BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:58 PM

Nice of you to drop in. We shall overcome!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:12 AM

Ah, yes... And then what?

Argumentative egos, I've noticed, are usually at somewhat of a loss when they get what they want, and they soon have to set about finding something new to complain about. It's what keeps the human pot boiling. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

It was a little melodramatic the way Roberts put the question to Obama, and even more so, they way Obama responded.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM

Well, as a nonpracticing agnostic all I can really say is...I don't really care one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 01:42 PM

I didn't see that exchange between Roberts and Obama. I haven't been watching any of that stuff in the last couple of days...just reading the newspaper accounts. (I basically never watch TV anyway, but I do look up stuff on Youtube and other such sites).

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 03:41 PM

It's a violation of Church and State. They should keep religion out of oaths being sworn.

Most of the ones who swore the oaths violated them once in office.

Agnostic, I wouldn't care either except for the fact that my country makes me care.
I do care about the Constitution.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 04:29 PM

But, Frank...for many people the concept of "God" is one that goes completely beyond "the Church", it goes beyond any and all churches, and it may in fact have nothing to do with any church. I'd say that is so in my case. I have a concept of God that does not derive from any church I know of, and I belong to no church or organized religion, so how does invoking God in some way have to indicate a mixing of church and state?

I do believe in the state. I don't believe in churches (for myself, I mean, I don't care if other people belong to them or not). I do believe in something that I term "God", but it isn't the property of any church or religion, they didn't copywright it, it isn't under their jurisdication as far as I'm concerned. They may talk about some hypothetical version of it that they favor, but they don't own it.

I have no wish to join church and state together, but I don't think it's even possible to separate the state or anything else from "God", because God is the infinite (and the infinite is, by definition, inclusive of everything).

Therefore, I do not object to Barack Obama invoking God, because as far as I'm concerned, when he does so he is simply invoking the greater mysteries that lie behind and within Life itself, those things that a person can be instinctively aware of, and can draw strength from, although it isn't possible for us to ever fully define what those greater mysteries are. They are something you feel inside, but you can't measure it or confine it in any way.

Historical religions have tried to formalize all that in some way and make a bunch of rules about it. They did that because most people feel safer with rules, and it secured a place of power for the rule-makers. I feel safer knowing that ultimately...there are NO rules...there is just one immense reality, and one must (hopefully) deal with it in as flexible manner as would be wise. Therefore I don't conform to any particular religion. I don't want their rules and restrictions. I want freedom to decide for myself, using my own understanding. Obama looks to me like a man who also decides for himself, using his own understanding. If he feels he is drawing some inner strength from something greater than himself while he arrives at a decision...how does that involve "church and state"? It involves his personal faith and the state...but it doesn't involve church and state as far as I'm concerned.

This is a case of people arguing about outward formalities. They say, "I don't like your formality, because it's not my formality." Well, someone else's formalities are their own business, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 06:19 PM

"Most of the ones who swore the oaths violated them once in office."

And it literally kills every one of them. Eventually. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM

Yes, that's right, on both counts!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:19 PM

It's equally true that people who swear non-religious oaths break them while in office. ;-)

That's because politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:29 PM

First, understand that I speak (or write) as an atheist and a believer in the separation of church and state. That said, I ask, "But what does that mean?"

It should be remembered that neither our history nor the Constitution says that no mention of religion, organized or unorganized, must come within shouting distance of government, that no public officer must utter the word "God".

One must keep in mind the historical background in which the Establishment Clause came about. In the background, the founders were painfully aware of the fact that not only England but almost all previous regimes, in almost all countries, comprised a sort of Siamese-twin relationship between government and some particular organized religion. Government's power and legitimacy was thought to be derived from and to owe huge institutional allegiance to whatever the relevant organized religion was--in England, the Church of England, and in the other countries of Europe, originally the Church of Rome and then the various Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, and on and on. And the Founders were well aware of egregious misuses of that relationship. Attendance at church was legally enforced, with criminal sanctions for non-attendance, as was payment of tithes or other exactions by the Church.

