Why it is ok to say god at the inauguration

[dcsmart]

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Text

Here is my argument: if Obama read this at the inauguration, would it be reasonable to say that he shouldn't because it mentions god. As americans, the Declaration Of Independence (DOI) along with our Constitution (C), are the founding documents of this country. Now, as americans we should, atheists or not, have respect for our DOI and C. It would be unreasonable for americans to demand that he not read it because it mentions god or that if he does read it, he remove the mention of god. Our Americanism has its foundation in the ideals found in both documents. Not whether we believe in god, but whether we believe

that all people are created equal, and that they have rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. and if we believe

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Text

now, if the founding documents did not address god, which the Constitution does not, then we would have a reasonable complaint. Furthermore, jesus, or any other religious figure, is not mentioned in either document and should not be mentioned in any government speech. So, as an American agnostic who respects the founding documents and the moral and political ideals they embody, i think it is fine for Obama to use the word god at the inauguration.

I will not get into the rick warren argument, he was the wrong choice as far as i am concerned. In fact, i wish there was no praying at all. why not read from Lincoln or other political figures and leave the praying for church. but, that is my opinion, not my argument.

in short, because the mention of god is in our DOI, then i think it is fine that god is mentioned at the inauguration.

[stray cat]

1. You could even claim it as freedom of speech - a good progressive value

[RoBear]

2. For me it's okay if Obama

says "so help me god," or whatever.

What I find offensive is for whoever swears him in to prompt him to ADD the words to the oath of office.

[cosmik debris]

3. My problem is preferential treatment for one religion

When equality is enforced, there will be no dispute.

Unfortunately, equality is not one of those vaunted "Christian values".

[driver8]

4. I feel the same way.

My friend and I were discussing this the other day.

How many heads would explode if he said, "So help me, Allah."

Why can't we leave God(s) out of it?

[cosmik debris]

6. Just out of curiosity

I did a search of the King James Version for the word "equality".

It shows up once only. And that is in the writings of Paul. 2Cor.8,14.

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

Not exactly the kind of equality I was looking for.

[Sanctified]

7. Only an ignorant dumbass would be offended by the word Allah.

Allah is the Arabic word for God, even Arab Christians use the word Allah. Now there is no context for Obama to use the word Allah unless he was giving the whole speech in Arabic so I doubt that he would use the word.

[cosmik debris]

23. Are you forgetting that 50 million people voted for Bush

There is no shortage of ignorant dumb asses in this country. And most of them would have a heart attack if Obama mentioned Allah.

[New Dawn]

24. Exactly, "God" is the deity of Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- not the deities of other religions

Its use in official government functions clearly violates the separation of church and state.

[dmallind]

5. Well there's two answers to that

1) constitutionally it isn't

2) because most people including most judges want it to be OK, they have tortured logic so far to establish a precedent that "god" is about history and tradition not religion to pretend that 1) is not true.

[Sanctified]

8. Where in the Constitution does it say you can't say God at an inauguration? N/T

[dmallind]

9. That establishment bit, and the Lemon Test SCOTUS decision. NT

6464

[Sanctified]

10. Lemon Test does not apply to Obama mentioning God. n/t

[dmallind]

11. Lemon test applies to ALL government involvment in religious rituals. NT

[Sanctified]

12. Government not individual, 1st Amendment gives individuals freedom to practice their Religion. n/t

[dmallind]

14. NOT in their official capacity as well you know

Teachers can still pray, but not as teachers in front of their classes during class time.

Presidents can swear to gods of their choice but not (in a world where reason and consistency were appplied anyway) as the president at an official function of his office.

And no religion requires swearing to a divine brand name when taking a new job, so free exercise is not relevant here anyway.

[Sanctified]

16. If a teacher is praying during class time she is losing her job for not teaching not because she is

praying. A President can mention God or pray as much as they want when President, the job is 24/7 so no matter what they are in some way acting in capacity of the Presidential office even when they are attending Church on Sunday. And the only truly functional part of an Inauguration is the swearing in, it's the only thing required by the Constitution everything else is just a party.

