"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."
-Article Two, Section 1, Clause 8, United States Constitution
Rumor has it that when George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States, he appended the four words, "So Help Me God", to the constitutionally-mandated oath. While it is disputed whether Washington actually uttered the words "So Help Me God" when taking the oath of office, every president since at least Franklin Delano Roosevelt (including Georgian Jimmy Carter) has added the four-word phrase "So Help Me God" to the presidential oath. And in fourteen days, the President-elect will likely do the same unless atheist Michael Newdow successfully obtains a court order to block the use of the four-word phrase when Barack Obama takes the oath of office.
A California physician and attorney whose legal fight against the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance has drawn national attention now says he will join a lawsuit seeking the removal of all references to God and religion from President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony.
Michael Newdow believes references to God or religion are unconstitutional. He wants to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the oath of office and block the invocation prayer from Pastor Rick Warren. [Source: WXIA-TV (Atlanta), "Atheist Wants Religion Out Of Inauguration", December 30, 2008]
Believe it or not, I carry a copy of the Constitution with me everywhere; so I had to pull out my copy just to see if the supreme law of the land mandated that presidents be sworn in with their left hand on the Bible, their right hand in the air, use the words "so help me God", and have a pastor conduct the invocation as well as the benediction.
It's not there.
In fact, the Constitution doesn't even require a ceremony. It simply says that "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation. . ."
That's it.
All this extra stuff: the ceremony on the steps on the Capitol, the inaugural parade, the many inaugural balls have become a part of our nation's traditions. Likewise, the four-word phrase "so help me God" has become a part of the traditional swearing in of the president.
Newdow's suit, which was rejected in 2001 and 2005, borders on being frivolous.
Actually, it is frivolous.
Based on the information you share in your own blog post, it doesn't seem frivolous. In face, the opposite seems to be true: the ceremony and phrase "So help me God" seem frivolous (not necessary) while the lawsuit is simply an American's expression of his view that the frivolous references to God are not constitutional. You don't have to agree with him, but by calling him frivolous and twisting the truth, you are demonstrating your own short-sighted ignorance. I'm no legal scholar, but read up what Wikipedia has to say about frivolous lawsuits and I think you'll be forced to agree that while you might disagree with the lawsuit, it does not lack a legal claim, and if it does, the courts have systems in place to dispense of such lawsuits - including punishment for the attorney who files a truly frivolous claim.
ReplyDeleteDerek,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and commenting.
I used the word "frivolous" to describe Newdow's lawsuit because the complaint has been filed and dismissed twice before; in 2001 and 2005.
The four-word phrase "so help me God" is not mandated in the constitutionally-mandated oath of office and it's my opinion the presidents who have used it during their inauguration have done so as part of their rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
And I don't see anything wrong with that.
According to the WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/31/atheist-michael-newdow-remove-god-from-inaugural-oath/), it appears that he is not suing against Obama's (or any other president's) free speech, but against the Chief Justice from prompting the use of the phrase. Obama can (as Newdow's lawsuit admits) use the phrase himself; however, the Chief Justice should not prompt Obama to use the phrase.
ReplyDeleteYou may believe that it is okay for us to pretend to be a Christian nation (we are a predominantly Christian nation due to the character of the people, not due to our government), but there are plenty of people who don't believe that, and I think the courts should back them up. This is a debate for a reason - to call it frivolous and deny the debate is irresponsible.
Also, upon further reading it appears that Obama's invitation of a Warren to give a convocation may be protected by free speech - Obama's invitation is his exercise of free speech, therefore what Warren says is Obama's free speech. However, unless Obama does "invite" Justice Roberts to say "so help me God," that is not protected as Roberts is acting as an agent of the state, imposing religion on the president. The solution is simple: if the Chief Justice is to say "so help me God" in an oath of office, the candidate being sworn in must have requested the additional language. This preserves separation of church and state and also preserves free speech. I'm sure Michael Newdow would prefer that the phrase was banned entirely, but this would be a far more rational - and constitutional - solution.
There is no clause in the constitution stating a separation of church and state. That is a myth. What the constitution does say is "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."
ReplyDeleteThe mention of the phrase separation of church and state refers to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists written in 1802.
So to actually say there is a separation of church and state and call it constitutional is in error.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This is solely to prevent a theological state which would be very grievous indeed. History has proven that in man is fallible and that while God is not, man cannot be trusted to run a state under a theological banner.
For a person to create a lawsuit of this nature is indeed frivolous. I am appalled that it even get's attention in fact. It shows you how far this nation is from reality. We have people starving to death all over the world, We have people killing each other in the name of God and state all over the world, We have people raping, selling drugs, murdering, and we have time to create lawsuits costing taxpayer money on such trivial things as "so help me God."
It is truly amazing.