And almost never was there any question that the State and organized religion were joined at the hip, so to speak. And that's true in many countries even today.

The purpose of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was to keep the power and legitimacy of the State from being declared (explicitly or implicitly) the property of any official church, and that no church was to be so endowed with primacy or support by the State, the tax dollars of the public generally being politically devoted to the beliefs and wishes of some particular portion of the populace.

And to varying extents we have succeeded in carrying that out.

Now, we do (rightly or wrongly) have a long tradition of invocations and benedictions at State Occasions, such as we saw yesterday. I will say that Rick Warren played it cooler than I might have expected, in that he phrased his closing reference so as to refer to what has affected HIS life, as opposed to presuming to speak for either the State or everyone attending, and even then he mentioned four or five different cultures/religions' names for Jesus. Given who Warren is, that's about as far as I could expect him to go in that direction. I think that the invocations and benedictions will continue into the remotely foreseeable future, come hell or high water, sometimes less objectionable and sometimes more so.

The power of the State, under the Constitution, should not allow any official, government-sanctioned prayers, or any special privileges extended to organized religious bodies--including, say I, "In God We Trust" on US coinage and currency, or "Under God" in the pledge. Not that I have any expectation of getting rid of those usages.

BUT, a prohibition against an entering officeholder's choosing to say "So help me God" if that suits him? Awwww, come onnnnn! That's not misusing the power of the State to favor religion, either in the abstract or as to a particular religious institution.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:15 PM

Chalk up one "believer" here who agrees with Uncle Dave's post 100%.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM

I don't think it's so much prohibiting someone from saying an oath as much as hoping he/she will out grow it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 09:34 PM

You have summed it up very well, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM

I think a good argument can be made that even if Obama himself was not a strong believing Christian--even if he were an agnostic--he would not ask to have "so help me God" dropped from the inaugural oath.

After the model, perhaps, of Henri IV ("Paris vaut bien une messe"). It's a simple question of picking your battles. There are far more believing Christians in the US who would notice the lack of "so help me God"-- (ably assisted, no doubt, by the media) --than the number of rabid atheists pushing for deleting that phrase.   And he needs the support of the first group on any number of issues--so there is no point in needlessly rousing even some of them against him.   The second group is very small--and their clout is even smaller.

As has been said, facts are stubborn things.

And I am by no means a strong Christian--just somebody who recognizes reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:00 PM

That's right, and politics is the art of diplomacy as much as anything else. It would be downright stupid of Obama to deliberately break with that tradition, even if he had any personal reason to, and he doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:01 AM

Ron Davies commented:

I think a good argument can be made that even if Obama himself was not a strong believing Christian--even if he were an agnostic--he would not ask to have "so help me God" dropped from the inaugural oath.

Ron, it's not a question of having "so help me God" dropped; it was not there in the first place. The Constitution ways, in effect, "This is what you must say", and doesn't include "So help me God." But it doesn't say that the new officeholder can't add that if he wants to, either.

Your point about the diplomacy of the thing is well taken, but I believe that Obama is personally so oriented that he would want to say it.


Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:02 AM

Oh, I guess it was Little Hawk who mentioned the diplomacy of the thing. Sorry.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 11:27 AM

We in the USA have schizophrenic relationship with religion. One one hand, we have have a Constitution that says we shall NOT "establish" a religion, while on the other hand we say that everyone will have "freedom of religion"

That leads to extremists on either end of the spectrum saying that
1)No religious signs, oaths, public prayers....etc., should be allowed.
or
2)We have a right ("freedom of religion") to do anything we wish to promote our version of the 'truth'.

There are those who argue....with great sincerity.... that since the majority of our citizens are some version of Christian, and since many of our founders were some form of Christian, that this IS therefore, "a Christian nation". They just conveniently disregard that awkward line in the Constitution that says we are NOT.

