I think you need to read your Constitution again - it leaves it up to the individual whether he wants to use an oath or affirmation. I’m not going to mandate it either way, and I don’t think it is your place to do so either.
For me the issue isn’t what the person being sworn wants to say, but what he’s asked to say.
The reference that time was to “ceremonial deism” as a concept, nonsensical though it is.
This isn’t an easy topic for you, is it?
Again, I’m not talking about the President’s oath of office. The Constitution says the President must take either an oath or an affirmation; it gives the words which must be subscribed to, but leaves off the specific religious component, since that would be up to the conscience of the individual taking the oath of office. Most Presidents for the foreseeable future will say “So help me God”, but some future President is left free to say “So help me Goddess” or “In the Name of Allah” or whatever form speaks to his or her conscience.
But Congress has denied this to other federal officeholders. A neo-Pagan devout worshipper of the Goddess who has been nominated to be undersecretary of something (or has been commissioned in the Air Force, or has enlisted in the Army) has to choose between making a secular affirmation (which may not really square with her personal religious belief that such solemn statements should in fact be sworn to by the Goddess), or with using someone else’s religious component to her oath.
This is wrong. The framers of the Constitution got it right–specify the statement may be in either the form of an oath or an affirmation; specify exactly what must be subscribed to; leave the specific religious affirmation (if any) up to the person whose conscience we’re presumably trying to bind. Congress got it wrong, and they really should change the law.
Depends on the reason for its removal.
I have a huge objection to it being removed on the theory that it’s violative of the First Amendment, because it isn’t.
If someone wishes to propose removing it because they don’t like it, because it’s meaningless, my reaction is: “Meh. Go ahead; fine with me.”
Bricker, would you say that, in a hypothetical situation where “In God We Trust” had never been added to the currency, a bill adding it now would be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment?
In other words, can something over time become ceremonial deism, losing its religious significance?
Isn’t that the whole idea behind ceremonial deism?
What if the President says “bless you” after someone sneezes?
This is awesome.
I would say so, but then I am neither a textualist, nor a person who believes that ceremonial deism has any legal basis. I was trying to understand how people support it as a theory.
Only because you have declared a priori that it has no religious meaning - an assertion which you are having quite a bit of difficulty supporting, obviously.
villa, its “support as a theory” is its being a rhetorical rationalization for doing exactly what it (and its supporters, like Bricker) superficially purports not to do. That’s it entirely.
IOW, Bricker. cut the crap.
Let him express the oath for his second term in interpretive dance; right now there’s some necessary pandering to do.
Funny, I thought we spelled out to someone the full impact of a societal obligation they have when they took an oath was by punishing them if they broke it.
Given the exceedingly small number of folks (the) (G)god(s) have punished contemporaneously with their oath breaking, it seems that it ain’t real high on the list of things that piss (the) (G)god(s) off.
CMC fnord!
Of course.
Why can’t it be “so help me America”?
I’m all for the omission of the phrase in inaugerations,
the Pledge of Allegiance and especially courts.
When the nation’s leader uses this phrase it only opens
doors for religion and politics to mix fable and current events.
America’s founders rejected this type of mix from the get go.
But–doesn’t this allow nine black-robed, unelected, etc., etc. judges the power to arbitrarily decide what is and is not “ceremonial deism” and thus a violation of the actual words of the Constitution?
No, they did not. The founders regularly invoked God in a variety of settings while acting in an official capacity.
What they rejected was a Federal church. They also rejected a religous test. They did not EVER reject the actions of individual.
Obama is not being forced to say, “so help me God” by the government. He is effectively forced to do so if he wants to keep the support of a significant part of the US population - but that is politics, not state coercion.
I wish a Christian might bless me after a sneeze. I will cut out their bloody hearts.
Yes. No.
So it’s the “significant part of the US population”, eh?
That doesn’t make me feel any better.
Exactly why would he lose the support of those who
need to hear this phrase uttered if he chose not to? Did they vote for Obama
because he likes god? I think not being Bush would have more to do with his
success in the polls, not to mention his campaign for a better America.
If he doesn’t say the phrase, and does lose this support over
something as small as this, then voting isn’t all that great.