Blog
Facebook
AIM
Digg
Reddit
Stumble It
Email
Report- Serviced apartments london.
- My College Phases: Know-it-all-Agnostic
- Lunch Break Roundup: Homey D. Clown, Ben Stiller And Stephen Colbert
- Roselyn Sanchez Tops The Link Pile
- The Morning Mess With Katy Perry
- U2 Comes to Fordham
- Man fears sexual desires, has balls cut off
- Adriana Lima Tops The Link Pile
- Lucy Pinder Tops The Link Pile
- Profiles in Badass: Kid Gets a Luke Skywalker Bio-Arm
A group of Atheist organizations have filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice Roberts amongst others to get the phrase "so help me God," out of the oath Presidential-Elect Obama will take on January 20th. Their argument is that by mentioning God and allowing religious leaders to speak at the inauguration, we are violating what the Constitution has to say about our government not being allowed to support a particular religion. The poor, old Atheists went on to say that they will feel "feel excluded and stigmatized," if forced to watch this blatant promotion of religion on national television. I guess feeling excluded and stigmatized has soften up in America, whereas it used to be used towards certain groups of people, such as women or African-American who might have been physically harmed for expressing their way of thinking. Nowadays it just means some feelings were hurt. Well besides that, here's why this is one of the most pointless fights to fight that I've heard about in a long time.
The reason why "so help me God," is even part of the oath is because George Washington threw it in there. Originally, it was not part of the oath, but our first president felt the need to call upon a higher power he believed in to help him run a brand-new democracy. He didn't, however, say "so help me God... and I'd like to say 'screw you!' to all of those Atheists out there that don't think like I do!" Nor will President-Elect Obama throw any insults towards Atheists.
To be fair, Atheists have not included Obama in their lawsuit, because they do not want to gag him if he wants to call upon a higher power that he believes in. So do they think that he's going to be held at gun point by Chief Justice Roberts to say "so help me God,"? Yeah the Chief Justice can be a tough guy, but if Obama really felt that strongly about not invoking the help of a character that Atheists believe is just as real as the Easter Bunny, then I'm sure he could object. Personally, I think it's done more-so out of respect towards Washington than actually calling upon the help of the G-Man to pull some strings for a new presidency.
As for the complaint that religious people shouldn't be allowed to speak at the Inauguration, well gosh, I can't believe I'm defending these people again. To have Atheists say religious figures should not be allowed to speak at such events is like religious people going crazy over a scientist that happens to be an Atheist supporting the teaching of evolution over the God went click theory speaking at such an event. Again, though, I doubt someone like Warren is going to get on that stage in front of the nation and tell everyone that Satan is going to enjoy the company of Atheists and gays in the future. If he does advertise his religion, then yes, I could see the complaint, but I think that's about as likely as Obama unveiling his identity as a Muslim, something hardcore conservatives have been waiting for since they first heard his funny sounding name (because Muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve our country or anything...)
If Atheists really want their voice heard in matters of how God is mentioned in our country, they should work to get more Atheists elected to office. Pete Stark is probably feeling lonely out there. Besides, just as Congressman Keith Ellison was able to use a Koran to swear himself in, I'm sure an Atheist can hold their hand over an empty box, just so long as they don't compare it to their idea of religion... Although that would be pretty funny!
Search
Hot Links
Popular Posts
"All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his oath. In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath in full, a report from the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath. The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the event."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22 Posted 01/02/2009 1:19 PMReply
I got the George Washington thing from David McCullough, whom seems pretty legit and not a "Jesus-freak." So take that argument up with him. Posted 01/02/2009 1:30 PMReply
That said - Red, as has been pointed out, there's a very good reason to doubt the claim about Washington. I find it additionally dubious because there's considerable evidence that Washington was a deist, not a Christian, and would not have believed in an interventionist god to help him.
That's not the main point in the objections to this, of course. But it's a part of it. The story of Washington's "so help me God" is not as well-known as the story of his cherry tree, but it's just as much a part of this nation's folklore, and those who like it there don't seem to much care for the evidence.