Then, we have the situation that the Christian faith has a line in the New Testament:

"Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

(There is a similar passage at Mark 1:14)

This is one of the passages that are cited to defend and promote evangelism ...to exhort those who believe in the literal interpretations of the Bible to try to convert others and spread the word.
   This make a certain kind of convoluted sense. *IF* you believe in God, and that Jesus spoke FOR God, then if HE wants you to try to save the souls of misguided NON believers, you should not be deterred by silly political documents...after all, you are doing folks a favor!

To this end, you assert that your "freedom of religion" granted BY that silly ummm.. important.. political document, gives you the right to overlay public ceremonies with Christian prayers, put monuments with Christian lines (i.e., the 10 Commandments) in public buildings, knock on people's doors and preach to them, insert "under God" into oaths and engrave it on the currency......

   All this strains, to put it mildly, relations between those who feel they are just "witnessing" and following their religion, and those who do not WISH to have religious invocations added to situations where they have little choice about being there.

Now...this in no way prevents someone from swearing "so help ME God" to assert that he is invoking HIS deepest and most sincere promise about his words & actions....but 'teaching' children that the 'proper' way to pledge allegiance to one's country must INCLUDE "under God" is simply saying "ha, ha...we are in the majority. and we'll do it our way"....and yet they decry 'mistreatment' or censorship of Christians in lands where they are NOT the majority.

I don't pretend that all sincere believers go thru all the steps of logic I note above...they just have the basic attitude of "I am right, so whatever I do in the NAME of righteousness is reasonable"

Thus, I can see what effort it was for Rick Warren to contrive a prayer that satisfied him, but did the minimum to upset others.

I do wonder how hard it would be to just ask everyone at moments like that to observe a minute of silence & contemplation and ask for help & guidance from whatever source they feel is appropriate. If I understand it right, believers believe that God hears sincere prayers whether they are done out loud and over a PA system or not.

(I try not to do one of these postings too often, because, as you see, I get all wound up...)

I just repeat what I have said many times..

"Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 11:46 AM

It should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for "freedom of religion" (whatever that formulation may mean).

The Constitution includes language to the effect (meaning that I'm too lazy to check my quote, but I think I'm correct) that "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion."

The concept of "freedom of religion" is a quite different thing from a prohibition on the government's establishing an official religion. It's a high value, but it's not constitutional.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Correct, Dave...but it is widely understood, and a concept I agree with, that "...no law regarding establishment of religion." may be assumed to include the idea that this must logically include the idea of no establishment of non-religion.....if that makes sense stated that way.

Fairness means that everyone gets to believe and/or worship as they choose, providing they do not interfere with the rights of those who do it another way. Sadly, some like to interpret the widely accepted idea of free exercise of religion to mean that they can, simply by some legislation, impose language and practices on others just because they have 'votes' to do so.

It is a constant struggle and (at least for me) a delicate matter to try to remain "fair" when I see others defining "fair" to allow themselves only one answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Conservative Chief Justice Roberts is not supposed to prompt 'so help you God' in the Presidential oath, but his insistence to do so got the oath all screwed up. By the time he got to the end however he said louder and in exagerrated question form "SO HELP YOU GOD??"

its time to put away childish things.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM

It got all screwed up earlier, before even reaching that part. He messed up the order of the words in the middle part of it, prior to the "so help me God" thing, which is at the end. You could see Obama hestitate, because he knew Roberts had not recited the words properly, and he wasn't sure what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:16 PM

And speaking of childish things, how about we put away our stockpiles of nukes?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 05:14 PM

Little Hawk, Obama's orientation is decidedly Christian which is in violation of the Separation of Church and State. Rick Warren? Lowery? Then there's the National Prayer Breakfast which is run by the "Fellowship" in Washington which are followers of Jesus though they don't call themselves Christians. Jeffrey Shurtleff has written the definitive book on the "Fellowship" and how they operate underground for their religious agenda.

The notion of "god" is so ambiguous in the minds of the people who use the term that it becomes crystalized by religious institutions. There are those who believe in more than one god. (Pantheistic). There are Trinitarians, Unitarians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jews etc. who all have their idea of a god. They don't agree. The notion of a god is not universal.

