He's Baaack!

Michael Newdow (who sued to have the words "under God" deleted from the Pledge) and others have filed suit to stop the prayer and other religious expression at the inauguration.  They claim it's exclusionary to others who don't share religious views and is restricted by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  I heard Michael Newdow claim that Obama's freedom of expression stops when he becomes president. 

Really? 

It's always odd how these sorts of law suits actually turn the First Amendment on its head.  Freedom of expression was pointedly intended for the public square, political or religious.  And the oath of office doesn't require the president to renounce his Constitutional rights.  In fact, that would be a contradiction.  The Constitution specifies rights that are God-given, unalienable, that the government cannot restrict.  And if the Constitution then offered an oath restricting those rights, it would be something of a quandary, wouldn't it?

The government is not to establish a religion - that's the separation of so-called "church and state."  That is, making an official church and/or requiring a religious confession.  A prayer at a public event does no such thing and is, obviously, voluntary.  No one is compelled to participate.  And these kinds of public religious expressions are in complete keeping with the Founders' own practices, even more tame.  The author of the "church and state" phrase so often snatched out of context, Thomas Jefferson, approved of and participated in church services held at the capitol building.

The point of religious pluralism and tolerance is where we meet in the public square, not to drive religious expression into the private realm.  It's time for these atheists to be tolerant as others practice their civil liberties. 

Comments

[ChrisB]

Most of these suits are based on the notion that we have a right to never hear or see anything that offends us. Who says we have such a right?

(When conservatives say they're offended by pornography, we're told to allow others their freedom of expression.)

[RonH]

Suppose Obama planned not to have any prayers during the inauguration. And, suppose he planned not to append 'so help me God' to the constitutional oath of office. Finally, suppose he _did_ plan to go directly from the inauguration to a special church service celebrating the inauguration.

Under those circumstances, would Dr. Newdow would sue to stop the church service? Certainly not.

Next, "making an official church" and "requiring a religious confession" are not the only ways to mix church and state. Any lack of neutrality on the part of the government with respect to religion mixes church and state. Such a mix always results in inequality or the appearance of it. To be told he is not 'compelled to participate' in the inauguration does not really give Dr. Newdow a warm fuzzy feeling. Can you blame him?

Express yourself to the public square. Bring religious ideas. Bring irreligious ideas. Bring them all. Don't keep them private. Let us hear them, think about them, test them, compare them. They are all welcome and constitutionally protected.

[RonH]

ChrisB,

If "Most of these suits are based on the notion that we have a right to never hear or see anything that offends us," then you ought to be able to produce one suit that mentions such a right. Can you?

RonH

[dewayne ward]

It does make sense though that someone would bring this lawsuit forward. When you have a large percentage of the population that voted for someone because he:

1)looked honest
2)looked better than his opponent
3)thinks that Obama is honest about his campaign promises
4)doesnt peel back the onion past "hope" and "change"

It isnt surprising that a minority can get their views pushed through. I listened to my uncle tell me that he is excited about Obama being president and thought he was an honest guy.

When I told him that Obama has consistently lied about his position to fool voters, his response was "the news didnt report any of this". I happen to keep Obama's famous ones (memorial day gaffe, pro-life, etc) on my psp for these occassions. After playing them for my uncle, he just said that I need to give him a chance.

My father, a vietnam vet and proud gun owner, STILL doesnt believe that Obama will try to restrict gun ownership in some way. When I tried to convince him of his position with various documented sources, his response was "dont believe what my preacher tells me".

I could go on and on, but the point is is the US is ripe for this type of thing because people largely dont want to think about weighter matters. They'd rather watch the moving picture God, or get a feel good sermon, than think for themselves.

When you have (perceived) highly educated folks talking about a living constitution and the point of the govt's involvement in marriage is love, it isnt surprising that the atheists think they can push this through. Of course, they are able to convince people that the founding fathers were deists at best.

Ok. rant over....

[RonH]

Hi Dewayne,

If you stay cool, collect your thoughts, and stick to one topic (preferably the topic at hand) nobody will accuse you of ranting - least of all yourself.

RonH

[ChrisB]

RonH, sometimes you have to read between the lines.

What do you do when "neutrality on the part of the government with respect to religion" looks like irreligion -- which is, in fact, a certified religion in this country?

[Late Harvest Viogner]

I was just going to say that
Mandating an Opt-Out is infact, a religion in itself. Maybe not in the sense that most people think when they say the word religion, though.
also dwayne, i didnt detect any anger from your post
seemed fine to me!

[RonH]

Hi All,

Happy New Year!

