The 'So Help Me God' Controversy

[Valjean]

Why argue about the 1st ammendment? The relevant part of the Constitution is Article II, Section 1, which spells out, verbatim, the oath of office of the President. Google -- there is no "so help me God" in it.
One could make a case that adding a clause to an existing article would violate the "preserve, protect and defend" statement in the selfsame article!

 

[Sleepr]

To quote a friend... "Call me crazy, but when my "president to be" is taking his oath of office, I want him to swear that he will uphold the duties of the office with or without god's help."

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I do not think this is a very big deal, it's almost making a mountain out of a mole hill. Personally, I'd rather see no religious overtones in the ceremony, but the President-elect is a Christian, over eighty percent of this country is Christian, and there is no need to kowtow to religious minorities over a single phrase that does not affect anyone negatively in any way.

Here is the text of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It states that Congress cannot establish religion nor prohibit its free exercise, I see nothing in there saying that the President-elect may not be inaugurated with the words "so help me God." That's not establishing a religion, it's reflecting his own personal belief system. If an atheist, or a Buddhist, or some sort of polytheist/non-theist was elected, then the wording should change, but I see none of that here. Indeed, only recent case law backs up the "endorsement of religion" interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

I see this as a non-issue, and as such hope that the ruling goes against the plaintiffs.

I would question that Obama is a Christian. I can't imagine a man of his intelligence and diverse background to be a Christian, to be honest. I would hold that his Christianity is no more than a PR label.

 

[Storm]

I would question that Obama is a Christian. I can't imagine a man of his intelligence and diverse background to be a Christian, to be honest. I would hold that his Christianity is no more than a PR label.

What, only narrow-minded idiots can be Christian?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why argue about the 1st ammendment? The relevant part of the Constitution is Article II, Section 1, which spells out, verbatim, the oath of office of the President. Google -- there is no "so help me God" in it.
One could make a case that adding a clause to an existing article would violate the "preserve, protect and defend" statement in the selfsame article!

I agree.

I also agree with other posters here that while in theory it'd be good to have a secular oath/affirmation, it's probably not the battle to be fighting right now.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

What, only narrow-minded idiots can be Christian?

You're putting words into my mouth.

To be clear though, maybe "intelligence" is not a complete enough definition. "Intellectual honesty", perhaps, so of course, someone like me would equate intellectual honesty with not being Christian (given the fact that I am not). That, and his character, to me, seem to indicate a measure of independence from (or resistance to) religious affiliation.

 

[Storm]

Dude, reread your post as if it were from someone else. You basically said he's too smart to be a Christian. If that's not what you meant to say, perhaps you should rethink your phrasing.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't question Obama's commitment to Christianity. As far as I can tell, he is deeply religious, but he is also a secularist when it comes to government. I've occasionally come to doubt that during the campaign season, because nowadays there is a very strict de facto religious test for anyone seeking high public office (effectively neutering the de jure ban on such tests in the Constitution), but I still have hopes that he will be committed to the separation between church and state. I doubt that he would refrain from uttering "So help me God", even if it were not prompted by the Chief Justice during the ceremony.

 

[Magic Man]

I would question that Obama is a Christian. I can't imagine a man of his intelligence and diverse background to be a Christian, to be honest. I would hold that his Christianity is no more than a PR label.

I have to say, TOR, this does come off as very harsh towards Christians. I would even say that it does more than imply that Christians aren't very intelligent. There are some very intelligent Christians out there (and right here) who are devout in their faith. I don't question that Obama is Christian. I believe he is just like my parents are.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Dude, reread your post as if it were from someone else. You basically said he's too smart to be a Christian. If that's not what you meant to say, perhaps you should rethink your phrasing.

I have to say, TOR, this does come off as very harsh towards Christians. I would even say that it does more than imply that Christians aren't very intelligent. There are some very intelligent Christians out there (and right here) who are devout in their faith. I don't question that Obama is Christian. I believe he is just like my parents are.

I understand that Christians can be intelligent. I'm not denying that and I (from my perspective) reworded my previous statement to clearly convey my point of view (tried to anyway), which seems to be disregarded, ignored or misinterpreted. I feel like you guys are out on a witch hunt. I take back everything I said and apologize for whatever damage or harm you may think I've caused or whatever sense of egotism you may think I employed. I'm not going to argue about this.

 

[Magic Man]

I understand that Christians can be intelligent. I'm not denying that and I (from my perspective) reworded my previous statement to clearly convey my point of view (tried to anyway), which seems to be disregarded, ignored or misinterpreted. I feel like you guys are out on a witch hunt. I take back everything I said and apologize for whatever damage or harm you may think I've caused or whatever sense of egotism you may think I employed. I'm not going to argue about this.

Hey, no offense, TOR. I just thought your wording was a little weird. I know you don't mean any harm, and I don't mean to imply that.

However, in your rephrasing, all that says to me is that you think that no one who is intelligent and is being honest with themselves will claim to be Christian except as a way to placate followers. Is that what you're trying to say? I'm not really trying to argue, just want to clarify.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Hey, no offense, TOR. I just thought your wording was a little weird. I know you don't mean any harm, and I don't mean to imply that.

However, in your rephrasing, all that says to me is that you think that no one who is intelligent and is being honest with themselves will claim to be Christian except as a way to placate followers. Is that what you're trying to say? I'm not really trying to argue, just want to clarify.

Well, this may not be the thread to get into such a discussion, so I'll try to sum this all up in a single post. I won't try to clarify the original post at this point; I think that's a lost cause. Instead, let me briefly explain a few things.

It seems that scuffles like these almost always revolve around miscommunication (especially on the internet). Anyway, Barrack Obama, was born of a black Muslim father from Kenya (I believe it was Kenya) and a white Christian woman, so his local lineage is pretty diverse on both racial and cultural levels. This may sound weird, but I feel like in general, those who have had broad exposure such as that are very open to different cultural and religious backgrounds. Or, said differently, he is probably not (in my eyes) absolutist in his beliefs. He takes the middle-ground, perhaps. Do I think Christians are intellectually dishonest? Yes. Do I think they are aware of this? Of course not. BUT, I can be intellectually dishonest too, and Christianity is one of an infinite number of labels that people self-apply. My point is that it's not Christians in particular; if one identifies their sense of self through a specific label (Such as being Christian, though it doesn't matter what that label is; "Muslim", "Jew", "Nazi", "cop", "winner", "loser", "victim", "hero", "gay", "lesbian","Salvation Army volunteer"...doesn't matter), their interpretation of reality will align with that particular label (and intellectual dishonesty can manifest as such) UNLESS one is continuously aware of their thought processes and can identify when they are deriving their sense of self from a mental position (a mental position that aligns solely with their self-identified label).

Soooo.....if I say a person is intellectually honest (though most people aren't always 100% honest), then it follows that I don't apply a label to them.

How's this for clarity and context?