Bill D, "Congress shall make no law with respect to religion" means that religion must remain out of the public sphere of government. This is not ambiguous. Freedom to worship as you please is never denied by the Constitution. It just doesn't belong in the exercise of government. I think we may agree on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 05:21 PM

I agree, Stringsinger.... I do wish it were not so difficult to clarify this in the minds of the public. Maybe "basic Constitutional law" taught beginning in Kindergarten?
☺

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM

The National Prayer Breakfast is a multinational and domestic political economic steering commitee that has been around since the 30's. They have had good things to say about Hitler and Stalin since the corporate profit motive is their only true god. One of their oft repeated beliefs is that the stupider political leaders are - the better. Coating Corporate Republicanism with a thick gooey syrup of Christian sanctimony is purely a ruse that Republicans have used beyond their wildest expectations.
Of course no member or guest need be a republican or religious, only that corporate interests be served first last and always.
For example Hillary Clinton is a member in good standing, which was yet one more reason I could not support her.




I am willing to bet that Obama is the first President to mention non believers in an inauguration speech.



AMOS that was a well written post, I wonder if you could jot down some of the html codes or link that accented your piece so well.

Have you ever noticed that Evangelical Christians (which is only an off shoot cult that was begun in England in the late 1800's)
need to pick a fight with society?? This is because the anger which they provoke is a powerful and provocative psychological tool which is essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 09:48 PM

another catter noted that Yeats noticed it.

"The Second Coming" by Yeats

.......the worst are full of passionate intensity.........

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:45 PM

Hey, guys... ;-) There is one simple reason why I don't freak out in a knee jerk reaction over things like Obama saying "so help me God" and I don't worry about it being a conflict of interest between church and state.

It's because I live in a country, Canada, where religion barely ever even raises a blip in the ongoing political dialogue of the nation. It simply doesn't matter here, except to a few cranks who have an emotional obsession about it, and they comprise less than 1% of the population, I figure.

Oh, and there's another reason. I don't expect everyone else in the world to bend to my own chosen preferences in such things...whether they be "for" or "against" such things as using the word "God" in a ceremony or believing in some concept which could be called "God". They can do it if they want. They can not do it if they want. I.....don't.....care. I am not threatened. I lose no sleep over it. I enjoy the variety of viewpoints, since I am living amongst a variety of people, so it's to be expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:46 PM

"Have you ever noticed that Evangelical Christians... need to pick a fight with society?? ...because the anger... they provoke is... essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre."

                  I have not noticed that, but it's well worth looking into.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:53 PM

I've noticed that the fanatics and cranks at both ends of the spectrum like picking a fight with someone of the opposite persuasion ...because the anger... they provoke is... essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre."

Without opposition they also lose the chance to be "right" and make someone else "wrong", and that is the strongest desire motivating the average arguing ego. He wants to win, and to be proven "right" in so doing. Without any opposition, he can't do that, so he searches about diligently for an opposition to argue with.

And that's also the key to America's more disastrous foreign policy moves in the last 60 years... ;-) (as well as similar blunders by other aggressive military/political powers along the same line) They NEED enemies to fight with or they lose their primary motivation in life.

If a real enemy does not exist, then one has to be created somehow. It's a quick and easy mental trick. Anyone can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 09:39 AM

"If a real enemy does not exist, then one has to be created somehow..."


             I have noticed that, among countries. The Cold War seemed particularly stupid to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:13 PM

They were already planning for that one before Adolf was even in his grave. Patton was eager to get going the moment the Germans surrendered and "kick their asses all the way back to Moscow". ;-) Well, that was a little too abrupt for the powers that be. He really was a loose cannon. They sacked him.

Nope, they needed a bit of time and propaganda to get the public in a mood for the next conflict, but it came round soon enough.

An excuse always has to be found to keep up our massive military production. Remember the "peace dividend" we were all supposed to get after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War?