Here's a link to the suit itself.

http://www.ffrf.org/legal/warrenComplaint.pdf

RonH

[Mo]

You wonder what sort of miserable person Michael Newdow must be. Can you imagine hating God so much that you feel compelled to spend that much time, effort and (I assume) money, just to try and remove the slightest mention of Him from every corner of public life?

I find that very sad.

[RonH]

Hi Mo:

That's an ad hominem. Forget Dr. Newdow's mental anguish. Focus on the law suit. That's the issue. By the way, I'm a member of FFRF - a coplaintiff in the suit - and I don't find defending the First Amendment a waste of my money or 'sad'.

Hi Somebody... Anybody:

Did you read the suit? (See my last post for a link.)

Here is the presidential oath of office from the Constitution: "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."

Should the President begin his term in office by intentionally mis-taking the oath? For what purpose?

Can a new president append 'so help me God' to the oath with the same purpose in mind that the framers had in mind when they omitted it?

Can anybody defend this 'so help me God" stuff... as an effective ambassador for Christ? Can you deliver a message on it... that's accurately informed? Can you defend it... using a method that's skillful, tactical and fair? Can you defend it while displaying... a character that's warm and inviting?

If so, let's see you.

I'm throwing words from STR promo's at you just to make the point that I don't think the posts against the suit so far have not met these standards espoused by STR. That includes Melinda's original post.

[Randall]

I think our first President George Washington said it eloquently at his farewell address "Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

Our nation's first president knew full well that morality was meaningless without religious principle. The recognition of God was the foundation of American government. With the removal of God from our government, how can we avoid our own downfall?

[RonH]

Randall,

Some points to ponder:

The Constitution is the foundation of the American government. No god is mentioned in it. So there is no need to worry about removal.

The framers debated whether to credit the supernatural in the Preamble. Instead we have "We the people".

They debated whether to require a religious test for office and decided No, office holders can believe in any god or none.

In the only other mention of religion, they simply forbade Congress to get into it.

We can be sure that religious opinions varied among them as individuals but as a body this is what they decided to do.

Then, after deliberation and debate, the state governments individually ratified their work.

Ron

[Chris]

RonH sounds like a really miserable person.

[RonH]

Oh Chris you're so right. I'm so very miserable. :)

As if having a beautiful family weren't miserable enough, I'm stuck with perfect health. Then, there is my personality which just seems to find everything in life so interesting - except for the things that are funny or sad which I find - you guessed it - funny or sad as appropriate.

Take your comment for instance. It's a poser. Just fascinating. Are you serious?

If yes, you're so wrong your comment is funny. I'm normal. I'm touched by the worlds problems and yet find life a banquet.

If no, then you were being sarcastic in a way that amused me.

Either way your comment is funny.

Because you might be ChrisB and because we are at STR, I'd guess you were serious. But tell us Chris: Which is it?

Oh my. We're far off topic. Anyone got something reason-able to say about the Newdow/FFRF suit? Anyone? Anyone?

Ron

[dewayne ward]

Hi RonH,

Looks like someone needs to take their own advice :-)

"

Hi Dewayne,

If you stay cool, collect your thoughts, and stick to one topic (preferably the topic at hand) nobody will accuse you of ranting - least of all yourself.

RonH
"

I read through most of the document. I laughed at some parts, shook my head at others...and really remembered why I didn't complete going to law school and why I am not a good ambassador.

I can only speak for myself here, but I have grown tired of once again spending my evenings digging through documents to show that so-and-so's position is false. Then, it is also the realization that after I show them that their position is false, they then say "well what about this...". I wont bore you with the bible verses that talk to this.

I guess the question to ask is if I or someone here shows you the error of this lawsuit (if one exists), will it matter one iota to you or will act like the other skeptics?

What this did tell me is that I need to continually support the organizations that are willing to fight these lawsuits, so some good has come out of the complaint :-)

[dewayne ward]

Oh, forgot to mention something to the effect of why are you wanting a response from the folks who are at this board when the lawyers that (hopefully) know the law will be addressing it?

Any personal comments here wont effect the outcome of the lawsuit that you filed? If someone here counters it, I am assuming that you wont take that information and run to the courts to shut the lawsuit down, shut the website down, etc.?

Why do you feel the need to taunt?

[RonH]

Hi dewayne,

Based on Chris's comment about my misery and Mo's earlier comment about Dr. Newdow's misery it seemed appropriate to say and show that an atheist is not automatically miserable.

I don't dig "through documents to show that so-and-so's position is false". I dig to find out and understand what so-and-so is saying. Then, I decide about showing his position is false. Try it.

Which Bible verses? I won't be bored. I listen to STR and hours of similar programs every week. I'm interested.

You ask if I'd change my mind if shown an error in the suit. I'd like to think I would.

