Theocratic United States?

[Turtle]

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

 

The only place that I have seen what would constitute a breach of the 1st Amendment is with people being sentenced to complete AA and the like as part of their sentencing in court.

 

 

 

I would say that compelling people to participate in this program would be public enemy number one in the fight to separate church and state.

 

Bill

 

I'm with you on the AA bit; got in a raging argument (er...debate:hyper: ) with Ace just last night over it. Faced with having to go to such a crap laden ball of dung I would rage the entire time over my refusal to accept the first tenet.

As to the prayer in Congress however, I am staunchly in the opposite corner to you. My interpretation of the first ammendment's phrase 'respecting religion' is tantamount to an admonition to disrespect religion. My extensive readings of the biographies, letters, and conduct of our founding fathers leads me to the conclusion that they are rolling over in their graves at the utterance of prayers in a government body as well as the presence of the Bible or any other religious texts. At the very least I recommend you get a copy of Gordon S. Woods' Pulitzer Prize winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

Patriotically,

Turtle

[CraigD]

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

I agree with TBD.

 

There is undeniable a tradition of religion in US government. Prayer has been spoke in every congress since the first in 1789 (see http://chaplain.house.gov/histInfo.html). Congresspersons and staff cannot be compelled to acknowledge or participate in it – though, to my knowledge, at least all congresspersons do.

 

A minority of congresspersons take oaths of office omitting the words “so help me God”. At least one (I remember the event, in 2001, but not who it was) used the original oath - "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Although it’s arguable that they are violating congressional rules, I’ve never heard of any objection being raised over such alterations.

I suspect the reason is that, Constitutionally, congresspersons are required only swear to support the Constitution. Given the wording of Article 5:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It seems clear that any effort to compel a congressperson to “pass a religious test” such as speaking the name of God couldn’t withstand judicial scrutiny. By the same reasoning, if the “official” oath did not contain the word “God”, congresspersons could not be sanctioned for adding them – or “Allah”, “Krishna”, or “the Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

 

This has not always been the case. Particularly, during the cold war, there was near ubiquitous reluctance among congressmen to appear religiously devout. This was a period where numerous congressional resolutions were voted in – perhaps most famously, the 1954 inclusion of the words “under God” in the previously not-theistic Pledge of Allegiance, and the 1956 changing of the official US motto from "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) with “In God We Trust”.

 

Many have suggested that the religiosity of this period was due to a “witch hunt” mentality pervaded Congress, comparing it to conditions just after the Civil war. I’ve long suspected that it was also due to what one might call a “legislative myth” that a covert communist would be unwilling to pay homage to God, and that religious test were permissible because they were actually political tests.

 

I personally feel that the US Federal government would benefit from less religious speech, and that congressional actions such as the 1950s revisions of the Pledge and the motto were unconstitutional, represent a theocratic assault on the Constitution, and should be judicially challenged and revoked. However, I also believe that forcing people – government officials or private citizens, in public or in private – to refrain from religious speech is as grave a violation of the Constitution as forcing them to engage in it. “Freedom of religion” means freedom to have it, or not. Atheists, such as I, need to be careful that we are not ourselves religiously oppressive.

[Southtown]

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase;) ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. :shrug: Don't tread on me.

No they aren't 'the government'. People are people, and laws are laws. People have freedom of religion, while laws do not. Legistators may do as they choose. Legislation may not. When inanimate US law determines what people believe and how they express it, then yeah, politicians have crossed the line. An example of such would be for you and Freddy to have your wishes of conditional prayer-banning legislated. THAT would violate freedom of religion, and also free speech.

 

It is the politicians' right to express their beliefs, and it is the citizens' right to vote according to their beliefs. It would not be constitutional to restrict beliefs or expression of any sort. And we wouldn't have a democratic process if one party could simply disqualify the competition based on their position.

[C1ay]

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

To have standing in a court of law to bring a challenge that would require someone to show that they have been harmed, that their rights have been violated by taking one of these oaths. First, that would require an atheist to actually get elected to one of the branches and secondly to be turned down from that office for refusal to utter the end of the oath. IMO, it is unlikely this will ever occur.

[Turtle]

No they aren't 'the government'. People are people, and laws are laws. People have freedom of religion, while laws do not. Legistators may do as they choose. Legislation may not. When inanimate US law determines what people believe and how they express it, then yeah, politicians have crossed the line. An example of such would be for you and Freddy to have your wishes of conditional prayer-banning legislated. THAT would violate freedom of religion, and also free speech.

 

It is the politicians' right to express their beliefs, and it is the citizens' right to vote according to their beliefs. It would not be constitutional to restrict beliefs or expression of any sort. And we wouldn't have a democratic process if one party could simply disqualify the competition based on their position.

