come to VC to learn something about the law and am treated to profound psychiatric insights along the way. And all at no extra charge.
Thales replied:
Apparently forgetting that he had just written:
[. . . Then Chief Justice Marshall comes along and re-aligns the whole shooting match.]
Not according to Philip Hamburger.
I'm discussing the merits of a style of argument in constitutional law, one made in Marsh v. Chambers and mentioned in Eugene's post. I haven't forgotten anything and I don't understand why you think I have.
would you like a napkin to wipe the froth off your mouth?
Eek! Can you imagine the uproar. Talk radio would have a field day! It would prove the suspicion / contention that Big O is NOT an American.
Personally I could care less if the Prez says it or not. But, if memory swerves (which it does often) the "So help me God" bit in the swearing in was added by Mr. George Washington himself, so Newdow is going up against the man.
When the Constitution was written and ratified, only one man was seriously considered "the guy" that would be President, G-Wash, based on the accepted judgment that, of all the revolutionaries, he was the most virtuous and respected of them all.
Here is another unconstitutional bit that someone should sue over. The function of the senior staff as a cabinet or counsel for the President was all Washington. The Constitutional Convention apparently rejected the formal creation of just such a body. So should that also be done away with?
I'm definitely not a lawyer (do I get the "understatement of the year" award?) but I don't see how Newdow's complaint would stand since the phrase is not actually required by law, and is voluntary.
PS.
Sarcastro, that was very Jeffersonian of you. He HATED Marbury. But, TTBOMK, he did not try to advance an amendment to try and undo judicial review.
When you discuss Congress and, after I include a reference to an act of Congress in my reply, ask "where did I discuss this," the thought just oozes up. Let's not get into a "you said this," "no I didn't" argument. It bores the hell out of me, and other posters, too. If anybody has the slightest interest in what you or I said, there is a clear black and white record they can refer to above.
*whew* feels good to get that off my chest.
The arguments in this forum on the lines of "everyone knows religion is evil, therefore it must be stopped, therefore the framers must have intended to stop it, and if they didn't reasonable people ought to interpret their words to imply they did anyway" pretty mush summarizes (not satirizes, unfortunately, but summarizes) Newdow's argument. Of course the Framers intended no such thing. It's not unreasonable to point out the long history, beginning with the Framers, indicating this.
The Establishment Clause was, as Brennan himself pointed out in his classic argument against originalism, was a compromise between religious liberals and conservatives that was intended to simultaneously protect religious establishments from the Newdows of this world and to safeguard rights individual religious practice, by combining an Establishment Clause which actually protected state religious establishments from liberals in the Federal government by prohibiting Congress from abolishing or tampering with them, and a Free Exercise intended to provide a measure of protection to individuals from government — but only to the extent that public displays of religiousity interfere with an individual's own religious practice. And simply being offended by other people's beliefs wasn't intended to qualify as interference.
The elephant in the room about all this is that the replacement of O'Conner with Alito, who has a long history as a lower-court judge of construing Supreme Court precedents in favor of religious practice, may well mean that a 5-4 majority on religion issues, with O'Conner as the focal point, that has managed to exist on the Supreme Court four more than 2 decades may well be replaced with a new 5-4 majority going substantially the other way. The Allegheny County case of 2 decades ago is a particular example: O'Conner supported a bare 5-member majority who gave Marsh v. Chambers its present narrow reading.
This case won't reach the Supreme Court for the simple reason that all the issues have been litigated to death many times before and upheld under the O'Conner reading of Marsh, and nothing is happening worth the Supreme Court's time. But people who want to file these types of lawsuits should be aware we're likely on the cusp of a new 5-member conservative majority, and a new regime on religion issues willing to give a much more expansive view of Marsh — basically a general rule that public displays of religiosity that are ecumenical within the "Judeo-Christian tradition" don't violate the Establishment clause if no-one is coerced into worshipping because of a long general tradition of such displays, to replace the existing case-by-case regime where defenders of each specific kind of public religious display have to show a specific tradition of such displays in each specific context.
This is kind of off topic, but Jefferson did expect the courts to enforce the boundaries of the Constitution, whenever it was in his interest. For example, on March 15, 1789, he wrote to Madison and said, “In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, and kept strictly to their own department, merits great confidence for their learning and integrity.” He also supported a constitutional challenge to the taxing power (Ware v. Hylton). When the Court opted for a broad construction of the N&P clause (McCulloch), Jefferson complained that it failed thereby to restrict Congress to its Constitutional limits. He also, as you said, took the position that the President could judge constitutionality just as the Court could (and as Congress could). In short, he was all over the map.
The good thing is, you don't need to rely on memory. Prof. Volokh helpfully provided a link to that dispute in the post.
Didn't the court dismiss that because they determined Newdow didn't have standing, and was not the legal guardian of his daughter? I don't think they made comment on strong secular meaning or nay other facet of the case.
No?
Then why should atheists have standing to tell believers to shut up in public?
We have something in this country called "majority rule," which means that if you are not in the majority, and you are not being materially harmed, etc., that you have to grin and bear what the majority decides to do. I have no problem with this principle, even though I am usually in the minority. Why don't crybabies like Newdow grow up?
Newdow is not suing over the President-elect saying it. His point is that the Chief Justice is saying it. Since the Chief Justice is doing the work of the government at the ceremony, he shouldn't be adding his personal religious views to the text.
Beyond the Inauguration, there are many Federal jobs and many need an oath. Are the officials at these oaths also adding the religious baggage? Isn't every recruit in the military and every immigrant required to say an oath, is "God" included? Then we get back to the Pledge of Allegiance, which is where Newdow comes from.
Actually, I believe the SCOTUS determined Newdow did not have standing and thus dismised the case. The idea that they decided the case based on tradition is wrong afaik.