I can't imagine what would make me think it's OK to append "so help me God" to the oath of office because the Constitution is quite clear on what the oath is.

It's less clear to me what to think about making prayer part of the ceremony in some way.

On the one hand, the Constitution seems to leave a lot to the discretion of the participants; only the oath is specified. That's it. (There I just made the strongest attack on the suit in this thread of comments.)

On the other hand, some people will think that whatever happens in the ceremony is official - that if there are prayers, they are called for in the Constitution. That's bad just because it's just not true.

I'm among those complaining because what's being added is not my religion. (I have none.) Perhaps you'd be with me complaining if what was being added to the oath was "Allah Akbar" or if the ceremony were being opened with a Hindu prayer. Come to think of it, didn't some Christians get arrested for protesting a Hindu prayer in the US Senate a year or so ago? Yes, 12 Jul 2007. There were complaints of a 'foreign god'.

RE your latest:

I didn't file the suit and I'm in no position to withdraw it. I'm just one of 13,000 members of FFRF. Nor am I a lawyer or for any reason in a position to argue Constitutional law at high level. I'm just a guy. All I did was look up what the Constitution says about the oath and reason that if the Constitution specifies an oath, maybe we ought to use it.

I think describing what I'm doing as 'taunting' is unfair. This is STR. The 'R' stands for Reason. It's supposed to be reasonable around here.

[RonH]

Hi dewayne,

Based on Chris's comment about my misery and Mo's earlier comment about Dr. Newdow's misery it seemed appropriate to say and show that an atheist is not automatically miserable.

I don't dig "through documents to show that so-and-so's position is false". I dig to find out and understand what so-and-so is saying. Then, I decide about showing his position is false. Try it.

Which Bible verses? I won't be bored. I listen to STR and hours of similar programs every week. I'm interested.

You ask if I'd change my mind if shown an error in the suit. I'd like to think I would.

I can't imagine what would make me think it's OK to append "so help me God" to the oath of office because the Constitution is quite clear on what the oath is.

It's less clear to me what to think about making prayer part of the ceremony in some way.

On the one hand, the Constitution seems to leave a lot to the discretion of the participants; only the oath is specified. That's it. (There I just made the strongest attack on the suit in this thread of comments.)

On the other hand, some people will think that whatever happens in the ceremony is official - that if there are prayers, they are called for in the Constitution. That's bad just because it's just not true.

I'm among those complaining because what's being added is not my religion. (I have none.) Perhaps you'd be with me complaining if what was being added to the oath was "Allah Akbar" or if the ceremony were being opened with a Hindu prayer. Come to think of it, didn't some Christians get arrested for protesting a Hindu prayer in the US Senate a year or so ago? Yes, 12 Jul 2007. There were complaints of a 'foreign god'.

Re your latest:

I didn't file the suit. I'm just one of 13,000 FFRF members. I'm not a lawyer and I'm in a position to argue Constitutional law at a high livel. I'm just a guy who thinks it makes sense to use the oath of office the Constitution specifies.

I think it's unfair to call what I'm doing 'taunting'. This is STR. The 'R' is for reason. I'm looking for good reasons why someone would oppose this suit. So far none have appeared.

[dewayne ward]

Well, it sounds like you have researched this quite a bit, as a co-plaintiff, so I am going to ask for your assistance. Can you tell me why the previous two lawsuits that were brought up against Mr Bush's inauguration for this were not successful?

And just to let you know, I wont be waiting at the PC to immediately type out a response to whatever you write. It seems like you are passionate about this topic I don't want you to think that I am ignoring you/it if I dont respond in 5 minutes :-)
Just wanting to set the expectation level.

[RonH]

Dewayne,

I really haven't researched this much. FFRF is the coplaintiff. I don't have any power there. I just pay annual membership. I pay it because they sue people who, as government officials, violate the First Amendment. In case you're familiar with their other recent activities: I like the billboards but not the indoor capitol building signs. These signs say in part that religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds". I don't believe that and have told them so.

Anyway the history of these suits goes something like this as far as I can tell by google:

Newdow sued over the Bush's 2001 inauguration. The first court ruled that the practice did not violate the Constitution. Newdow appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the Constitutional issue. Instead it ruled that Newdow was not the right person to sue - he didn't have standing.

Newdow sued again over the 2005 inauguration. Again the court did not rule on the Constitutional issue. They said Newdow lacked standing again and also that inaugural prayers would not injure Newdow.

I think the 'so help me God' part is pretty easy: take the oath as written. I'd hate to be a judge ruling on the prayers. The new president should have a religious observance of the inauguration if that's what he wants to do. I'd even watch it. I really just want there to be some time and space between that observance and the ceremony where he takes the oath. The part where he takes the oath belongs to all of us.

