Roberts? You've Been Served

[MEBuckner]

@Mr.Moto

Congress didn’t get it wrong - the oaths you mention work just fine for the overwhelming majority of people, and for most of those that they do not work for the affirmation works quite well. In the era in which they were written they covered the range of belief pretty comprehensively.

In the past politicians tended to blithely assume that all Americans were Protestant, Catholic, or maybe Jewish. They could get away with it then, but they should stop doing that now.

Now, I am in agreement with you that in this era of greater religious pluralism this may need to be revisited. However, if done properly this will add a greater range of choices of oaths and affirmations - it shouldn’t prevent anyone from using the traditional oath of enlistment, commissioning or office.

All this can be accomplished with a simple legislative fix - especially as I have demonstrated that oaths are constitutional and that their use does not present any sort of establishment clause or religious test issue.

Agreed?

Done properly–I’ll take the oath of allegiance for naturalized citizensas the example–it should probably look something like this:

I hereby solemnly swear [or affirm][sup]1[/sup], that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.[sup]2[/sup]

---

Notes to those administering the oath or affirmation of allegiance:
[sup]1[/sup]The applicant may make the declaration in the form of either an oath or an affirmation.
[sup]2[/sup]Applicants making the declaration in the form of an oath may here add such phrases as are consistent with their religious beliefs in declaring their acceptance of these obligations.

Or something like that. Trying to list all of the known forms of oaths of the world’s religions would be quite pointless; just let the people administering oaths and affirmations know that some people may say various religion-y things at the end.

[Algher]

@Fish

Would the concept of ceremonial deism encompass prayer in school? Would it encompass the President accepting the sacrament before taking the oath of office? Would “ceremonial deism” successfully defend the idea of marriage defined as only between a man and a woman?

If the President wants to hold a Mass first - that is his personal choice.
If the people vote on the definition of Marriage, that is their choice (though the Constitutional issue of discrimination needs to be reviewed.)
If the President reads the Bible ever night, and uses the stories in there to inspire his actions - that is his choice. If his actions are bad, then we can vote him out.

What he can NOT do is declare that he will only hire Baptists, or that Presbyterianism is the religion of America.

@Fish

It seems to me that “who cares if it’s religious, we’ve always done it that way” is a poor justification for wedging religion into the behavior of government. The religious folk crammed “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1951, so “ceremonial deism” couldn’t have been their defense.

It was more the anti-commies who wedged “Under God” into the Pledge wasn’t it? That was the big deal when ranting about the Godless commies.

[Mr.Moto]

@MEBuckner

Or something like that. Trying to list all of the known forms of oaths of the world’s religions would be quite pointless; just let the people administering oaths and affirmations know that some people may say various religion-y things at the end.

What - so we’re just down to hashing out the form of an oath now? Far cry from amending the Constitution, right?

Glad to see you came around.

[MEBuckner]

@Mr.Moto

Far cry from amending the Constitution, right?

Well, we don’t need to amend the Constitution. The Constitution never fucked this up. It’s the Congresscritters who started jamming “So help me Gods” into the U.S. Code.

And as for “coming around”, it was my position from the start that Presidents can add whatever religion-talk at the end of the Presidential oath of office as fits their personal religious beliefs.

[Gfactor]

Injunction denied: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/judge_references_to_god_okay_d.html

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr.Moto

Pardon me, I am not Bricker. But I will say that personally I would find these arguments worth considering if they weren’t coming from someone who was bickering over something so simple to define as the meaning of the word “oath”.

If I can’t pin you down on that subject, how can we hash anything else out?

If you can’t be bothered to comprehend that we’re talking about a *particular *oath and its particular text, then no, nobody can hash anything else out with you.

Do try to keep up. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

Well, this waste of judicial resources will undoubtedly appeal the denial of his injunction, and his appeal will undoubtedly be dismissed as well, and then he may try to move forward on the merits, and THAT will be denied, and…

…I hearken back to what I said in the OP: I don’t believe this is a good use of our limited judicial resources, especially for what amounts to an absurd and settled question. Newdow should cut it out.

[Mr.Moto]

@ElvisL1ves

If you can’t be bothered to comprehend that we’re talking about a *particular *oath and its particular text, then no, nobody can hash anything else out with you.

Forgive me for saying so, but I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let’s assume for the moment that President Obama were to omit “so help me God” but was to place his hand on the Bible and say the constitutionally prescribed words, including the operative phrase “I solemnly swear…”

That makes it an oath - what is more, it makes it an oath to God, as Obama is a Christian and is swearing on a Bible. The religious implications of this are so clear that right from the beginning of our founding, affirmations have been permitted for people unable to swear oaths because of their particular beliefs, whatever they happen to be.

The fact that this is constitutional is undeniable - it is there in plain sight, and the case law doesn’t seem to back up your view of the subject.

Now, you don’t have to like it - there are a few things in the Constitution I’m not keen on myself. But you can’t reasonably deny what is right there in front of you.

Unless, of course, you get off on being unreasonable.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I don’t believe this is a good use of our limited judicial resources, especially for what amounts to an absurd and settled question. Newdow should cut it out.

