“Interlarding those ceremonies with clergy who espouse sectarian religious dogma does not unite, but rather divides, our citizenry…Similarly, instead of instilling confidence in our governmental structure, it tears at the very foundation upon which that structure is built.”
I'm not sure i follow your reasoning. You say that to remove all the god bothering would be atheism discriminating against christians and that christians would then have been unfairly forced out. This is nonsense.If the inauguration was changed so that instead of "In god we trust" Obama said "There is no god". Then you might have a point. You have erected a strawman to valiantly battle. How brave!How about if Obama said "In Allah we trust". Would you be ok with that? Or in "Yahweh we trust". How about to satisfy our pagan chums, "In Thor we trust". I'm sure you'll retort "But those are minority groups, america is a christian nation". No it isn't. It is a nation with majority christians living in it and a delcared secular government. Government is not supposed to favour one religion over another or over a lack of religion.If Obama were to say the Oath and not In god we trust, he would not be espousing an atheist message. He would simply be leaving god where he belongs, in the private sphere.The founding fathers recognised, wisely, that it is best for religion and best for government if the two are kept seperate. In god we trust should not be in presidential oaths, on your money or anywhere else run by the government. You can be a christian just as well without the government joining in as you can with.
Never at a loss for bizarre turns of phrases, Dan Barker stated that prayer at Presidential inaugurations and having the president state “So help me God” (a phrase that has been in the presidential oath for at least 128 years) amounts to “picking a winner between believers and those who don’t believe.”The presidential oath has not changed since it was written as part of the Constitution. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 reads:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."Note the absence of "So help me God" in the presidential oath. Newdow's lawsuit does not aim to prevent President-elect Obama from uttering those words when he takes the oath, as every President since George Washington has done. It aims to prevent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts from adding that phrase to the end of the charge he will give to Obama. This is a profound and meaningful difference. Do you not understand the distinction?
Oli;Thanks for checking in.The strawmanship was meant to show that one need not claim to be omitted simply because one does not hold to the premise upon which the country is founded.America has a secular government in that it does not have a National Church.America, as stated in the post, is a country that is premised upon the idea that its government exists in order to protect the rights given to us by our “Creator,” who is “Nature’s God.”That a Christian would state “So help me God” as he is being taking the oath of office does not amount to a National Church nor is it the government officially endorsement or establishing a particular religion—which would be unconstitutional.Certainly, a Muslim president elect could state, “So help me Allah,” a pagan, “So help me Thor,” and an atheist whatever they want. Actually, since professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues that the atheist Joseph Stalin was a theist who believed in a God named Stalin perhaps an atheist could state, “So help me God.”Interstate;Thanks and yes, I get your point and appreciate the clarification.aDios,Mariano
Newdow's lawsuit does not aim to prevent President-elect Obama from uttering those words when he takes the oath, as every President since George Washington has done. It aims to prevent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts from adding that phrase to the end of the charge he will give to Obama.Roberts would have done better to have stuck with just the words as written. When Roberts added the extra-constitutional words, it really messed up the cadence and flow of the oath. I wouldn't be surprised if the verbal mis-step wasn't a result of Roberts brain struggling with the new awkward phrasing.
Why can't anybody spell 'Barack?'
Why can't anybody spell 'Barack?' I suspect because 'Barak' is closer to the phonetics. I see 'Barack' as either BAR-ack or as BA-rack. Perhaps, people with hearing better attuned to the word can hear the proper spelling.