Cheeze_Pavilion said:
ZacQuickSilver said:
I'm not sure the Supreme Court has acted on it, but I do have to wonder that if every religion is our national religion (atheism included), how is that any different than the US not having a national religion: to quote Sun Tzu "If a man has no weaknesses, he also has no strengths"
Simple: now you've got the government meddling in religion. So now you've got government deciding issues of religion. Let's say the government buys every religion a church. Then members of one religion go into schism. Who gets the church? Now you've got the government deciding who gets the old church, and who has to worship in a new church in a new location. Or you've got the government involved in some kinda weird timeshare situation.
Which is *exactly* why we have the First Amendment: to keep religious practice from being subject to the decisions of the government.
And I'm not saying that there weren't a lot of philosophies that went into the founding of the US: our government is largely based of the Iroquois Confederacy, over any European system of government. Saying that the US government
However, if you look at where the moral structure came from, both during the time of the founding fathers, and since then, it is by and large Christianity. It isn't solely Christianity, but for the most part, it is.
Name what exactly it is in our moral structure that comes from Christianity, what couldn't have come from some other source. You keep talking in generalities with no specifics to back up what you're saying.
Back on topic, I will repeat that as long as the statement "So help me God" is not required to be said, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it, and I believe it would be unconstitutional for you to prevent someone from saying it, no matter who they are. If you don't want the president saying it, get an Atheist elected.
You can repeat it all you want--it's just as unsupported as the first time you said it. I mean, I can think of nothing that could be more hostile to the spirit of the First Amendment than 'if you feel the government is oppressing your on the basis of religion, then elect someone of your own religion'. That's EXACTLY the kind of "cuius regio, eius religio" situation that prevailed in Europe that the First Amendment was trying to avoid.
Okay, I'm going to concede the first two points. I was aware with the last post I was on shaky ground, but any further attempt to do anything will just result in me digging myself into a hole. If I can come up with a firm basis for an argument on either, I will post it, but until that (unlikely event) happens, I will give it to you.
However, the point I'm trying to make with the third point is that you can not prohibit someone from expressing their religion, so long as that religion does not infringe on the rights of others.
And to defend this, I'm going to walk away from the Establishment Clause, and go over to the part of the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech. It has been held up for a long time that this is not absolute: you can not say anything that incites violence (Hate speech), that would cause harm to others (Shouting "fire" in a crowded building), or that is demonstrably harmful to others (Libel, slander). Censorship tends to be upheld on the "Harmful to others" part.
However, you are allowed to express your opinions, your wishes for yourself or others ("Rot in Hell" is legitimate, as is "I will spit on your grave", though "Watch your back: One day I'll be there" is likely to be interpreted as a threat, and thus falls into the illegal area). And I see the phrase "So help me God" falling firmly in this area.
Now, there are a lot of places where I can see removing the word "God" would be appropriate: the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the "In God we Trust" on money. These are places where it is legally required to be, and thus possibly in violation of the Establishment Clause
But, the "So help me God" isn't part of the legal ceremony: it's something that, by tradition, is added by the president. If it were me, I might very well replace "God" with "Odin": the face of God I pray to when I seek guidance. And I would have no problem personally with someone leaving it out, or asking Allah, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Brahma, or even Science. And as far as I am concerned, this part falls under "The free practice thereof".