What I did not discuss was the situation "when the chief justice and the president-elect add the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath." That is the "this" I referred to. I never claimed that such individual speech would be an act of Congress in my discussion of Marsh, since I didn't discuss such speech at all.
I find the former to be more instructive.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
- Thomas Jefferson
Similar quotes can be found by Franklin, Madison, and other framers of the Constitution. And spare me the "all of the framers were devout christians and those quotes are taken out of context" crap. You may wish they were taken out of context, and you may wish the Constitution was written by a coven of born again evangelical Christians, but that doesn't make it so.
Meanwhile Scalia and Thomas disagree, despite calling themselves "originalists"....
No? Then what is the difference between an "oath" and an "affirmation"? Some contemporary dictionaries might shed a little light on the question:
Webster's 1817 Dictionary:
oath: A solemn affirmation, with an appeal to God for its truth
Royal Standard English Dictionary, 1788 (published in America):
oath: solemn appeal to heaven
Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson, 1799:
oath - an affirmation, negation, or promise, corroborated by the attestation of the Divine Being.
There you have it. The difference between an "oath" and an "affirmation" is that the former is "corroborated by the attestation of the Divine Being." When you swear an oath, you are acknowledging that God is your witness and will hold you accountable for the truth of your declaration. At least, that is how it was understood in the late 18th century.
I believe their general quality as a compromise, where one side does not take all and each side manages to live with the other despite their differences, remains highly relevant today. We are just as divided now as we were then. Trying to read these clauses as embodying and authorizing ones own personal views is a natural human tendency, but it doesn't get at what the framers were really going for.
We might today want a somewhat different compromise than the Framers did. But the idea of a negotiated compromise, where different sides talk to each other, give a little, and reach a modus viviendi that neither is really happy with but nonetheless manages to imperfectly work, is better than a regime where a small number of authority figures overrepresented a limited class of society claim to embody the country's ideals and make rigid decisions based on their view of them.
We have only to look at overseas to Turkey to see what such a way of doing things can lead to. The Framers did not intend us to be like Turkey. They intended a more flexible society where new views through considered dialogue among a broader segment of society was possible. They did not intend to create a set of dogmas overseen by a set of moral guardians, except in unusual cases that all parties had agreed to -- they never intended the agreements reached to be thought of as interpretable to cover all difficult social questions and all aspects of life, but only limited to specific circumstances.
They also intended a society much more tolerant of religion than Turkey now is.
Yeah, it would help if I read the entire post!
Still, the talkers would use that regardless of the debate or the historical accuracy.
His pleasant compromise between the extremes of religious and anti-religious crusades, recognizing that religion has both much good and much imperfection in it, as all things, continues to strike me as preferable to the other alternatives.
Just rejoined. Darned headache and stuffy nose. Anyway . . .
1. Glad to see I can tell when you're not being sarcastic. Bracket would be more helpful.
2. For once I'm not going to threadjack. So my final word on this is the following- while your statement (that the three branches would interpret the Const.) it does not logically follow that the Court should not strike down unconstitutional legislation. I think there is ample historical precedent for this; while it is clear that Marshall got to the result he wanted to by a creative reading, I think the power he invoked was not very controversial and there was no move to restrict the Court's power (cf. Chisolm). The interpretation follows mainly within the sphere of the article (final arbiter over Art. I = Congress, Art. II = Executive etc.) and that each branch should judge constitutionality as it sees fit (the Exec. should veto legis. he sees as uncons.). Checks and balances, yada yada yada.
I don't have access to the dictionaries listed above, but, in a modern dictionary, you will find three or four definitions given for a word. Would this also be true for the examples listed above? Are there more than one definition of the term "oath' in these books?
The full text of all of those dictionaries is available via Google Books. So you can double-check me, but my recollection is that the definitions I provided were the only definitions of "oath" given in each of the dictionaries.
I guess Mikey has never heard of Abraham Lincoln. "An attorney who represents himself has . . ."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
- Thomas Jefferson
And this one might be: "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
Jefferson actually took a more nuanced position. I think he did believe all religions had "fable" and "mythological" elements to them (he would term them "corruptions"), but that they all also, at heart taught the same truth as Christianity, and consequently were "good."
1) thought of themselves as "Christians,"
2) but rejected the fundamentals of Christianity as taught by the orthodox (i.e., who are today represented by groups like evangelicals, fundamentalists, and devout Roman Catholics who come together on Christianity's historic understanding of orthodoxy, i.e., the Nicene Creed) who really wouldn't consider their system, if they understood what the Founding Fathers really believed, "Christianity," and
3) thought "religion" in general was a good thing, that all religions taught at heart the same truth. They tended to see "religion" in general in light of what was useful, rational, i.e., that which promoted republican virtue, and cast off those central tenets of strict orthodoxy that made each religion (especially Christianity) a "narrow path." So they rejected things like one must accept Christ to be saved, that Christianity is true, other religions are false, that Christ is the only way to God. But they embraced the notion that society should be "religious in general" because a religious citizenry is preferable to an irreligious one. Here's a quotation of Jefferson's that I think perfectly captures this sentiment (and this isn't, I would argue, Jefferson's position only, but J. Adams, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton would agree with the following 100%):
That said, I have no problem with "So help me God" as (a)it's not a part of the official oath and (b) the President choosing to say it is not an attempt to establish a State religion.
"Under God" in the Pledge is a different matter. The placement of those two words clearly says that the the Judeo Christian faith is the religion of the USA. THAT amounts to an attempt at establishment and is thus unconstitutional.
I have never read a reasonable explanation as to why these two, seemingly innocuous words aren't unconstitutional.
Gee, Thales, did you happen to notice that this is precisely what this thread is about?
Eugene Volokh:
Forgive me if I thought you were discussing the same subject as the rest of us. Just for laughs, what subject is it that you are discussing?