 

Our difference of opinion is in this respect the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent. As C1ay pointed out, a legal challenge is not in evidence and may well be unlikely; nonetheless, it is a commonly held mistaken idea that the founders were all Christians and the US a Christian nation. To the contrary, our independence as a nation is in large part due to the denying of religious tenets as the basis for law.

In the strongest possible terms, I am disgusted and disheartened to see the Bible brandished in the Congress and courts as some supreme authority over that of reason. :sun:

[Southtown]

Our difference of opinion is in this respect the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent. As C1ay pointed out, a legal challenge is not in evidence and may well be unlikely; nonetheless, it is a commonly held mistaken idea that the founders were all Christians and the US a Christian nation. To the contrary, our independence as a nation is in large part due to the denying of religious tenets as the basis for law.

In the strongest possible terms, I am disgusted and disheartened to see the Bible brandished in the Congress and courts as some supreme authority over that of reason. :sun:

I don't think you see my point. The basis for new law isn't what counts. What counts is what the new law enforces. Majority rule is the mechanism that curbs the radical ideas whether they be scriptural, hallucinative, or coldy AI-conjured.

[Turtle]

I don't think you see my point. The basis for new law isn't what counts. What counts is what the new law enforces. Majority rule is the mechanism that curbs the radical ideas whether they be scriptural, hallucinative, or coldy AI-conjured.

 

This strikes me as completely disingenuous. The basis for establishing our Constitution IS what counts, and it is and was radical. Furthermore, your AI reference is a strawman argument and I nowhere suggested it.

If a legislator started waving the Koran around in a session of Congress as the justification for enacting a law, do you seriously contend no one would balk? :sun:

[Southtown]

This strikes me as completely disingenuous. The basis for establishing our Constitution IS what counts, and it is and was radical. Furthermore, your AI reference is a strawman argument and I nowhere suggested it.

I wasn't talking about establishing the Constitution. I was saying that what counts is what a new law does, not how it's conceived. Where the idea for a law comes from is a totally different concept that what the law does. New legislation can come from any subjective morality and still possibly be Constitutional.

 

If a legislator started waving the Koran around in a session of Congress as the justification for enacting a law, do you seriously contend no one would balk? :sun:

Nobody's touting anything as justification. It's the inspiration, that's all. New law still has to conform to the Constitution.

[Freddy]

There is but one oath in the US Constitution and that is the specified Oath of Office for the President which is in quotations. This means it must be said exactly as the Constitution provides with nothing added to it or missing from it.

 

Congressional and Judicial branches' oaths were made law by Act of Congress and do not appear in the Constitution. Both oaths contain and compell a person to utter the phrase, "...so help me God." This is a clear violation of the Constitution.

 

The SCOTUS did rule on this issue in TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), where Maryland law tried to force all people holding public office to make, "a declaration of belief in the existence of God." It was ruled unconstitutional. What really is sad is the Court failed to overturn federal oaths as well in this unanimous decision!

 

From the Torasco v. Wadkins decision:

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 11

 

In upholding the State's religious test for public office the highest court of Maryland said:

 

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

 

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him [367 U.S. 488, 496] from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . We there pointed out that whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing "`. . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.'" 12

 

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

 

Reversed and remanded."

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488

[Turtle]

Where the idea for a law comes from is a totally different concept that what the law does.

 

:Guns: Laughing through my tears. Let's see...who's arguing against stem cell research and why? :hihi:

 

Congressional and Judicial branches' oaths were made law by Act of Congress and do not appear in the Constitution. Both oaths contain and compell a person to utter the phrase, "...so help me God." This is a clear violation of the Constitution....

Thank you for this clear & succinct statement and the jurisprudential facts in support of it. :)

[CraigD]

There is but one oath in the US Constitution and that is the specified Oath of Office for the President which is in quotations. This means it must be said exactly as the Constitution provides with nothing added to it or missing from it.

The interpretation that the POTUS’s OOO must be spoken exactly as written by the constitution is reasonable, but historically, nearly every president has added their own, additional, closing line, and this line has usually been “So help me God”

 

The First President, George Washington, is widely reported to have added “So help me God” (though accounts of this are conflicting, so the reports neither confirmed not denied). He also introduced the tradition of reciting the Oath with a hand placed on a Bible, which he afterwards kissed.

 

Fanklin Pierce (1853) recited the oath with “affirm” in place of “swear”, without the “So help me God” closing, and didn’t kiss the Bible (though he still placed his hand on it). Teddy Roosevelt had no Bible in his 1901 inauguration, but did in his 1905. Dwight Eisenhower replace the traditional Bible-kissing with the recitation of a prayer he had written for the occasion.

 

I’m unable to confirm it, but may accounts hold that John Kennedy was the first POTUS to be prompted by the Chief Justice to repeat the line “So help me God”. Before and occasionally since, it’s been traditional for the Chief Justice to end his prompting where the text of the Constitution does.