Does that make any headway?

Ron

[dewayne ward]

Hi RonH, I want to keep this on track, but it is hard with the low hanging fruit of "I dont have a religion", "...sue people who violate the first amendment", and statements like.

If you haven't researched it that much (thank you for stating that you actually arent a co-plaintiff, but rather a paying member as that would have set off other alarms), then why are you all for it? Why would you google the information. I have read some things on the site that you support and it "should" go into some pretty good detail as to why the other complaints were, i believe, dismissed.

I am still failing to see what all the hubbub is all about? As I understand it (and I may be making this seem to easy, forgive me...simple answer for a simple guy and all that) is that y'all are up in arms because a person in elected office says UNSCRIPTED "so help me God" at the end of the oath....and it isnt found in the actual oath.

Personally, I find it refreshing that an elected official isn't forced to use "the g word" and that he is doing it on his own.

Really though, the google answer doesn't "make any headway" because an oath, simply repeated, really doesn't mean anything. To tie that in with an example, I am a Free Grace guy. I believe that all a person has to do is simply believe the good news that Jesus Christ died on a cross to pay for all my and your sins and accepting that payment gives you a one way ticket to heaven. No "oath", simply repeated would hold any weight and would basically be worthless.

I think I see a reasonable way out based on what you wrote in your last paragraph. There is usually a 1/2 second before he says "so help me God" at the end of the oath. You know that it is after the official part, hit the mute button and you're all clear. Seriously though, how much time are y'all looking for between the oath and whatever the person wants to interject?

[Cliff Mather]

I had Washington's 1796 Farewell Address comments stashed away someplace:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

...

There's a lot that could be said about this. Without getting in to the true faith of the Founding Fathers, what's legal versus what's right, or whether Washington has any idea of what he is talking about, I will say this: Washington certainly seems to think that removing religion from the public square is a dumb idea -- for what it's worth.

The law is one thing, and maybe someday Newdow will win. But since George Washington is generally admired as the greatest American in history, it seems like anyone so blatantly disregarding his advice on this topic owes the rest of us an explanation. Was Washington wrong about the value of religion to the public morality and happiness? Does today's society and religion not compare with Washington's? How so?

[RonH]

Hi Dewayne,

How much time? I guess it's not exactly about time (or distance). It's about making the distinction clear between the business of government and the other pieces of the overall event.

There will be music, poetry, speeches, etc. For the most part it will be clear they are unofficial expressions mark a historic moment.

But appending 'so help me God' to the oath is another matter. So is the layout of the program which exactly matches a Christian "order of worship". At the start Dr. Rick Warren gives the Invocation and at the end we have Benediction given by Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery. The message is that the inauguration is a religious event and that's just wrong.

By the way I think Newdow's suit asks that Chief Justice Roberts not say 'so help me God' and leaves it up to Obama whether to inject it.

The suit will probably fail in court. That's ok. We lost the Scopes trial too.

Ron

[David Blain]

I am a law student who just finished the 1st semester of Con Law and in particular the 1st Amendment. I am not going to pretend as if I could add much more to the conversation, but I would like to say strict separation between church and state is not the only theory used in such cases. It is the theory adhered to by liberal justices but conservative justices and moderate justices hold to different approaches. These different approaches usually explain the outcome of the lawsuit. Obviously, the make-up of the court is the greatest variable to determine the success of a lawsuit.

There is also the neutrality theory and the accommodation theory. Under these alternative theories religion has greater freedom to be expressed. Conservative justices adhere to the accommodations view whereas in-betweeners usually follow the neutrality theory.

My purpose is to caution any who approach a church and state issue from assuming strict separation between the two must exist. The court has applied this theory yet they have also applied alternative theories that are contrary to strict separation. Trust me, I have read hundreds of religion cases and I have seen all the theories applied.

[David Blain]

And I forgot to add my personal thoughts: I think Obama should be allowed to make the decision of whether he wants to make the statement with or without the subject language.

After all, he has rights too and to deprive him of his right to free expression for the benefit of others seems intolerant to me.

[RonH]

David,

Interesting. Will you please define neutrality theory and the accommodation theory for us?

I've been meaning to mention a book I like on this subject: "The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America" by Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson the Founder, Chairman of the Board, and President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is opposing the Newdow suit. I often disagree with the Becket Fund yet I agree with the main idea of the book which is well captured in the title.

Good luck with your studies.

Ron

[dewayne ward]

Hi RonH, actually your comments hits on a nerve that I want to look at.

You said "How much time? I guess it's not exactly about time (or distance). It's about making the distinction clear between the business of government and the other pieces of the overall event.