In any event, I think these cases are important because it gives the court a chance to more clearly define their interpretation of the law. Regardless of the out come, as least some portion of this empassioned debate will be settled and the divisive debate might lesson a bit.
Nobody has a problem with that part, not even Newdow. It is the Chief Justice saying it, that is the problem.
"Nobody has a problem with that part [Obama saying the words], not even Newdow. It is the Chief Justice saying it, that is the problem."
Back to my earlier pearl of wisdom, which no other commenter picked up on: The Chief Justice will act only as a prompter. If the new President chose to add "so help me Krishna" or anything else, the Chief Justice would simply help him through the form of the oath he previously chose.
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that this is a wedding vow or something that Obama writes for himself. There is specific language in the Constitution that the Chief Justice has to say. All Obama has to do is agree. If you want the oath to include a reference to god, then amend the constitution.
What I find funny is that all of Prof. Volokh's post is about case history and never even mentions that the oath is specified in the constitution.
"Forgive me if I thought you were discussing the same subject as the rest of us. Just for laughs, what subject is it that you are discussing?"
Basic reading comprehension skills indicate that I wrote about (and criticized) the rationale of Marsh v. Chambers, which was only part of EV's original post (and thus topical). I did not apply the Marsh case to Newdow's lawsuit (as EV did) or take a position on Newdow's lawsuit or whether there is an act of Congress involved in the taking or administration of the presidential oath.
It would be nice if we could all, as a general matter, be a little more charitable in our interpretation of others' words and not assume they are being evasive or making bad faith arguments.
Legally, what is the difference between swear an oath like "SHMG" and prayer at a football game between two public schools, which was deemed to be unconstitutional?
Don't feel too badly, though; I have encountered similar attitudes among those who profess a belief in G-d but don't see why they should let such a belief inconvenience them or shape their actions.
Still chuckling, though, over your claim that atheists are so much more tolerant than religious folk. Thanks again for the good laugh; I needed it.
Not all of the founding fathers (aka the Dead White Guys) shared the same faith. Jefferson's faith was not even close to Franklin's, and Washington's faith was pretty much anathema to the freethinker Thomas Paine.
Atheists who need to take an oath have the option of saying "I affirm." The religious "So help me God" is always optional.
The President's oath is the only one enshrined in the Constitution, and the chief justice will consult with the president-elect before the inauguration to settle what form of the oath will be used. The Vice-President swears the same oath that every other Federal civilian employee takes. Defending the Constitution is the only non-negotiable phrase in either oath.
I have taken that oath more than once in my life, and I will live and die by it. Newdow can bite me.
It would be nice if we could discuss the topic at hand without denying we are discussing it, and without accusing others of assuming that we are being evasive or making bad faith arguments when they simply assume that we are discussing it--as, in fact, of course, we are.
There's a big difference. And because Justice Kennedy has regularly voted both for upholding religion displays and striking down school prayer actions, Kennedy will likely ensure the distinction will be maintained and may well be the person who articulates the reasoning for the difference.
The basic difference, as I understand Justice Kennedy's view, is that adults shouldn't be expected to feel particularly coerced by a religious display in a general situation, and the fact that the display is on public as opposed to private land doesn't really change how it actually affects people. However, in a school situation (and a prison situation, which also gets special Religion Clause jurisprudence) people are being coerced into attending. In addition, children (and prisoners) are particularly vulnerable and susceptible to the state's message in a way ordinary adults aren't, in part because children are children but also because the state judges them on their conduct and their futures depend on its judgement.
Because I believe Kennedy will likely be the 5th vote of any new 5-vote majority, I believe he will likely become the new swing vote a la O'Conner, and hence his lines and disinctions will likely become the Court's new lines and distinctions on this issue.
"They told me if I voted for Sarah Palin, America would become a theocracy. I did, and it has."
Paine was the strict Deist outlier. I disagree that Jefferson's faith differed from Franklin's or Washington's in any meaningful sense. They were agreed on the theological basics. They all believed in an active personal God (hence were not strict deists); none seemed to have any personal regard for orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. All believed that the purpose of religion was to make men moral (not necessarily to lead men to Christ), and that men were saved through their good works as opposed to grace.
It further seems reasonable to conclude that precedent has already established that that this particular act is an insufficiently significant violation.
Further, much as I personally would be happy for this case to succeed, and I do, in fact, feel alienated in a society where LB Colorado can scream in all caps that if I don't invite "Him in your life" then "without god, there are people like you," implication fairly obvious: "out of your mind." It's not a stretch that Newdow's claim of burden is legitimate. The problem is whether it is substantial enough.
LBColorado may be a nasty, narrow minded person, but his apparent small mindedness isn't burdening me enough to sue him.
As a parent, if your lovesick teenager writes the name of some teen idol all over the walls of your house, would you accept that your objections are "silly"?
Someone who recognizes god as a fairy tale is perfectly right to object having our political leaders spout their dependence on him. I hired Obama to do the job, not some skyfairy, and if Obama thinks he can't do the job without "Him", then he should just step down.
*********
an·ti·no·mi·an·ism (ăn'tĭ-nō'mē-ə-nĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.
1. Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
*********
I know people that believe in the above. Does anyone find it comforting? I think that the existence of such an idea provides plenty of justification for the efforts of non-believers to rid our political discourse of any reliance upon religion or it's doctrines. People can split legal hairs all they like, the legal system of this country was designed to provide equal freedoms and equal rule of law for all people. As soon as religious dogma enters the equation all bets are off for everyone except the group who get to interpret the dogma.
Grow up people, that's just wrong.
