Agreeing with Newman’s otherwise pointless lawsuit of last month…

I’m guessing you meant Newdow’s lawsuit?

I can live with a bit of ceremonial deism so long as it’s not terribly distracting. A president adding “So help me God” at the end of an oath as personal prayer doesn’t bother me.

However, Judge Roberts’ decision to ad lib “So help you God?” has become a distraction and so I find it unfortunate.

Roberts congratulated Obama after the exchange regarding the offensive phrase, that is where they are making the error. They are not in a position to legally alter the promise that is made to the citizens of the country. If they want the oath changed they need to ask the citizen’s representatives to consider and adopt the change. Which leads to a serious problem for the christians as well as for those that have the ability to think rationally.

The christians claim to fame is that their chosen life rules put pressure on them to ensure that they act in an exemplary way. However, the act itself of changing the oath is deceptive and dishonest. The deception is pointed squarely at their god idea and completes a circle that suggests they have no intention of acting honestly or acting by the laws that have been established by the citizens representatives.

The change to the oath also makes an agreement between the president and his chosen god idea representatives giving them authorization to disregard the laws established by the citizens representatives. To be totally faithful to the spirit of the oath as given the president should of course act in conjunction with his god idea representatives and should be deceptive when acting with disregard to the written oath.

Joe, whatever the president wants to put in his personal remarks to the citizens is his business. The oath he promises to the citizens is not his to change; honestly, ethically, morally, or legally.

I too followed the debate on dispatches and the religionists position was that it was freedom of expression and harmless. That that argument was rehashed here seemed to me an example of a standard apologist tactic when they lose a debate; to pretend the debate never happened and restate their original case.

I’m sorry, js, that you had become associated with these people in my perception.

What was not clear to me was whether or not “so help me God” is also advancing a specific religious position. I don’t believe it does. That is why the comparisons seem to me to be lacking.

The issue I’ve since hit is looking at the other two clauses of Lemon. The collusion between Roberts and Obama for putting the line there is borderline on “entanglement” – having to wrestle with semantics like lawyers to justify it means acknowledging that it may be more entangled than is appropriate, and it was under that where I was disagreeing with you in trying to resolve what that borderline might be*.

However, there’s that all-important first clause: the action [legislation, but the sentiment applies beyond that word] must have a secular purpose. Here, your position is clearly in the right: there is no *secular* reason why any public ceremony of office should ever have “so help me God” officially in it. Agreeing with Newman’s otherwise pointless lawsuit of last month, and an earlier statement I made, it might be OK for the President to add it on his/her own, but Constitutionally, Roberts was in the wrong to have prompted it, even upon request or agreement.

* It was in suggesting a particular borderline that got “eddie” to assume I was pro-religious with all of the backlash that happened here – would that he chose his words more carefully and not echoed the hate-rhetoric of the Religious Right. I was suggesting it as an idea that came to mind, not because I was in any way interested in encouraging establishment of any type. It is possible, nee necessary, to discuss things objectively, which I was trying to do. From “Day of Prayer” bills signed by Washington and Adams (and even one by Madison, under pressure) to “God Bless America” being sung (badly) on the Capital Steps by Congress, this country has a history of justifying accommodation legally after the fact, and I was attempting to discern if there was some justification that could be used and throwing the idea out there for legitimate discussion. In spite of eddie’s inflammatory remark, that discussion has happened, and I thank you.

It’s more than the idea that state sponsored prayer is an Establishment violation. (though that’s an issue)

Warren specifically is a divisive, hate-mongering, Phreaky Phred Phelps in a tie, despicable excuse for a human being and is counter to everything this administration has told us it stands for.

As for Warren, his very presence was way the heck out of line.

I also don’t see how that moment of expression drives a “wedge” between President and People when 90% of the people claim to believe.

ShawnSmith: Roberts flubbed a lot more than just that. 🙂

Lou FCD I’m still not convinced the scenario today and the two examples you just posted are comparable. There may be an argument from analogy that’s valid, but those two aren’t really it.

Now, the use of the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew Chapter 5 (translated by King James’s commission in 1605 and modified soon after for use in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer) specifically in Warren’s invocation I thought was way the heck out of line.

The fact that he requested it is immaterial, near as I can tell. If the residents of a county request that a display of the Ten Commandments be installed behind the judge’s bench in a courtroom, does that make it Constitutional?

If the residents of a school district vote to replace Science with Creationism, is it then Constitutional?