There will be music, poetry, speeches, etc. For the most part it will be clear they are unofficial expressions mark a historic moment.
"

My guess is that the oath doesnt have a particular music style slated in it (let me know if I am wrong here). I am a metal head. I personally cant stand the "march" style music that they tend to use at these things, since the oath doesnt specifically address the music style, can I enter a complaint to require Mr Obama select something that appeals to my taste in music?

I am guessing no because the president gets to decide these things (if he has an opinion on it). I will be watching it as whatever else is said, it will be historic, but will mute the offending items out if I just cant handle it.

I like your comment about the scopes trial. Has your organization given any thought about getting that mythical movie "inherit the wind" removed from rotation in all PUBLIC schools? I say that because it sounds like you have researched it and learned that the nonsense that you were shown in your high school was pure fiction passing itself off as history.

I'd like to get your thoughts on that.

[RonH]

Dewayne,

Don't be obtuse. You could try your music suit. What would you base it on?

The First Amendment does provide Newdow with a serious basis for his argument. It may be controversial. He may lose. But it's real.

I know "Inherit the Wind" is historically inaccurate. Lots of movies that cover history are inaccurate. It would be bad education to present it as history but it wouldn't be something FFRF would focus on. So what's your point?

Ron

[dewayne ward]

Hi RonH, now dont go all "shawshank redemption" on me, just trying to figure out what the options are. I guess I would ask the same question about what would you base your complaint on?

As far as the realness of it, I guess if you repeat that comment often enough it will become true...

The "wind" comment was just something from your comment about the scopes trial. I was just curious to see if your organization was against all injustices or just the ones that involve people making a personal choice to say something at the end of an oath :-). thats that tangent problem you and I both have (see, we have something in common) :-)

So, you think that it will be struck down (as the 2 previous ones). Do you know why they will be struck down? I am asking from a legal perspective, not your personal feelings.

[RonH]

Hi Dewayne,

Thanks for your comments. I read the Wikipedia synopsis but I still don't get the Shawshank Redemption comment. You can explain if you want. Or we could drop that. It's your call.

The plaintiffs seek to declare that the unauthorized addition of "so help me God" to the constitutionally-prescribed presidential oath of office by the chief justice violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Likewise, the use of clergy, and openly Christian clergy, at the presidential inauguration, violates the First Amendment and RFRA.

Notice that the suit asks that the chief justice not say 'so help me God' not Obama. The idea is he is a pure government actor and should say the pledge as written in the Constitution. The suit leaves it up to Obama whether to add 'so help me God'. I agree with the distinction.

Melinda is wrong in the original post. The establishment clause can be violated well short of "making an official church and/or requiring a religious confession". Simply reading the First Amendment makes that clear: "shall make no law respecting" means "make no law regarding or about or in the direction of".

What's the FFRF? The FFRF is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

Incorporated in 1978 in Wisconsin, the Foundation is a national membership association of freethinkers: atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree. The Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). All dues and contributions are deductible for income tax purposes.

Why do I think Newdow might lose? Given the kinds of reasons courts have given in the past nothing would surprise me. The reasons given in the 2001 case include that he wasn't attending the inauguration - only watching it on TV. The reasons given in the 2005 event - he had a ticket that time - included that he'd lost the first case. (!) In Hein vs FFRF the Supreme Court said being a taxpayer did not make you eligible to sue the president over using tax money to support religious activities. (I wonder what WOULD make you eligible.) They also said the First Amendment applied only to Congress. (As if the president could go all the way and establish a full blown state church simply because he is president and not the congress.) So I imagine the reasons might be like those given in the past. Among the reasons NOT given in the court documents is a deep prejudice against non-Christians and non-believers especially. Look up what Scalia has said about atheists. Maybe others quietly feel the same way.

A little thought reveals that the principle of separation of church and state protects everyone: When Muslims start gaining majority populations in Western cities, states, provinces, and countries and start to inject their religion into the workings of those governments I think (more) Christians will join in the defense of separation of church and state.

Ron

[RonH]

David,

I think I've got accommodation and neutrality worked out.

Providing chaplains for soldiers the overseas would be an accommodation. The government is recognizing it has required soldiers to be far from where they worship and makes an effort to compensate by providing a replacement, the chaplain. Providing a chaplain for government employees who aren't traveling would go beyond accommodation because the hardship of travel is missing. I don't have a problem with chaplains in the military. I don't think FFRF does either. Accomodation does not seem to have anything to do with the inauguration.

Neutrality is the idea that government should aim to do two things: maximize individual religious liberty while minimizing government interference in religion. Maximizing religious liberty is served by leaving the inauguration free of religious content since including the content expresses a government preference for that content over other content or no content. Minimizing government interference is served by leaving the religious content out of the inauguration since there is really no way to interfere less.