It never happened. We shifted rapidly into new conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East and military production has been maintained, even enlarged. With the declaration of a "War on Terror" (an indefinable enemy with no specific location) an excuse was provided to have a war with no forseeable objectives and no forseeable end. Perfect...if you are in the business of making war materiel.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:42 PM

Little Hawk, it's one thing to pick a fight for ideological or religious reasons but quite another to suppress non-believers which is the trend in US politics. You may not quite have this problem in Canada but I can assure you that it is a rampant disease here in the US and
those who protest against this are not cranks. We are only asking for equal representation which we do not get in our government. Not losing sleep over this issue is just stating a denial of the fact that this is an inherent problem here.

In Europe and other places, non-believers have a voice and are not silenced or suppressed by religious references in politics. If religious folk want to be given credence for their views, then they have to be open to the views of non-believers. This is pointedly not done in the supposedly most democratic country in the world. Denial does not address this issue. The absurd invocation given by Rick Warren should be enough to limn the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM

Chief Justice Roberts's interrogative "So help you God?" was not a mistake. Nor a constitutional misstep, methinks.

Up to that point he had been feeding the prescribed lines (if he'd read them correctly), which Obama was required by the Constitution to repeat.

Then, just to more or less continue the style of call and response, he prompted Obama's "So help me God" as a question, a personal prompt, but as a question (sort of, "Do you want to add 'So help me God?'", so as to distinguish it from the preceding essentially commands to echo in the previous partial lines. Roberts could have just quit, and Obama say "So help me God" on his own, but asking the prompt was a matter of style.

Obama's response was not, I believe, any violation of the Establishment clause for at least two reasons:
1. The Establishment Clause specifies something Congress may not do, and is not phrased as applying to the president.
2. Obama's expression had to do with himself, not the government, not the people, not laws of any kind, not appropriations, and not the State.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

"I do wonder how hard it would be to just ask everyone at moments like that to observe a minute of silence & contemplation and ask for help & guidance from whatever source they feel is appropriate." Bill D

The day that FDR died, our principal at school announced it at lunchtime and asked us to stand and observe three minutes of silence. I don't know how the others felt but to the 9-year-old kid that I was it was awesome.

"Patton was eager to get going the moment the Germans surrendered and "kick their asses all the way back to Moscow". ;-) Well, that was a little too abrupt for the powers that be. He really was a loose cannon. They sacked him." Little Hawk

I realize that you are a student of WWII but are you sure that it is Patton you speak of? It does'nt fit what I know of his career.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:58 PM

Given his beliefs I see nothing objectinable in Warren's prayer; in fact, it seems obvious that he tried not to offend. Offend believers in other faiths, that is. There wouldn't be much anyone could pray that would not offend non-believers. *g*

Here is the text of his invocation:

Let us pray.
Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.
May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 10:52 AM

Some good points are being made here.

1)   I also wondered if Roberts' "So help you God" was possibly an underhanded test for Obama--trying to require that he, in the most public way imaginable, would distance himself from atheists.   Just reciting the oath back to Roberts, as in fact prescribed for that situation, wouldn't necessarily require any actual thinking about the oath.   Consider all the times so many American kids stood up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance without thinking at all about what they were saying--just trying to figure out, for instance---will I be able to finish those algebra problems before 3rd period when I have to hand them in?


(But this whole theory is probably entirely too Machiavellian--even for Roberts. It was probably just an honest mistake--though he made at least 2 of them in administering the oath.)

2) And I believe Donuel is right that this is the first time non-believers have ever been included positively as citizens whose views are worth considering.   And, interestingly enough, Obama has already paid a price for his inclusiveness:   several " religious spokesmen" have already criticized him for including unbelievers in his inaugural speech.

In fact the US has never been welcoming to atheists.   Perhaps that's why some are so strident on Mudcat--it's one of the few places they can come close to any sort of clout.

However, even Jefferson, whom atheists on Mudcat like, wrongly, to cite as backing them, was sufficiently aware that, as I recall, when Paine, who had established himself as a thorn in the side of the religious community, wanted to visit the White House, Jefferson felt he had to be careful about that visit.

