Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

[BlackAsgard]

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

As a person of indeterminate faith, or lack thereof (I've played both sides of the fence and neither satisfied me), I can honestly say that while it does seem like a bit of a shove-off to nonbelievers to swear to God in a nation that isn't unitheistic, I can't say it particularly riles me, either (anymore). Why? Because if you don't believe in God, that's well and fine; either way, he's not making YOU swear him in, and he's swearing himself to his highest authority, one that requires a moral code accepted by, as I've said in earlier posts, all peoples across all nations.

It seems nonsense for this, or the flag-pin on the lapel to even be an issue.

Also, I recommend that those of you criticizing President-elect Obama read his first book, 'Dreams from my Father'. Then, perhaps if you understand something of the man, you'll understand why it is actually important not only to him, but to us, that he swears himself to be his best to a higher deity.

After reading what he's written, I'm convinced that not only I would read anything else he wrote (not necessarily agreeing, but I do enjoy the way he writes), but that he is the most qualified man in the free world to lead right now. While Senator McCain may have spent 5 years as a P.o.W. he has nothing on P-e Obama's life of struggle and identity crisis.

Nothing.

So let the man swear to God if he wants. Edit it out in your mind, "I swear to [the people/vishnu/allah/Wodan/Zeuz/FSM], blah-dee-blah..."

 

[deewank]

well said

So let the man swear to God if he wants. Edit it out in your mind, "I swear to [the people/vishnu/allah/Wodan/Zeuz/FSM], blah-dee-blah..."[/quote]

 

[Alex_P]

look our nation was founded on god fearing men, who made it apart of our school oath and even in the constitution It states "IN GOD WE TRUST" take that you atheists

I hate this kind of post. Of course America has religious traditions. But let's try to actually learn about them instead of just spouting random crap, huh?

Here's the US Constitution [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html]. Use your browser's "Find" function to look for references to God. If you love the Constitution, read it.

"In God We Trust" is a motto on our money. It was introduced around the time of the Civil War, but only became ubiquitous in the 50s, when everyone was obsessed with communism; "In God We Trust" then became the official national motto at the same time.

Like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, it's a fake tradition constructed during a paranoid, reactionary time.

...

"So help me God" in the presidential Oath of Office at least came about naturally rather than as a product of legislated morality.

-- Alex

 

[deewank]

yore a bit late arnt you that was my very passionate friend whose ass i swiftly kicked for posting that

 

[Sccye]

It's a curious issue. I think having the God part in there as a matter of course is something of a problem, but as an elective section of the speech I don't have a problem with it (From Obama, at least).

As best as I remember, America is a country that was founded for liberty and freedom - to believe or not believe. Whilst there's such a strong presence of Christian belief in America, it makes relative sense that religion is still an important part of American society; the good and the bad aspects of it both.

I read 'so help me God' as a non-cognitive statement (Granted, only relevant to theists), part of American political rhetoric that effectively just says 'I will perform my duties to defend and govern this nation to the utmost of my ability' with God added as a kind of intensifier or supreme witness to such a promise. I think it's quite possible to want to govern a nation as a religious person whilst maintaining a technically secular, free state.

On the flip-side, it does open the door to the idea that some aspect of Christianity is mandated in government. Which is why I think making it an optional, or variable section of the inauguration speech would be a decent fix rather than eliminating it altogether.

 

[antipunt]

Oh my zeus, there is so much ignorance about America's history here it hurts. No, nowhere in the constitution does it mention the state as having to be secular, but ALSO nowhere in the constitution is "god" mentioned. In an age where religious phrases were everywhere, this can't have been anything but deliberate. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen)

Yes, the majority of people in this country are christian of one flavor or another, but the next largest group is people who don't subscribe to any religion. There are more people in the US who don't subscribe to a religion than there are Blacks and Asians COMBINED. (See CIA Factbook)It's fair to say that the US is a nation OF christians, but not A christian nation. This fact was illuminated in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Article 11 states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" This treaty was passed unanimously (how many times does congress do that?) and many of the founding fathers were present to vote on it.