I did not realize that this country was so divided because of religion. In my eyes, this "God" issue has been so thrown around with total disregard to all religions. The Pledge of Allegiance, for instance, has never been scrutinized until a few years back. By taking away "Under God" we punish those who are believers. If we leave it as is, then we punish those who are not believers. Why not just leave it as is and have the option whether or not to say it? Same thing goes for this inaugural speach. If the president is religious, then the option to say "so help you God?" should be theirs to make. Especially since it is their swear-in, not the people's. When an atheist is elected president, let them decided at that time not to say it. Don't sit here and tell me Newdow's efforts are for the best. They really aren't because all he is doing is looking out for the atheist group and no one else. It's people like this that have to find fault with anything and everything. It's people like this that will never allow our country to be united. Compromise is the only answer.
Yes, indeedy, without g-d, you get fine folks like us atheists.
"TAKE GOD OUT AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE?"
Well, first, you might get a country that doesn't fill up it's prisons with the flower of it's youth who choose to replace that life destroying toxin alchohol with a harmless weed.
Next, you might get a country that can do important life-saving medical research without running afoul of ridiculous ideas like a few stem cells having a "soul".
Then, you could maybe get a country that is both properly informed and equipped to prevent sexually transmitted disease.
Oh, and then you could maybe have people able to make sensible decisions about parenthood, and population control.
Gosh, we could maybe even have a society in which there are no riots in our streets over non-issues like sexual orientation.
Yeah, we could have all kinds of good things, if we'd just "TAKE GOD OUT".
Alternatively, we could leave g-d in, and keep the caps-locking trolls.
As it is Christianity murdered the Great Greco-Roman civilization and Islam ruined half the oriental beliefs based on intolerant monotheism. Now after 200 years since the smart people founded a state separate from the Church, the citizens of America want to ruin their own future by endorsing the Church/Religion.. that is the biggest blasphemy against your motherland folks...
If at all someone should swear an oath it should be the American Constitution and not consider anything greater than that! Read what Jefferson, Franklin or Washington wrote and read, you dont see them taking blessings from pontiffs, ministers or priests !!! Why do you want the new president to ?
The suit is not to prohibit Obama from ending with "So help me God" it is to stop the Chief Justice from adding it.
The difference is subtle, but important. If Obama were to add it on his own, then that would be an expression of his faith which I would support.
However, when the Chief Justice makes it a part of the offial oath (which it is not), that is saying that the power of the President is via the grace of the Judeo Christian God, not the choices of the People.
That idea, which was part of the justification of the monarchy, is what the founders were trying to get away from.
Keep God in your heart, let the bible's teachings guide your life, celebrate your faith, but keep it out of the official government policies and oaths.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
There is an excellent article in the NYTimes that discusses the long evolution of the idea of "separation of church and state". You'll be surprised to learn that the idea did not originate here. You won't be surprised to learn what a struggle that idea had in taking root, but you should see that by the time it really did take hold everyone was so tired of and disillusioned by the interminable fighting over religious dogma that it was recognized as the only true way forward for society.
See: The Politics of God
It's a sad irony that the separation of church and state has allowed religion to flourish unchallenged for so long now that believers have by and large forgotten the wars and injustices that resulted from mixing the two. We atheists feel a strong responsibility to point that out. You believers may not like hearing that "it's for your own good", but that doesn't make it not true.
Seriously, before harboring ridiculous ideas like throwing people out of their own country for disagreeing with you, how about learning what has happened to societies in the past that failed to separate fairy tales from real and practical ways in which communities can interact?
" I don't believe humans can be left alone to do what is RIGHT..... "
Apparently you also lack the faith to be a human, because those of us without your kind of faith have been doing just fine without it for a very long time.
yea. but then their just substituting one god for another. i'd rather worship god than hockey.
What about the people that have stood on their faith and have soured above and beyond anything they could have imagined. What about the freedom that you have to even say what you say - it is what we (Christians) call FREE WILL. In the world that we live in right now, I don't know how you even get up in the morning - to live in a world without hope that when you (man) has done all it knows - what then? I know you will no doubt flip out on this comment, but what can I say - it is what it is and I guess we will just have to wait and see.
then maybe the founders should have seen fit to INCLUDE "the seperation of church and state" in the actual constitution. it aint there.
similarly, there is no "right to privacy" mentioned. my STATE constitution recognizes one, but pretending it exists in the federal constitution does not make it so.
if "the seperation of church and state" was recognized as "the only true way forward for society, then why was it not mentioned in the constitution?
and fwiw, our society has done pretty frigging well so far.
you are seriously claiming the religion has flourished "unchallenged?"
are you kidding me? there are plenty of challenges to religion (broadly) and to various religions in the media, books, public speakers, court actions, etc. yet, it continues to flourish in the freest nation on earth. maybe that's a coincidence, maybe not.
the claim that religion has flourished unchallenged is simply not supported by evidence. the first part is correct. it has flourished. the unchallenged part is the one that makes no sense.
how many decades ago did Time magazine for pete's sake have their god/dead cover?
there is more freedom to challenge religion, and religious dogma in this country than any country i am aware of (many country's "hate speech" laws make it problematic to get really nasty and hateful towards religion, but it's easily done here - see Piss Christ or any # of other examples).
for pete's sake, who is stopping you, or anybody else from challenging religion? nobody.
challenge, for example, islam in england and you run afoul of the law (the example of the person proselytizing in a majority muslim neighborhood being hassled by the cops for instance).
you are free to challenge religion as much as you want in this country. but despite the challenges, we remain a nation of believers.
all your disparaging language aside "fairy tales" etc., your premise is simply bogus. nobody's freedom to challenge religion is suppressed in this country. heck, in many quarters it's "worshipped" as "edgy", when in fact it's quite easy to challenge christianity, especially. challenges to religion are met with opposing speech, which is what the first amendment is REALLY about - the right of opposing viewpoints to state their case.
you just seem to be whining that despite all the challenging of religion, this nation remains overwhelmingly a nation of believers, who CHOOSE to believe. choice. it's what's for dinner
But this is a very silly lawsuit, which appears to be an attempt to get attention rather than accomplish anything.