But neither the people at that time who pilloried Jefferson as an atheist--and they did---nor the Mudcatters now who seek to claim him as one of their own--are correct. Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus--shocking enough in his day--but was not an atheist.   Anybody who feels differently is invited to provide evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:06 PM

"Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus--shocking enough in his day--but was not an atheist."


                  Probably because he lived before Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:37 PM

Rig, what the heck does Darwin have to do with it???? Seriously. Most of the people I know who say they believe in God also have no problem whatsoever believing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The two do not conflict.

And why would they? Belief in God does NOT require believing hysterically unlikely things like that the World was created 4,000 years ago or that Eve was made out of Adam's rib! Nor does it require having a literal belief in the Bible...or indeed, any belief at all in the Bible as a flawless and undeniable source of spiritual authority.

Strinsinger - Yes, your situation in the USA is unique in the entire western world as far as I know. I know of no other modern society in which atheists come under fire as they do in the USA, and in which politicians are afraid not to be seen publicly attending some church or mouthing their religious faith. It's astonishing, in fact, what goes on in the USA in this regard, and I realize that that is what probably lies behind the extreme reactiveness of some of you here toward anything "religious". It's understandable, in the context of what you are dealing with in the USA in the public sphere.

Ebbie - I'm not saying Patton wasn't a fine general. He was a superb battlefield general. He was, however, quite eager to give the Russians a licking at the first opportunity, and he was hoping to get a chance to do so ASAP when the European war was in its final days. He didn't like the Russians one bit. He envisioned re-employing surrendered German troops in the Allied forces to help fight the Russians...and certainly he would have found hundreds of thousands of German soldiers very willing to join in such an effort and push the Russians back east...but he was jumping the gun. The mood of the general public in Britain and America would not have welcomed a further terrible conflict in 1945. People wanted peace. They wanted an end to the whole thing. The soldiers wanted to go home after securing their hard-won victory over Germany and Japan.

I think Patton's main problem was this, Ebbie. He simply loved being at war. It was his reason for living, it was when he felt most alive and felt his personal destiny being fulfilled to his satisfaction. He was made to fight wars. Soldiers like that are often quite frustrated when their war ends, because they "don't have anything to do" anymore...

I think Patton was such a man, a pure warrior. Such types are few and far between, but they do exist.

On the other hand, I may be wrong... ;-) It's just my personal theory, based on what I've come across about George Patton.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

LH--

Could you tell us about any Canadian politicians who assert they are atheist?   This is not a "gotcha" question--I really would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:00 PM

I think there probably are some, Ron, but darned if I know who they would be, because the subject never seems to even come up in the first place. ;-) I'll have to look into it. What I mean is, when our mainstream politicians campaign they normally don't have anything to say about their religion (if any) or what church they go to (if any), and no one ever seems to ask them about it. It's not a political issue in Canada, and I think it would be considered in rather bad taste to make it one.

Anyway, hang on and I'll see if I can track down something along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM

Well, here's an interesting article from the Vancouver Sun, comparing the Canadian to the American electorate in terms of voting for an atheist...or an evangelist:

Barack Obama would not have been elected president if he were not Christian. Polls show the vast majority of Americans will only vote for someone who is strongly religious, with the religion of choice being Christian.

Unlike in Canada, Obama would not have had a chance to get elected president if he'd been an atheist. That's one of the reasons we heard a lot of religious oratory when Obama was inaugurated. The other reason is Obama seems to take seriously his membership in the liberal denomination, The United Church of Christ.

Still, it's off-putting that U.S. polls by Gallup show only 45 per cent of Americans would be willing vote for a presidential candidate who is atheist. When pollsters turned the question around, more than half admitted they would actually refuse to vote for an atheist. I'm not an atheist, but it seems to verge on mass bigotry.

Only three U.S. presidents have been non-religious or at least unaffiliated with a religion -- and they all lived more than 150 years ago. Surprisingly, they include two of the United States' most revered leaders -- Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. (The third was less respected Andrew Johnson.) More than half of U.S. presidents have been Episcopalian or Presbyterian. Only one president was Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, according to a fascinating compilation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Canada is a different place, especially now. A 2006 Ipsos Reid poll showed 68 per cent of Canadians would be quite happy to vote for an atheist. That compares to only 63 per cent of Canadians who would be fine voting for an evangelical Christian. (Ironically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian, albeit it one who keeps it very low profile). Most Canadian prime ministers have been Roman Catholics, sometimes it seems in little more than name.