Furthermore, "Under god" was not added to the pledge until 1954, after a vigorous campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the nation's largest catholic fraternity. It was a successful attempt by the religious to extort the atmosphere of fear rampant in the McCarthy era and wed religion with patriotism. To be against the religion suddenly made you unpatriotic, which was a social death sentence in the 50's.

The "so help me god" part of the inauguration is actually not part of the offical oath. It was became popular after Roosevelt. Only 18 of the 43 presidents thus far have uttered the phrase at the end of their oath.

I think it's funny when people say it doesn't violate the establishment clause of the first amendment because "god" is not religion specific. It is. god = masculine, singular. This automatically excludes polytheists, female centered religions, and the non-theists. Everybody knows it means the judeo-christian god, hell, perhaps even the muslim god, but nobody wants to acknowledge it. It's evident by that little twinge of disgust you would get if they said "so help me Vishnu, or Sheba, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Kinich Ahau, or Ra, or (insert never ending list of possible imaginary beings here).

I'm sorry if this pisses you off, but non-theists are never going to stop being treated as second class citizens by sitting down and shutting up.

PS. Oh, and not having "god" in the government would not be government professed atheism. It'd be neutral. If the money read "In god we do not trust", that too would be unconstitutional and would have to go. It's just best if the government didn't go there...

I couldn't agree more.

I agree, but I do think USA is a "Christian nation" (said with a heavy douse of caustic sarcasm). Sigh..it's going to be a piece of cake to get an ATHEIST elected president. I wondeer how much longer until then..it's going to be a while

 

[antipunt]

"but only became ubiquitous in the 50s, when everyone was obsessed with communism"

ironic how "God" becomes more pronounced in a time of widespread fear... hrm...

 

[Alex_P]

Hmm, turns out if you pay attention instead of just grabbing the shit as it hits CNN, there's quite a bit of nuance to this story:

Newdow is seeking an injunction against Chief Justice Roberts, the guy telling Obama what to say. I think that part of the lawsuit is actually quite reasonable. "So help me God" isn't part of the official oath of office as defined by law. What business does the official administering the oath have prompting the new president to say it?

The answer to that last question, of course, is that presidents get with whoever is reading the oath beforehand and tell him what they wants, so it's not like Obama is being forced into it. He can tweak it out like he can tweak what book is used to swear him in. That does make this particular instance relatively trivial, since Obama's rights definitively aren't really being infringed.

On the other hand, this is the most public and most watched of all swearing-in ceremonies. And Roberts is supposed to be representing not himself, not the new president, but the people and their Constitution. Can you really say that repeating this little ceremony every four years doesn't have cultural impact? Especially when legislatures have added God to plenty of other oaths -- oaths that regular citizens do take all the time. We certainly don't get the benefit of our own special oath-writing-and-book-picking session. Only some of these have exceptions and oftentimes actually finding out about the exception is a difficult affair. And, even then, it still singles you out.

Being TOLD TO say "so help me God" by a government official isn't religious freedom. It's religious conformity.

-- Alex

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

they can want it all they want but until they become the majority in the nation and a good portion of congressmen and senators stop having to in some way pander to a religious right, it will never happen.

You say this as though anything will change even if there was no religious right to pander to. Trust me, there are morons in every group.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It's a curious issue. I think having the God part in there as a matter of course is something of a problem, but as an elective section of the speech I don't have a problem with it (From Obama, at least).

As best as I remember, America is a country that was founded for liberty and freedom - to believe or not believe. Whilst there's such a strong presence of Christian belief in America, it makes relative sense that religion is still an important part of American society; the good and the bad aspects of it both.