So how about this compromise: The Chief Justice can prompt Obama to say "So help me God," but we dock the Chief's pay for the two seconds it takes him to do so. Then, it's just John Roberts doing the prompting, as a private citizen, and there's no constitutional issue.
If we have a president who does not want God's help - what kind of a president would he be? Chief Justice, Commander and Chief blah blah blah - GOD IS IN CONTROL LIKE IT OR NOT.
oh, and nobody has forgotten this stuff. hollywood, the media, and self-righteous types point this claim out constantly.
what they fail to point out very frequently is that in the 20th century, the first century where there were plenty of examples of officially atheist regimes (most were communist, and religion was viewed as an enemy of the state and in many cases forbidden by law), we saw no shortage of mass pogroms, imprisonment, forced starvation, and murder committed by atheist regimes, in many cases against religious people BECAUSE of their beliefs and all in the cause of forwarding (godless) communism.
the majority of govt. sponsored murder (especially of its own citizens) in the last century was not done because of "the mixing the two" but was done by officially and militantly atheist regimes.
now you can argue that it wasn't the atheist aspect of these regimes that caused them to be murderous scum. but then the same argument could be made about religious regimes, in that man will find an excuse to subjugate, invade, oppress, murder, rape, enslave, etc. and since most people and regimes WERE religious prior to the 20th century, it's natural that this would be the excuse.
atheism did not stop pol pot, stalin, etc. from doing bad stuff.
so blaming religion for the bad things men do is pretty absurd.
Hey, if Obama wants God's help, that's fine. Just as long as Obama doesn't think that the answers he comes up with are actually God's answers.
But Obama can decide for himself whether to ask for God's help. It is not appropriate for the Chief Justice to prompt him to do so.
And if God is in control like it or not, then I don't see how the Chief Justice's prompting or Obama's asking are going to make a difference anyway.
Unfortunately superstition(religion) trumps the United States constitution. I am a confirmed agnostic. I believe in a creator but am not so sure it/she/he can be called 'God'. However, if I ever meet my creator and she/he/it is praiseworthy, then I'll decide whether or not I will worship. Till then, I heap scorn and ridicule on all religious fools. Which of these idiots has one infinitesimal proof that the creator is good and worthy of worship? I want to vomit when they so hypocritically worship their god and disregard all other people.
Wish I had been the Roman guard on duty when jesus christ was crucified - I would have made this sorry cult leader regret the day he started to deceive humanity. He was a common Jew who fooled the world and continues to do so until this day.
i do not doubt for a second that there are plenty of non-hateful, tolerant atheists and agnostics. it's just that threads like this just bring out the extremists.
it makes clear the point that hate, intolerance, self-satisfied smugness, and self-righteousness etc. can be present in non-believers as well.
in fact, those things seem to be largely independant of religious belief or lack thereof.
Even if you are not a believer, spilling out words of encouragement are uplifting to humans. So WORDS do matter.
courtesy of the violent femmes "add it up":
Words to memorize, words hypnotize
Words make my mouth exercise.
Words all fail the magic prize
Nothing I can say when I'm in your thighs
Oh my my my my my mo my mother
I would love to love you lover
City's restless
It's ready to pounce
Here in your bed from ounce to ounce
Sayin' oh my my my my my mo my mother
I would love to love you lover
The city's restless
It's ready to pounce
Here in your bed from ounce to ounce
I've given you a decision to make
Things to lose, things to take
Just as she's about ready to cut it up
She says
Wait a minute honey I'm gonna add it up
Now you demonstrate your poor command of the english language. That, or that you simply haven't read the Constitution. A bad move for someone who wants to argue about it.
It is there, just not embodied in that particular phrase. The phrase itself came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the "Danbury Baptists", in which he reassures them that the 4th amendment specifically provided a "wall of separation" protecting them from government interference in the practice of their religion.
Your post demonstrated that you can't be bothered to look at provided references, but here's one anyway, in case someone else is interested in dispelling ignorance.
Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter
I never said anything about "right to privacy" but thanks for making for me the point that your state's constitution recognizes that not all of the "inalienable rights" of men are spelled out in so many words in the Federal Constitution, and that it's nonetheless worthwhile to recognize them.
You have a pretty shallow notion of what constitutes "challenge". I would say that my characterization of your imaginary friend as a "fairy tale" hardly makes the cut.
That is the natural result of that built-in separation of church and state you are trying to deny. And thank goodness for it.
You got me there. No one finds it easier than me to challenge the blind assumptions of religious dogma of all kinds, not just yours.
As to your notion of believers and choice, how much of a choice is it, really, when generations of deluded people train their kids that Santa Claus won't come if they don't believe in Baby Jesus? By the time they learn the truth, that Santa never really does come, it's too late apparently for many to recognize the other truth. That Jesus is never coming back either, for reasons that are obvious to the non-deluded.
Call it whining if you like, but I don't plan to stop pointing out the fallacy of depending on a supernatural being to make a difference in the real world.
First, how many of you actually know Michael?
Well, I live in Elk Grove CA where he filed his suit against the school district. I have spoken to him and conversed by email several times. My opinion is he is a literate, caring person who is dedicated to a cause he firmly believes in. (is that wrong?)
For posters to this blog to throw insults at him and calls for denying him HIS constitutional right because one disagrees with him is simply childish.
Second, I take issue with religion being benign. Every time I hear how harmless religion is, I think of September 11. On that day thousands of Americans were murdered by religions people trying to impose their beliefs on others.
Also worth considering is the Catholic Church's Spanish Inquisition.