Whatever the case, Obama has been a longtime member of one of the most progressive denominations in the U.S., the 1.2-million member United Church of Christ.

Its members tend to be pro-same sex unions, which goes with their general leaning toward social justice. Some prominent United Church of Christ members have included the late, great theologians Richard Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, as well as Reinhold Niebuhr, who once graced the cover of Time Magazine.

(Reinhold is best known for writing the Serenity Prayer, used by 12-step groups. It begins, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change / the courage to change the things I can / and the wisdom to know the difference." Good advice for a president saddled with incredibly high expectations.)

A current member is the brilliant novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson, author of Housekeeping and Gilead and The Death of Adam. The contemporary theologian, Walter Breuggemann, is also a UCC clergy.

The complicating factor for Obama is he was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for over 20 years before resigning his membership from the congregation in 2008 following a dispute over the fiery anti-racist views of his black pastor. The Obamas are currently searching for a new church in Washington, D.C. Presumably he will stay within the fold of the United Church of Christ, which is part of the Congregationalist family of denominations within mainline Protestantism.

The UCC has a vibrant and rich tradition, with all of the above spiritual thinkers warranting a look. In his books Obama makes clear he has been among those been inspired by their Christian visions, in his case to seek the highest office in the land.

A recent Newsweek article about Obama's winding spritual path included this paragraph:

"In Chicago, Obama found that organizers and activists there (and elsewhere) were employing a progressive theology to motivate faith groups to action. Using the writings of Paul Tillich and, especially, Reinhold Niebuhr—and also Martin Luther King, African-American and Roman Catholic liberation theologians, and Christian fathers like Saint Augustine —local religious leaders emphasized original sin and human imperfection. Christ's gift of salvation was to the community of believers, not to individual people in isolation. It was therefore the responsibility of the faithful to help each other—through deeds—to respond to the call of perfection that will be fully realized only at the end of time. Adherents of this particular theology frequently refer to Matthew 25: "Whatever you neglected to do unto the least of these, you neglected to do unto me." Everyone, in other words, is in this salvation thing together."

I had to copy and paste the whole article, because the link will not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:16 PM

"Rig, what the heck does Darwin have to do with it????"


                Darwin has everything to do with it. I know people are constantly adjusting their "beliefs" to accommodate scientific findings, but the day will obviously come when they'll have few if any beliefs left.

                Jefferson was a very smart man and a man interested in science. I think just a smattering of exposure to Darwin's theories would have enlightened him even further.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:17 PM

Here's another interesting, but brief, comment about Stephen Harper's religious beliefs from the Vancouver Sun:

"A recent feature column that's been picked up by many newspapers in Canada and the U.S. amounts to a spiritual profile of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It's the first newspaper article to try to tease out the evangelical Christian beliefs of Harper. Harper keeps his religion private because polls suggest it would hurt him badly to be upfront about it in secularized, pluralistic Canada. This piece explores the strict conservative beliefs of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, a denomination that Harper has attended for decades.
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with political leaders having firm religious views. But I'm fascinated by the inner conflict Harper must be feeling. Should he continue appearing secretive by avoiding discussing his religion, or should he be more upfront about it all?"

So, you see, in Canada a politician who is an evangelical Christian tries to hide it because it could lose him too many votes! Quite a difference from the USA, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM

Another article that may be of interest:

Charles Lewis: Why don't Canadians want to hear about our politicians' religious beliefs?
Posted: August 07, 2008, 3:35 PM by Dan Goldbloom
Charles Lewis
An Angus Reid poll released this week asked Canadians their feelings about mixing politics and religion. Among its major findings: 66% of Canadians thought it was wrong for politicians to talk about their religious beliefs, while 25% thought is was perfectly acceptable.