To me both aspects of neutrality seem compatible with separation - nearly equivalent in fact.

Of course all these principles apply to the government only - not to individuals. By any of these theories religious expression is always protected for individuals. Think of the inauguration as having two parts official/governmental and unofficial/individual. Think of the participants as having either official or unofficial roles or both. Now we can state the goals: 1) keep the official parts and roles non-religious and 2) allow the unofficial parts and roles religious liberty.

I think the suit seeks both goals of neutrality by asking that Roberts (pure government) not to say "so help me God" and leaving Obama (individual and government) free to say it. I need to look again at the suit to see how it's treatment of Rick Warren and Joe Lowery. I think they could be included under separation / neutrality if their participation is programmed and presented as clearly personal. As it stands, they are performing 'Invocation' and 'Benediction' turning the wbole program, including the actual adminstration of the oath, into a church service. Making the adminstratio of the oath look like part of a church service is not minimizing government interference in religion; it displays a preference for Christianity.

Ron

[dewayne ward]

Hi RonH, you should be ashamed for not having watched shawshank redemption, I thought that that was one of the tests for proving that you are a citizen :-)

You are using language that is unnatural...like the word obtuse. Only people that are trying to sound too big for their britches use words like that. I use to talk like that until my hair started getting grey and I quit trying to impress people. who knows, we may come from different circles.

in any event, there was a scene where the wrongfully convicted guy gets info that could be used to set him free. The warden nonchalantly brushes it aside, to which the the convict says to him to not be obtuse..to which the warden gets all ticked off.

when you used a word that isnt normally used in conversation, I made the reference. you know what the say about wikipedia....you read it and then go out and learn the truth, ha ha.

"Likewise, the use of clergy, and openly Christian clergy, at the presidential inauguration, violates the First Amendment and RFRA."

Really!?!?!? So, if I, an openly Christian (that sounds funny just saying it) am at a governmental function, I am in violation of all those laws? Or is the inauguration the only thing I would be in violation. So, if the pope or someone streaks the stage (there is a visual), then that is a violation? That just doesnt make any sense to me. Merely having an openly Christian person at the inauguration violates this, WOW!!

Back to the suit, so the problem is the chief justice is saying "so help me God" and Obama is repeating it. that is the issue that you are having? you might have a convert here because I would think it would awesome if Obama said "so help me God" totally unprompted. It'd sorta lend itself to him meaning it. Course, I'd like him (and all other) presidents to do away with this oath nonsense and give something from the heart, but thats my personal opinion...I ain't gonna waste peoples' time with a lawsuit or anything.

onto the separation of church and state comments, your own website acknowledges that it isnt in the constitution or any other offical legislation, but on a personal letter to some dudes at the baptist convention or something. Why do you feel that it is something other than protecting the people from the establishment of a specific Christian denomination (you know, the thing that they just got away from). It'd also be hard to convince me that the mindset wasnt assumed Christian (and not specific denomination) when the overwhelming majority of the signers were registered church members.

I kinda get this feeling that these types of lawsuits are folks looking for little loopholes and trying to exploit things that were assumed back then. Kinda like we had to go through the nonsense of voting our individual states meaning of marriage to be man and woman. Everyone assumed that is what it meant when they drafted it, but some group saw it as a loophole, made the claim that it doesnt necessarily mean man and woman. This, quite honestly, is how I view these types of lawsuits.

To keep it on track, the lawsuit is trying to prevent the chief just offering the "so help me god" thing and then having Obama repeat it. What would you say to Obama saying it unprompted?

[Augustine]

I think RonH has said repeatedly that if Obama were to say "so help me god" unprompted, he would be fine with it because that is his personal preference.

[Augustine]

So let me see if I understand this thread correctly. RonH is trying to get a reasoned case as to why the lawsuit is "foolish." RonH showed how the protection of the First Amendment is a benefit to all because Christians, presumably, would be up in arms if Obama were to say "so help me Allah" instead of just "god." RonH used this to show how theist, in general, and Christians on this thread, specifically, are only comfortable with the phrase because we don't find it in conflict with our core beliefs. Right?

[Augustine]

Now, let me try to give a reasoned response.

RonH, I see your point, I would find it awkward if a government ceremony were to have the public official swear on Allah because I personally do not believe that Allah is worth swearing on - Allah carries no moral weight in my book. So I can see how an atheist would find it ridiculous when a public official swears on any deity because deities are, presumably, all not worth swearing on. In fact, I could see an atheist more comfortable if the public official were to swear on the goodwill of the people.