 

An legal academic friend of mine contended that once the actual Constitutional oath has been spoken, the swearing in is complete, and the Chief Justice and the President could take off their cloths and recite Shakespeare, if they were so inclined, without in any way invalidating it. That would surely win them a place in history :Guns:

[C1ay]

An legal academic friend of mine contended that once the actual Constitutional oath has been spoken, the swearing in is complete, and the Chief Justice and the President could take off their cloths and recite Shakespeare, if they were so inclined, without in any way invalidating it. That would surely win them a place in history :Guns:

On that technicality I'm not so sure I agree. While I agree that a concatenation by the President of the phrase "so help me God" is a personal expression of religion I believe such an addendum by the Chief Justice administering the oath is a solicitation of a belief in God. To this extent I believe the Chief Justice has crossed a line. The reality of this is that the person being administered the oath is the only one with standing to challenge it in court though and a man of faith would never do that.

[CraigD]

While I agree that a concatenation by the President of the phrase "so help me God" is a personal expression of religion I believe such an addendum by the Chief Justice administering the oath is a solicitation of a belief in God. To this extent I believe the Chief Justice has crossed a line.

This is a good and astute point. I remember some of my more political friends ranting about this invalidating G.W. Bush’s 2001 inauguration – at that point in the political process, people were desperately grasping at straws.

 

There’s some legal significance, I think, that the oath is prompted for a line at a time (this is true at least for the last 2 oaths administered by Chief Justice William Renquist), and that the oath is actually complete when the President Elect completes the line “… the Constitution of the United States.” Constitutionally, there’s no requirement that the oath be administered by anybody – a President Elect who just stood up and recited the oath would still be President. There’s no requirement that it even be made publicly – in 1963, following the assassination of John Kenedy, Lyndon Johnson was sworn in aboard the Air Force One presidential airplane by a local US District Judge, Sarah T. Hughes.

 

The inauguration is almost completely pomp, precedence, and tradition, with a touch of imagination and improvisation – in short, it’s a state party where, coincidentally, the President Elect recites his oath and becomes President.

 

It’s my personal opinion that Renquist and other Justices routinely go too far, and that his inaugural improvisations give the least cause for concern. :Guns:

[Turtle]

Theocratic United States? Well now, the appearence is given by this title and the discussions herein that this is something new; nothing is further from the truth. While I have not started a complete reading of Pulitzer Prize winning author James Wood's new book Revolutionary Characters: What Made The Founders Different, I went looking for some exerpts I knew I would find there.

It didn't take long and so here is just one little view of how pernicious the intrusion of religion into government is.

From page 116

Ordinary people, in whom he placed so much confidence, more certainly than his friend Madison, were not becoming more enlightened. Superstition and bigotry, which Jefferson identified with organized religion, were actually reviving, released by the democratic revolution he had led. He was temperamentally incapable of understanding the deep popular strength of the evangelical Christian forces that were seizing control of American culture in these early decades of the nineteenth century. He became what we might call a confused secular humanist in the midst of real moral majorities.

 

That such superstition and bigotry continue in our government to this day is a sad commentary on not only the US, but any nation or culture applying religious tenets to law. While strictly by the numbers one may claim we are a Christian nation, it is not Christian principles we are founded on. I am obligated and honored to take up Jefferson's , Franklin's and the other founders battle against religious superstition and bigotry with the same enthusiasm. Don't tread on us.

[Southtown]

:eek_big: Laughing through my tears. Let's see...who's arguing against stem cell research and why? :doh:

I don't know. You tell me.

 

Thank you [Freddy] for this clear & succinct statement and the jurisprudential facts in support of it. :)

I can't defend the oath of office thing, though. That's unconstitutional.

[Turtle]

I don't know. You tell me.

 

You're teasing an old turtle now Southy. :doh: That would be the theists.

 

PS This machine is experiencing intermitent blue screen of death as the video card dies, so I am at the mercy of the intermitent system administrator's intermitent attempts to repair/replace the problem. Sorry for the inconvenience.:eek_big:

[Southtown]

I am soon to follow. My card has three fans and none of them work. One tries to move a little but only manages to rattle incessantly. Only a matter of time now...

 

That would be the theists.

I disagree. There are theists who are for (destructive embryonic) stem cell research, and there are atheists who are against it. Why the proponents only push for embryonic destruction is beyond me.

 

But my point is that everyone has their own morals, and you can't discredit morals on the basis of where they come from. It wouldn't be democratic. You have to evaluate them on their merit. Two examples, 'thou shalt not steal' and 'thou shalt not kill'. Should these be removed from US law on the blind analysis of their origin? Or do they hold an innate civil relevance apart from their origin?

 

Only when people evaluate the merit of an idea do they draw a practical conclusion of its usage. And only then will we exercise good judgement.