I read 'so help me God' as a non-cognitive statement (Granted, only relevant to theists), part of American political rhetoric that effectively just says 'I will perform my duties to defend and govern this nation to the utmost of my ability' with God added as a kind of intensifier or supreme witness to such a promise. I think it's quite possible to want to govern a nation as a religious person whilst maintaining a technically secular, free state.

On the flip-side, it does open the door to the idea that some aspect of Christianity is mandated in government. Which is why I think making it an optional, or variable section of the inauguration speech would be a decent fix rather than eliminating it altogether.

Just a nitpick - technically "so help me god" does not infer christianity but rather any mono-theistic religion. People (conservative pundits) often accused the president elect of being a "closet muslim" (in what, if true, would be a shoe in for the greatest long con in history), and he could be referring to the muslim god (allah is just arabic for god). He could also be referring to the jewish god.

Interestingly enough, they all worship the same god, as each subsequent religion is nothing more than a modified version of the previous. Judaism of course came first and the religious writings are still used in Christianity (the old testament). Christianity was next and it's writings are used in the Koran along with those of the old testament. The key difference between them? The importance of Jesus. The jews said he was nothing but a minor prophet and a false messiah. The Christians state he is in fact the messiah and the son of god. Islam states that he was an important prophet and also agree with Christians that the second coming of Jesus will herald the end of times. But instead of being the son of god, Jesus was simply a perfect man who will be granted the honor of leading the armies of the righteous during the Apocalypse.

 

[Alex_P]

You say this as though anything will change even if there was no religious right to pander to. Trust me, there are morons in every group.

It's not about "morons". It's about people who are being manipulated through fear.

What's worst about it is that their real fears -- the deep-seated uncertainty created by living paycheck-to-paycheck, for example -- aren't even being addressed. Dicks just give them more fears, ludicrous unreasonable bullshit fears, to try to steer them into doing what they want.

Remove the fearmongers and you've still got people who are afraid, but now you can actually help them because their fears make sense. If the "Solid South" political strategy required playing to economic and educational needs rather than prejudice, having one party always adopting the "Solid South" strategy wouldn't actually hurt us at all.

-- Alex

 

[Dudemeister]

So, they're trying to force their beliefs on Obama. If he believes in God, that's none of their business. I thought atheists didn't like people forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[Untamed Waters]

I like how posters with faith love putting atheists into a little box and make them sound like some evil religion.

Because it technically is a religion.

(By the way, if we're still talking about the original lawsuit, the atheists are pushing their faith/views on others.)

 

[zirnitra]

they should have the right to choose. here in Britain when joining the armed forces people have the right not to swear to God but the Queen if they wish. you should also get rid of the oaths to god in your court rooms as well as the carvings of the ten commandments in the lobby.

 

[ScAR_TiSsUE]

God is supposed to be a symbol of everything good. Therefore, if a president looks to god or is inspired by god, to be a good president, you can't argue against that.

Atheist or not, should you discourage this?

If I was president-elect, whether I was religious or not, I would aspire to be better than I am, and pray for the strength to fulfill my duty to the people. And I'm not particularly religious, even though I was raised a Catholic. Nor am I American.

These Atheists make themselves look unreasonable and petty. An enlightened person should be able to ignore the words and see the sentiment behind them. The power and desire to do good. Whether the person saying them actually achieves anything afterwards is an entirely different matter!

 

[Untamed Waters]

I like how posters with faith love putting atheists into a little box and make them sound like some evil religion.

Because it technically is a religion.

(By the way, if we're still talking about the original lawsuit, the atheists are pushing their faith/views on others.)

How has being an atheist suddenly become a religion? They just seem like normal people who don't need the cushion of a religion to be happy or moral people and be told simple answers for everything.

They are not pushing anything on you, they just have an opinion on matters. You just sound like a bigoted asshole when you try to slap a name on and generalise people like that but i guess thats hardly surprising is it.

Go look up the word "religion" in the dictionary.

Oh, and by the way, it's ok, you can call me names on the internet. It makes you cool.