Do you know how "In God We Trust" came to be on our money and "under God" made its way into the Pledge of Allegiance, Red? I've lost count of how many times Christians have pointed to those two things and told me that this proves the Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian nation - and my inner historian dies a little every time. (Being told afterwards to get out of here if I don't like it doesn't much endear that line of thought to me either.) After all, both were added in the 1950s - with the explicit intention of making a religious statement and to establish the States as a *spiritual* as well as temporal opponent to the Soviet Union.
It worked quite well towards that purpose. Atheism came to be seen as equivalent to communism, and branded as antithetical to the American way of life. Today, in the country where Washington once wrote "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists", half the people say the would not vote for a well-qualified atheistic presidential candidate. Because, aside from their religion's views on atheism, in just half a century it became part of this nation's tradition that they shouldn't. Do you think it would not matter to you if for the past fifty years children throughout this nation had to declare allegiance to "one nation under no god", Red? And that the impact of such a policy would not go beyond mere individual offense to some believers?
You say that we should elect more people like Pete Stark to represent us? I'd love to. Problem is, our support is a kiss of death to a candidate - anyone we openly support will actually lose votes. Stark can afford to declare his atheism because he's represented his district for so long that his seat is his for the taking so long as he wants it. A new Representative would not be able to get away with that - and that means that we must choose blindly, poring over each candidate's record and trying to make an educated guess as they do their political song and dance to please the Christians in the audience.
For example, have you followed the whole Hagan/Dole debacle? Many, many atheists wrote to Hagan to express their support after the first ad from Dole. After Hagan went with a "How DARE you accuse me of being one of those people? I'm a Christian!" response instead of doing a Colin Powell and asking "So what if I were an atheist?", quite a few wrote to ask what her position on atheists was. Privately, she assured them that she would look out for the rights of all of her constituents, atheists included. But in public? Well after the election, she continues to respond to Republican wheedling by saying that she's a Christian and that she would never take money from atheists.
Never. And she's supposed to be one of the good guys.
If you have some suggestions on how to elect atheist candidates in this kind of political climate, Red, I'd love to hear them. Posted 01/04/2009 12:20 PMReply
I did follow the Hagan/Dole debacle. I understand your skepticism (no pun intended) over my optimism of having someone elected to represent your community's interests, but they said the same thing about the African-American community back in the day as well as the Gay community. Where there is a will, there is a way!
Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond to all of your comments, but thanks for the big-kid candor! Posted 01/04/2009 12:39 PMReply
As for the pledge - to be honest, I find it kind of creepy even independently of the "under God" part. I grew up in the Soviet Union, during its last years. Want to know how many times I had to pledge allegiance to the state/flag/Dear Leader at the elementary or middle school level? Zero. (My family moved to the States when I was in eighth grade, so I can't tell you much about the years past that, but from what my parents tell me there was no pledge there either. Just a course on the history of the Communist Party.)
I just can't shake the feeling that overt political indoctrination in school is fundamentally wrong, and when you add religion to that and make me face the fact that when I have children, they will be expected to do this every day...yeah. I'm not happy about this. Posted 01/04/2009 1:36 PMReply
Maybe I just don't think as much of it, because I didn't grow up in a Soviet Union-esque country, but I know I never (and my friends never) thought much of pledging allegiance to the flag. When you look at it the way you do, I can see the creepiness easily. I also never felt I was having religion shoved down my throat when reciting the allegiance despite the obvious God reference. I guess myself and others of my age see those little things as mere habit than actually professing a belief in God or thinking we should be constantly pledging allegiance to the flag.
Luckily for you, my Godless friend, your kids won't have to stand for the pledge if they don't want to. If you don't even want the pledge to be said in front of your child as he or she sits quietly are their desk, then you can run for the school board and have a voice! Of course the Bible belt probably isn't the best place to bring this up, but I have a feeling you don't live there. If you do... well God (hah, oh the hilarity) help you and your cause! Posted 01/04/2009 2:21 PMReply