I am sorry (to those who cannot accept a different opinion) but I cannot accept that morality comes from religion. I feel, rather that religion is basis of intolerence and hatred.
i'm well aware of where the phrase comes from . the point stands. it isn't IN THE CONSTITUTION.
nothing you said disputes that. there are all kinds of phrases and statements about speech, religion, gun rights, etc. in letters and correspondence that did not make their way into the constitution.
point stands.
hth
not at all. it would be groovy if there WAS a right to privacy in the federal constitution. but there isn't. there is a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. all the judicial activism aside, those are NOT the same things.
we are free to amend the constitution to include a "right to privacy". that's how it works in a country where rule of law matters.
LEO's in my state are thus much more restricted in search and seizure BECAUSE our state occupants enjoy a right to privacy. but it doesn't EXIST in the federal const.
it is not ok to pretend that there is a right to privacy in the federal const. any more than it is ok to pretend there is a "seperation of church and state" in the constitution.
neither is true.
point stands.
hth
your hubris aside, believe it or not, there are plenty of OTHER people who have challenged religion besides yourself.
some , like christopher hitchens and dawkins do a pretty decent job.
i'm not "trying to deny" it. i'm telling you it is NOT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
feel free to attempt to amend the constitution to include such a concept. but it isn't there.
don't assume. you are assuming i have a religious dogma. iow, you are assuming *i* am a theist.
which is an unsupported assumption.
i can argue these points independant of a belief in god or a disbelief. i have never stated i believe in god. the fact that you cannot seperate an argument for religious freedom from a belief in god shows yer prejudice.
assuming jesus even existed in the first place (the historical record is spotty, your post is just as "faith based" as a believers would be.
iow, you KNOW it's "obvious" and "the truth" that jesus is never coming back.
when in fact, you have no way of knowing this, except through a religious belief.
how ironic, alanis
a literate caring person who used his child (whom he did not have primary custody and thus standign was the issue in the previous case iirc) as a pawn to forward his political agenda?
iow, using your child as a pawn to forward a political agenda is not a sign of a "caring person". it's a sign of a selfish person.
it is certainly common to be a-religous (atheist, agnostic, etc.) and be moral.
otoh, arguing that religion is the basis of intolerance and hatred is absurd.
was stalin intolerant and hateful? how about Mao? pol pot?
none of these people needed religion to be intolerant or hateful.
the argument that religion is the BASIS for intolerance and hatred is absurd. there are plenty of tolerant loving people who are religious, and plenty who aren't.
it is clearly neither sufficient nor necessary for hatred and intolerance to exist.
i was not aware the USSR was tolerant and non-hateful.
after all, it was an atheist regime, but did quite well at murder, imprisonment, etc. without that pesky religion to guide it.
1) stop saying "we". you most definitely do not speak for all atheists. claiming to know what "we" atheists stand for is incredibly arrogant and imprecise. all atheists do not stand for the same thing, have the same goals, or have the same opinion about this lawsuit, or about case law and religion in general.
2) i wasn't aware that lawsuits were good at "breaking mind-sets".
and if seperation of church and state is what;s needed, then fight to amend the constitution to include a requirement for seperation of church and state. that would actually be relying on rule of law. novel concept that.
Please don't feed the trolls. These people are not idiots or fools. They are our countrymen, however much they have bought into the force fed delusions of their parents and their parents before them.
It's one thing to snicker at them for folding their hands and talking to themselves when they get nervous, and to resist their efforts to make us join them.
It's quite another thing to say stuff like:
That just justifies them in their contention that we are hateful.
And besides, on the whole, I consider that if even half of what we know about Jesus is true, he was probably a pretty cool guy. If only he had not bound his worthwhile message up with a bunch of nonsense about heavenly gates that we might make it to one day....
again, what's this "we" crap.
SOME atheists are hateful. some aren't. some theists are. some aren't.
fwiw, i'm more concerned with who is RIGHT than who is "hateful".
when people state their personal beliefs as representative of all of a group, it irks me.
i've seen a lot of that in the whole obama/warran brouhaha where some people attempt to speak for "the gay" on this issue as if their viewpoint about warren is the viewpoint of all "the gay", which is absurd.
so, cheers
I'm beginning to think that you are more concerned about proving yourself right, than you are about getting anywhere with this discussion. If you can not recognize that the same thing can be said in more than one way - IE: the 4th amendment, and the phrase "separation of church and state" - then it seems that the use of language cannot dissuade your opinion. Words apparently mean only what you intend them to mean. Which, it's fair to say, constitutes a brand of "religious dogma" whether you are a theist or not.
The "we crap" is intended to signal my intention to move the discussion from the individual to the group. To refer to ONE person as hateful as a result of his own actions is free speech. To characterize a GROUP of people as hateful as a result of the actions of an individual is bigotry. You appear to be intelligent enough to have worked that much out for yourself. Have you also considered why you seem to be so reluctant to be included in anyone else's group?
If you have a goal here, other than to be contentious, I, for one, would appreciate your simply stating it.
except it's not the same thing. "freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures" does not mean the same thing as "right to privacy".
the 1st amendment (read it), does not mean "seperation of church and state".
if you want to invent things in the constitution that aren't there, that's YOUR dogma speaking.
i prefer to recognize the constitution we have, hope for changes to make it better, but respect it as it is.
others prefer to twist the meaning and pretend it says things it doesn't in order to promote their religious, or political agenda. maybe, it would make for better policy if our constitution required a 'seperation of church and state'. that's great, but the constitution DOESN'T
try reading it.
my goal is to speak truth, and speak precisely.
your goal apparently is to belittle people by talking about their "force fed delusions", etc.
as for the constitution, i suggest you sit down and read it. go ahead.
that way you can understand what it says, not what you think it says about 'seperation of church and state' (which again, may be GREAT policy, but darn it... they didn't make it part of the constitution and instead said something different), or 'privacy' (which again, does not exist as a right under the federal constitution, although it does under many states' constitutions).
rule of law matters. inventing constitutional precepts sux though
I have, but I did confuse the 4th amendment as being the one containing the establishment clause, so I apologize for having introduced that element of confusion.