The lawyer’s bubble again … Newdow isn’t really doing this as an actual, legitimate judicial issue, is he? This is all about publicity for a broader political cause - one which no one here btw is calling actually wrong Constitutionally, just trivial and misguided - and he’s getting it.
I take it you simply have no reply either to a challenge about the legitimacy of the “ceremonial deism” dodge or to one about the existence of the “true meaning” of the text of the Constitution.
MM, scroll back up to the top and read a little slower. Maybe that will help.

[Mr.Moto]

He’s getting publicity - but a lot of people have been patiently explaining why he is wrong.

Including some of our atheist members, incidentally.

As for you, ElvisL1ves, I doubt any amount of rereading at any speed will improve your argument. So I’m going to ask you flat out - given the fact that an oath or affirmation is required of the new President, what is your opposition to the oath of office?

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s worse than I thought - you really do think that’s what my concern is, don’t you? Wow … :rolleyes:

Nope, the Oath of Office (notice the caps; the rest of the class is discussing a *specific *oath) does not invoke religion and is not in violation of the Constitution’s wise requirement for separation of church and state. The conversation the rest of us here have been having has broadened into the existence of numerous other instances where that requirement has been violated, and yet been rationalized as meaninglessly (:rolleyes:) “ceremonial”.

[Mr.Moto]

@ElvisL1ves

…the Constitution’s wise requirement for separation of church and state.

Interesting. Can you point out this phrase for me in your copy of the Constitution? I can’t find it in mine.

I can find the establishment clause, the free exercise clause and the no religious test clause - but these don’t add up to a separation, and indeed many Supreme Court decisions declare right off that these spheres of life cannot be totally separable and the goal must be reconciling them with the rights of others in mind.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr.Moto

Interesting. Can you point out this phrase for me in your copy of the Constitution? I can’t find it in mine.

There is no value in such deliberate obtuseness. That, as you must certainly know, is the common expression for the religion clause in the First Amendment.

Do you really wish to argue that there is *no such thing *as a SOCAS requirement ?!

[Mr.Moto]

From Marsh v. Chambers:

The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has continued without interruption for almost 200 years, ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice has been followed for more than a century in Nebraska and many other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

From Lynch v. Donnelly:

(a) The concept of a “wall” of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the “callous indifference,” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 , that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 672-673.

  (b) This Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause comports with the contemporaneous understanding of the Framers' intent. That neither the draftsmen of the Constitution, who were Members of the First Congress, nor the First Congress itself, saw any establishment problem in employing Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a striking example of the accommodation of religious beliefs intended by the Framers. Pp. 673-674.

  (c) Our history is pervaded by official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life, and equally pervasive is evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression and hostility toward none. Pp. 674-678. [465 U.S. 668, 669]  

  (d) Rather than taking an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause and mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith, this Court has scrutinized challenged conduct or legislation to determine whether, in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith or tends to do so. In the line-drawing process called for in each case, it has often been found useful to inquire whether the challenged law or conduct has a secular purpose, whether its principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and whether it creates an excessive entanglement of government with religion. But this Court has been unwilling to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area.

[Mr.Moto]

@ElvisL1ves

Do you really wish to argue that there is *no such thing *as a SOCAS requirement ?!

I think you need to justify your absolutist views on this subject. This isn’t supported by the Constitution or by case law.

Your opinion of how things ought to be isn’t quite enough, no sir.

[Mr.Moto]

I will note, too, that these opinions seem relatively straightforward in their entirety - no ceremonial deism. In the first it is noted that if the Founders saw no constitutional issue with paid chaplains and public prayer, than this shouldn’t trouble us now, at least not on constitutional grounds. In the second it is a simple religious accommodation issue - no ceremonial deism invoked, but the Court’s balancing test is revealed a bit.

[ElvisL1ves]

You have provided examples of existing violations of the SOCAS requirement of the First Amendment, examples which the rest of us have been discussing already. As I already said, scroll up.

Perhaps you think the existence of violations, or their duration and history, or of rationalization of those violations, means there is no such requirement?

There’s no such thing as SOCAS … incredible …

[Mr.Moto]

@ElvisL1ves

There’s no such thing as SOCAS … incredible …

What - I’m not permitted to disagree with something Jefferson wrote in a letter?

I believe there should be no religious test for office, I believe in the free exercise of religion so far as it does not interfere with other rights, and I do not believe there should be an established church or one preferred in law.

However, a strict wall of separation isn’t required by the Constitution, it isn’t supported by case law and it isn’t favored by most people. So no, I don’t want that.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr.Moto

What - I’m not permitted to disagree with something Jefferson wrote in a letter?

You’re permitted to disagree with whatever you like. To pretend it doesn’t exist, no.

Just ftr, are you joining the proudly self-proclaimed “textualist” Bricker in claiming that “In God We Trust” and “under God” in fact do NOT mean what those texts say? :dubious:

[Mr.Moto]

@ElvisL1ves

You’re permitted to disagree with whatever you like. To pretend it doesn’t exist, no.

Well, read Lynch then and stop pretending that doesn’t exist.

@ElvisL1ves

Just ftr, are you joining the proudly self-proclaimed “textualist” Bricker in claiming that “In God We Trust” and “under God” in fact do NOT mean what those texts say? :dubious:

They say what they say - but they don’t constitute any kind of establishment of religion or interference of free exercise. For you to claim that they do flies in the face of established custom and case law.