Mario Canseco, director of global studies for Angus Reid, said it was also worth noting that the more conservative the respondents were, the more likely it was they would not object to politicians musing about their religious feelings.

That is not all that surprising, he said, given the religious values of many conservatives more closely mimic their total world view. In other words, it is harder for religious conservatives to park their faith at the door when they head out into secular society — often referred to by the non-religious as the "real world."

But for that other 66%, what is it that makes them so nervous at the thought of politicians sharing their religious beliefs?

A colleague suggested many people are made nervous by anyone who speaks with moral clarity. In a society that wants to be accommodating to all views, anyone who announces that they have a deep faith in one specific religion may trouble those who do not share that particular faith. And, of course, there is the fear that some crazed religious person may take power and start telling everyone else what to do. Funny that no one ever worries about a crazed secular person telling everyone else what to do.

But if a politician was dreaming of creating a theocracy — like the Ayotollah Khomeini — most of us would want to hear that before he got into office.

Most Canadians know that Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin were deeply believing Catholics and most Canadians know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian. But why should their silence about their faith be of comfort? It is not that hard to find out what a Catholic believes. Even the Complete Idiot's Guide series has the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism. None of this is a secret.

Someone who is Catholic, an evangelical or an Orthodox Jew may hold conservative views about abortion and same-sex marriage. But their faith may also inform their compassion for the poor or their feelings about going to war. It may also say nothing at all about how they would behave in office. Either way, finding out is not that frightening.

And it could tell us something else, that everyone might find comforting.

In a world so maddeningly complex, there is very little that one political leader can do. Often the best we can hope for is knowing how that person would stand up under extreme pressure, how they react in a crisis or their willingness to change course when things are not working out or even, on occasion, admit to being wrong.

And knowing whether someone is leaning on their faith to get through difficult trials is not the worst thing to know about.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:11 PM

Do Canadian officeholders take an oath of office? To whom and by whom do they swear?

I'm constantly bemused by how much - and sometimes, how little- has been retained from countries of origin. (As a total aside, one of the bits of law that we in the US allegedly kept from Britain is the one that gives ownership of disputed land to the one who has it in its possession and use, even when the owner paying taxes on it didn't know the neighbor had encroached upon it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

"Only three U.S. presidents have been non-religious or at least unaffiliated with a religion .."

well...as a matter of fact, Eisenhower had to look about hastily for a church when HE decided to run. His earlier affiliations were awkward, and he had not attended church much for 30-40 years. He ended up with a quiet, non-political little Presbyterian church.

"Eisenhower's family originally belonged to the local River Brethren sect of the Mennonites. However, when Ike was five years old, his parents became followers of the WatchTower Society, whose members later took the name Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower home served as the local WatchTower meeting Hall from 1896 to 1915, when Eisenhower's father stopped regularly associating due to the WatchTower's failed prophesies that Armageddon would occur in October 1914 and 1915. Ike's father received a WatchTower funeral when he died in the 1940s. Ike's mother continued as an active Jehovah's Witness until her death. Ike and his brothers also stopped associating regularly after 1915. Ike enjoyed a close relationship with his mother throughout their lifetimes, and he even used a WatchTower printed Bible for his second Presidential Inauguration. In later years, Eisenhower was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony on February 1, 1953, just weeks after his first inauguration as president. In his retirement years, he was a member of the Gettysburg Presbyterian Church in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.>

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:11 PM

But, sadly, it is true that anyone hoping to run for president in the US had best be a declared Christian. There are far too many folks who want to know THAT before they even ask what you think about taxes or war or global warming.

I would REALLY like to see an election where one candidate was a stupid, hate-mongering, bribe-taking bigot...who just happened to be 'officially' religious, and a calm, sensible, decent, respected fellow who revealed that he was NON-religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:14 PM

"...(Eisenhower was) baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony..."

An ultra nit-pick here: Surely this means to say a simple ceremony?

Hmmmm. Maybe not. I guess the three functions would usually take place in separate ceremonies.