Oh, but there seems to be no place debate to which standard of morality is "True" so it would probably be best to avoid the issue altogether by not swearing in at all. That would be the most tolerant - the most neutral - right?

[Augustine]

Personally, I don't think that I am fit to argue the myth of neutrality because I see you, RonH, as intellectually astute than I am. However, I do believe that Mr. Koukl makes a fairly reasoned case as to why neutrality is a phantom and how tolerance has been twisted into a self-defeating proposition.

[Augustine]

More intellectually astute*

[Augustine]

And so my case is this: if the lawsuit is based on trying to adjust the inauguration to be more "non-establishing" by removing the swearing on a deity from the formal ceremony, isn't that, in itself, establishing itself?

I understand that following this line of thought opens the inauguration to be Hindu or Islamic, so it seems like the problem lies elsewhere?

[Rick T]

Doesn't Mr. Obama have the right to a "free excercise" of religion and speech per the First Amendment. If he does, then where is the problem with him adding "...so help me God." If someone were to make it to the Office of the President of the United States as an open Muslim and wished to include some reference to Allah at the end, he would also have the Constitutional freedom to do so.
The mistake Mr. Newdow and others make in such lawsuits is to assume that there is a First Amendment protection guaranteeing "Freedom from Religion." The First Amendment offers no such protection. Rather, it prohibits government from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion (they cannot regulate religion in any way...but are not precluded from making religious references), or prohibiting the free exercise of anyone’s religion (including Mr. Obama), or abridging anyone’s freedom of speech (including Mr. Obama).
The very first President of the United States chose to include “…so help me God.” Invocational prayers have been an integral part of our nation’s history since day one. This nation is clearly established on Biblical Christian foundations and underpinnings, and nothing in the Constitution precludes reference to these or inclusion within our governmental functions. If there is any doubt about the Christian heritage of our nation, one must only go to the Capitol rotunda and take a look around, or look at the various inscriptions found throughout the Capitol which come clearly and directly from Biblical Christianity. If there is still doubt, the intentions and ideology of our founders is clearly documented in their writings.
So, as long as our Constitution remains in force, anyone taking the oath of the Office of the President of the United States has the First Amendment freedom to include, “…so help me God…,” to emphasize the depth of commitment to the promise they make!

[David Blain]

RonH,

The approaches are not used contingent upon the manner of religious expression.

Neutrality theory: The government shall not take ANY action towards the encouragement or discouragement of ANY religion. The test to determine if the government has infringed the first amendment under this theory called symbolic endorsement. The government infringes the 1st amendment if they symbolically endorse one religion or if it generally endorses secularism over religion.

Accommodation: The government should recognize the role of religion in society and "accommodate" its presence in government. The government only establishes a state church or endorses a religion when it coerces membership. The key issue under this approach is to argue coercion. This gives a great deal of deference to the government and government aid of religion.

Each view has weaknesses and strengths and, like I said earlier, determines the outcome of the case. Is it a liberal court or a conservative court or a moderate court?

Personally, I am in favor of the accommodations view so long as their is no discrimination amongst religions or secularism. Religion and secularism are part of the history and current make up of our country. I think there is a lot of time wasted over the separation of church and state debate when the more productive time would be to let all ideas, thoughts, arguments, etc. enter the marketplace and allow the people to choose for themselves the truth.

[RonH]

Hi Dewayne,

Ok, I will see the Shawshank Redemption. Maybe I already did see Shawshank Redemption. My memory is not what it never was. Thanks for the tip.

My wife once said to me Don't be obtuse. Maybe I was pretending to be thick because that's what I thought obtuse meant until I looked it up yesterday. Turns out it just means thick or dum. Sorry, Dewayne I didn't mean to say you're dum just that you were pretending to be.

I would your comment "Really!?!?...WOW!!" obtuse except I don't think you mean it.

Wow, there's a of comments here now. :) Got to get some work done first.

Ron

[RonH]

Woops! I meant:

I would *call* your comment "Really!?!?...WOW!!" obtuse except I don't think you mean it.

Woops! I meant:

There are a *lot* of comments here now...

By the way, google this:

"Don't be obtuse" chief

First link is about a judge. Seems like maybe other people use 'obtuse' as if it meant 'pretend not to understand'.

Ron

[RonH]

Dewayne,

Separation not in the Constitution? Nor are 'fair trial', 'religious liberty'. Yet they are reasonlably called Constitutional principles.

Jefferson took care with the letter to the Danbury Baptists. He had his attorney general review it before sending it. We know he intended for it to be public because he told the attorney general its purpose: to "[sow] useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

An official expression of Jefferson's views is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Here's a 4 word summary: 'separate church and state'.