[dmallind]

17. I'm sorry but that's utterly wrong. Do you even know the law here?

Goevrnment officials or those acting as a de facto government official (teachers) cannot lead or instigate a prayer to a captive audience gathered for another purpose. That's the whoel reason mandatory school prayer is iilegal - because it gives the imprimatur of officialdom to one religious viewpoint over others. If we were consistent in law, Obama would be allowed to pray and sear to god as much as he liked as long as he did not do it as part of a government function. He is most certainly (as are teachers, which is more relevant) legally allowedd to go to church and the nature of his job responsibilities is not the issue. It is the purpose of the function or gathering that is the issue. He can go to any church he likes buyt he cannot start a presidential church. He can (again if the law were consistent and reasoned) pray all he wants just not as part of a presidential event. He is still president when eating breakfast in the privacy of the WH living quaarters, but that does not make his private breakfast a presidential function. Let him pray then by all means.

[Sanctified]

18. Well if I am wrong I am sure Obama will be sued to stop the prayer since it's the law. n/t

[dmallind]

19. NO as I CLEARLY stated it SHOULD be

and yes he HAS been sued. It will fail as all other perfectly valid suits based on the traditional trappings of government being used as prayer (currency, pledge etc) have - because amjority of judges want the sky-daddy to stay involved and can get away with this one more than they could keeping school prayer (they tried - they really did but it was too obviously wrong) because of the whole "traditional and historical" canard.

[Sanctified]

20. Whoa, whoa, but you just said it's the law.

Yet the law and legal experts have looked at it and disagreed with you. Damn, I guess this means he gets to use Lincoln's Bible and say "So help me God" and have a prayer at his party.

But, but the law, the law...

So the protection of the First Amendment still applies to an individual acting as an individual when they say the word "God" and have a prayer.

[Goblinmonger]

22. No religious tests

It's in the constitution. Having "so help me god" become a traditional part of the oath (though not a part proscribed in the constitution) is creating a religious test to hold office (i.e. you have to believe in the god you are swearing to and not be part of a religion that forbids said swearing) which is clearly unconstitutional.

[Sanctified]

25. "So Help Me God" is not required in the Oath it's something that Presidents have voluntarily added.

Theodore Roosevelt did not use "So Help Me God", our Constitution is clear on what a President must recite to be sworn in, anything a President ends with is up to them.

[Goblinmonger]

26. I think I made that clear

My problem is that it is becoming a tradition. I am not arguing a clear constitutional violation. But it seems to me to be another sign of the creeping theocracy that we have. On our money, in our pledge, and now in our president's oath of office. I would think that would bother most progressives, but I am very often wrong about that. And if you don't think that people in this country wouldn't shit a brick if he didn't say it, you're kidding yourself.

[Sanctified]

27. I am all for Removing God from our currency, the Pledge of Allegiance or even our monuments...

however I totally oppose prohibiting someone from saying God or openly praying.

[Goblinmonger]

28. As I said elsewhere on this thread

he can say and talk about god all he wants as long as it isn't policy. The problem I have is with the tradition beind developed with the oath. You and I are pretty close on this issue, I think.

[Goblinmonger]

13. You do know

that when Jefferson wrote that, he was not talking about a Christian god but a Deist conceptualization, right?

And look in the Constitution and tell me how many times God is mentioned.

[dmallind]

15. But we cannot establish Deist conceptualizations either! NT

[Goblinmonger]

21. I don't think anybody is saying that

Obama can't say the word "god" now that he is president. I think the big problem is that it is becoming a part of the oath due to tradition and it is not the prescribed oath in the Constitution (that which you want to respect) and violates the "no religious tests to hold office" clause of said Constitution. If Obama wants to talk about god, go ahead.

The pastor at the ceremony gets a little more complicated for me. I don't think it should happen but I know there are valid arguments for it. If we go back to the founders that you extol in your OP, Madison didn't want clergy to be able to become members of Congress because then they would be paid by the government and he thought that would violate the sep of church and state. Certainly that isn't in the Constitution, but so many that use the "founders" argument have no clue what some of the most influential in writing the constitution actually thought.