Thank you for that. That's a goal I share, and can commend you for. Although I don't quite see how such a goal would involve you so deeply in this particular discussion. How is that goal furthered in a debate over whether or not Obama should say SHMG in the inaugural ceremony? Those of us who object would be justified in doing so regardless of the content of the Constitution. (I don't mind whether you answer this question or not, my point at issue with you lies elsewhere)
You can only call me "belittling people" if:
a) they are not deluded.
b) they don't have that delusion handed to them in childhood by the parents they must trust.
AND:
it's somehow different when political leaders get up on stage and invoke a deity that I don't believe in.
Until you can prove all three propositions, I'm only calling a spade by it's proper name. If my use of those terms shocks people into examining their point of view a little more closely, good. If it just pisses people off, well, that also sounds fair to me. I have after all, spent my life looking at "God this" and "God that" doodled all over my country's billboards, radio, television, and yes, LAWS. B.S. is B.S. no matter how fond people are of it.
So, getting back to the actual point at issue with you, you are still wrong about the wall of separation, despite that phrase's nonappearance in the actual language of the first amendment. Perhaps the difference in our opinions can be found in what you think that phrase means. Is it Justice Scalia's "bulldozer" or is it more finely tuned than that?
I don't advocate the bulldozer, but I don't think we need to be so gentle as to allow our elected officials to endorse propositions (such as God, and the universal authority of religion) that have no basis in fact.
Oh, yes, I can't let this slide:
I was making reference to the fact that the believers are still waiting for him, despite his having said to a crowd that he would return within the lifetime of those standing near. That that has not happened is most certainly not based on faith.
I don't know Dr. Newdow, and I certainly don't have any reason to believe he isn't a nice guy. But the question of whether his lawsuit has merit isn't really supposed to depend on whether he's a nice guy or not. Dr. Newdow filed a similar lawsuit in 2005 and lost, so it's a reasonable speculation that he might lose this time too. General discussions of the law of religion and what folks think it is and/or should be also seem topical. Nothing to do with Dr. Newdow's personal character.
if you cannot see how referring to people who have different beliefs than you about the existence of a deity(s) as "deluded" etc. is not belittling, intolerant, and presumptious, then more power to you.
adults can generally discuss such concepts without name calling and referring to those with whom they disagree about important philosophical/metaphysical conceptsas "deluded".
not to mention that your post is factually inaccurate (besides the references to non-existent elements of the constitution you are using) because plenty of theists come from either atheist/agnostic households, or from nations where theism was outlawed. yet, they found faith. your concept that people only believe because they were force fed 'delusions' is thus inaccurate AND insulting.
as for the "wall of seperation", it is still you that are still wrong. it is not in the constitution, and it is thus not a constitutional requirement (again, this says nothing about the idea that it may be a GOOD idea, policywise...). just because it has made its way into pop culture, doesn't make it so, any more than the (non-existent) right to privacy under the federal constitution has.
regardless, the main point is that intelligent, reasoned ADULTS can discuss this, one of the most important questions ever - why are we here, how are we here, is there a higher power, etc. bla bla -, one that has intrigued every culture throughout our history, without referring to those with whom one disagrees as "deluded".
since nobody knows or can prove the existence or non-existence of gods, it is the height of arrogance to claim that those that do believe in god are "deluded". in fact, it makes you quite similar to those who profess to know exactly what the mind of god IS, etc. iow, you are exactly like a fundamentalist, certain in your knowledge that you are right. again, how ironic alanis.
They did that, whatever that was. If believing in God helped them do it, fine. Don't make it so, I'm afraid.
Actually, most people call it free will. Your point is?
I get out of bed just fine, what's that got to do with it?
"world without hope"? That would seem to say more about your viewpoint than mine. But I guess you really want to know what I'll do without an afterlife. I dunno, I'll be dead.
But in the meantime, I have a happy marriage, a handsome son, and a great attitude about the people I meet. Oh, yes, and I really enjoy bursting the bubble of self-righteous christians. What more is there to hope for?
No, sorry, I just chuckled. I hear this kind of stuff a lot from people who feel they've nothing to hope for if they can't believe that a supernatural being will grant them everlasting life in paradise as long as they oppress the right people in this life.
But happy new year anyway :)
“The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion,” John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816. -- Encyclopedia Britannica
According to historian Kenneth Galbreath, James Madison said after the First Amendment was drafted that it would “help aid in the spread of Christianity”.
According to Thomas Jefferson, we are “endowed by our Creator” with human rights.
Benjamin Franklin, according to one of his biographers, complained openly and often while the Constitution was being drafted, that those involved were not seeking guidance from God enough in their daily meetings.
Freedom of speech very much means, that an atheist can say they don't believe in God and Obama can acknowledge that he does by including God in any way he wishes for his inaguration. Freedom of speech means that someone who believes in the overwhelming evidence we are created can say so, while someone who does not is free to announce to the world that they believe in convoluted fantasies if they want to.
After all, freedom is freedom. I have never met an atheist who believes in freedom. They invariably believe in the same Texas Cowpie that Junior Bush believes; i.e., those who aren't with us are against us. Talk about your "parnoia runs deep... hey, better stop children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's goin' down"
Oh, oh, I quoted someone else who believes in God; my mistake, will try to do better next time.
WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?
www.FreedomTracks.com
More theist bigotry. All unbelievers are bad because they don't agree with Richard.