Augustine, thanks for pointing it out: I see Obama as free to append "so help me God". So does Newdow. The suit says so.

When you say "And so...establishing itself" are you saying that 'non-establishment' is self-refuting?

Rick T,

Washington did not say "so help me God". That's a myth. It was first appended by Chester Arthur in 1881. It was sometimes appended until 1933 (Roosevelt) when the current continuous string of inaugurations included it.

David,

Thanks for the clarification of accomodation and neutrality theories.

Ron

[RonH]

Rick T,

Ooops! Typo: "...when the current continuous string of inaugurations including it began".

[Rick T]

Ron H:
I did a little more research regarding George Washington and "...so help me God." The source I referenced (Ronald M. Mann, Deputy Director of the Commision on the Becentennial of the United States Constitution) indicated that George Washington added the phrase. Some other relatively reliable sources indicated that the addition is "debatable" (Wikopedia and others). I wasn't able to find any source which indicated or provided any reliable evidence from a disinterested source that it was a false claim or mythical in any way. Can you provide some information to this end?

And…even if it was shown that George Washington chose not to use this phrase, the arguments I presented(Obama has the freedom of speech and religion granted by the First Amendment to add this phrase if he chooses, and there is no Constitutional guarantee of “freedom from religion”) still stand on their own merit.

[RonH]

Hi Rick T,

Let's agree there is no certain answer to the Washington question.

The Wikipedia article says there's only one contemporary source: the French counsel at the time. He records Washington saying only the Constitutional oath. There is a footnote to a book on that which I just tried to reserve. One library on the other side of my state has the book but won't lend it. :(

The Wikipedia article (yes, it's only Wikipedia) also says Washington Irving is the first one known to say Washington said "so help me God". Irving was 6 when Washington was sworn in and 71 when he made the claim.

Now, Newdow says (Biased? Yes. Don't take his word for the following, try it.) he went to the place (in NYC) where Washington took the oath and screamed in the quiet of the middle of the night. A companion located where Irving says he was during the ceremony could barely hear the scream. (Is newdow biased? Yes. Don't take his word for the following, try it.)

Ronald M. Mann wasn't there. You have to ask/say *why* he thinks Washington said "so help me God". I can guess his bias from the articles posted at the Commission's site.

I agree (again) that Obama should go ahead and say "say so help me God" if he wants to. His role in taking the oath is private citizen. But Roberts should not. His role in administering the oath is governmental.

I haven't said there is a Constitutional guarantee of "freedom from religion". Freedom From Religion Foundation is just a name. I'm not that keen on the name. But maybe it saying that the members exercise their religious freedom by being free from religion.

By the way, I don't want to interfere with anyone else's freedom of belief or freedom to practice religion as they see fit. I do believe in their freedom to do that. 100%.

The only one I believe is not free to practice religion is the government.

I don't speak for FFRF or Newdow or the many other plaintiffs in the suit but I think that would be close to the their positions.

Ron

[Rick T]

Ron H....

So, if I understand you correctly, a government employee (Roberts)does not have a First Amendment privelege guaranteeing him free excercise of his religion or speech. If Obama tells Roberts he wishes to say, "...so help me God," Roberts' is gagged? Is a police officer gagged from using any religeous terminology on duty? How about a public utility employee? A state highway worker?

Forgive me for the assumption on the "Freedom From Religion" thing. I usually assume that people support the ideals of organizations to which they belong. The name of the particular organization to which you claimed to be a member of is arguably a rather clear statement of an ideal.

[RonH]

Hi Rick,

I don't know if you are understanding me correctly. But you're not describing what I said correctly.

I'll say it another way. Roberts, the private citizen, has the same First Amendment right (not privilege) we all have as private citizens.

In administering the oath, Roberts will be representing the government not himself. The government doesn't have any First Amendment rights.

Obama doesn't get to tell Roberts what to say; Roberts, acting as government representative, tells Obama what to say. Roberts gets precise instructions for playing this role from the Constitution.

I said before above that I agree with some of what FFRF does and disagree with some things they do. I claim to be a member only because I am. I don't know what I could gain by coming to this forum anonymously and making the claim falsely. You can go to the FFRF site and read "Our Purposes", you can look a the group's activities which are documented on the site and in the news, or you can infer FFRF's purpose just from the name. It's your call.

Based on my experience here, I'd say it pays to be careful what you infer from the name of a group.

Ron

[Francis Beckwith]

I have an idea. Obama should agree to say the oath with his hand on a copy of the latest issue of Playboy. But, then, at the last moment replace it with a Bible. If Newdow objects to the switch, then we can accuse him of censorship and trying to "force his views on others."

[RonH]

.