Overwhelming evidence we are created....
this guys a real hoot!
And he's just as bent on rewriting the history of our founding fathers as the rest of the god squad, desperately seeking justification for his delusion. Careful not to hurt yourself in your efforts to bend the truth.
Now again, nobody really cares if Obama says SHMG. The point is that the Chief Justice should not prompt him to say it.
The story of Jesus and the bible is a collection of anectodes from the stories of Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, Osiris and many pagan Gods. Independent researchers easily conclude that Constntine 1st and Justinian who wanted the Roman emprie for themselves seeded the Jesus myth.
The story of Jesus is nothing but the story of Sun. Night of December 24th is when the Sun starts his Northward journey (after the Winter Solstice on 21st December). 12 disciples are metaphors for the 12 constellations in the heavens. The Virgin birth comes from the fact that the sun rises in the Constellation Virgo in morning of 25th.
So in short if you remove Jesus from Christianity there is no Christianity ... I am a Hindu and fortunate enough to be part of a religion that preaches universal spiritualism and introspection instead of established dogmas. It is better to worship the universe than some fabricated fairy tale being ... At least we know that the Sun, moon and the stars are real.
Lazareus, Please do more research on how Jesus story is fake! Bless yourself :) Towards enlightenment we go ...
I am unhappy with everybody who chops up history. It is the record of how our forefathers existed. It should be protected at all costs.
You may have a bone to pick with the religious community but your statements indicate your passion to be "correct" far outweighs being accurate. The historical record provides much confirmation that Jesus did indeed exist and that the world was changed because of it. I could care less about the religious views certain people have, but to eliminate people from the historical record because of what they claim is foolish. I certainly don't know where you came up with the start date for Nazareth but methinks you have had a few too many hits of hashish.
You say you are a Hindu but apparently you are not a very good one. Hindus historically are dogmatic in the openness to the religious belief of others. They even will accept the thinking of atheists. Yet you not only attack the basic tenets of their beliefs, you then add your own explanation of how the things really were. Wow, you must be like 2000 years old to know better than those who recorded historical fact when it actually happened.
If you want fuzzy history then look to the Hindus. They believe in everything and therefore stand for nothing. There is no absolute truth because that is an unneccessary item for believers of Hinduism to function. That is fact.
I don't ruin Santa Claus for kids, I enjoy their delight and appreciate the good their belief brings.
a true atheist who is not a miserable jerk should treat Christians the same way. and most of them do. let me have my beliefs, and if you feel as though you are so much smarter than I am, just patiently tolerate me and my silliness.
I'd be happy to tolerate you and your silliness if you'd just keep your beliefs in your own house. The problem is that you and your ilk keep wanting to make laws based on those beliefs.
It should be clear to most people by now that god is not an established fact. If the god fearing people of the world would just accept that, and let others live the way they wish, we could all get along fine. But no, despite the fact that your supposed god is all-knowing, and all-powerful, and presumably capable of sorting out the sinners from the righteous at the pearly gates, you want to make laws here on earth to sort them out NOW. Sounds a lot like usurping your god's power to me. And won't you all turn out to be a bunch of a--hats if you're wrong?
Oh yeah, and about Santa Claus...
Just what does Santa Claus have to do with Christianity? Santa started out as Kris Kringle in medieval Germany. A wealthy nobleman made it a tradition to share the wealth of the years harvest with his peasants, and the idea spread.
As with so many other ideas (like America, and it's "freedom for all" constitution) as soon as the Christians saw it catching on, they stole it, and rebranded it. Now it's a tool to keep good little christians in line. Sad really.
So, in an effort to remain on topic, how about all you folks pining for god quit wanting to stick his name all over everything? It's just going to make it harder on all of you when you are eventually proved to be full of it.
You're right in thinking that Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christianity; few serious Christians would claim he does and he is not part of any Christian teaching I know about. This and similar statements just betray your ignorance about Christianity.
"In an effort to remain on topic," why don't you go away? The original post was whether Newdow's challenge to the oath of office as it will be administered to Pres. elect Obama has any chance of being sustained by a court. It really has nothing to do with the merits of the oath, the dogmas of Christianity, or the existence of God.
I could make a bunch of ignorant statements about Hinduism too, but I won't because it would only betray my ignorance of Hinduism just as yours about Christianity betray your ignorance. Many Hindus whom I know accept Jesus as an incarnation of God just as all Muslims accept Him as one of the prophets. If you don't, that's O.K., but what do your beliefs (or mine for that matter) about Jesus have to do with the subject of this post?
This post concerns whether Newdow's challenge to the oath of office has any chance of being sustained by the courts.
I went off track because there are so many here posting comments that want us non believers to rot in hell. Incarnation Schmincarnations apart when it comes to Law in the 21st century, America has to come out as an example of exemplary moral values. The challenge is to reiterate that God (as in Bible's Bearded all knowing Father of Jesus God) should not be made part of the state which is formed by Rational individuals !!!
Mr Drake, you're not even the first to try that one. If, as you told Shri, you weren't going to make ignorant statements, why would you suggest to me that the nonexistence of god has no relevance to the inclusion of SHMG in the inaugural oath? Wouldn't you be concerned about a guy with control of nuclear weapons swearing an oath to say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? In my mind, there's not one bit of difference.
With respect to your asinine remarks as to my ignorance of Christianity, rest assured, I spent my young life in a thorough study of it before I decided to reject it. As many atheists, I learned that there's no faster way to quit religion than to thoroughly understand it. Give it a try, huh?
And apparently the Dallas Cowboys have really pissed Him off.
Poor Cowboys, I wonder what they did to deserve this B.S.
Fortunately, those with inquiring minds can still escape. Just write your congressman and let him know that it's about time he and the rest of our political leaders quit pushing their Christian-Nazi agenda.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.