Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The (false) wall of separation between church and state
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by Siegfried: And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
Well I guess a nation that proclaims 'One Nation Under God' is always going to offend atheists and Buddhists.
It won't affect the imams. How come they didn't get invited on the same basis as the "Judaeo-Christians"?
quote: What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?
Burn marks from the scorching hypocrisy given off when he is invoked for party political or nationalistic ends?
Isn't there something about taking God's name in vain in the bible somewhere?
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: And that is precisely the question I want to ask: What does the mention of God in the public and civic realm actually remove from the atheist? What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?
I'd say there's harm in receiving a government-sanctioned message that you're not really part of the citizen body. If you're not under God then you're not part of that "One Nation". If you don't trust in God, that puts you outside the "we", making you a "they". It would seem to throw into question the idea that anyone adhering to a minority faith will be treated the same as a member of the favored religion.
Most of these "mentions of God in public" are exercises in asserting Christian (and usually Protestant) supremacy. If that weren't the case there wouldn't be all these examples of city councils suddenly deciding to cancel the opening prayer the moment a Satanist (or other adherent of a 'wrong' belief) gets handed the mic.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yup, I find myself in agreement with Croesos here.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
On Croesos' last post, like Eutychus, broadly in agreement with him. I don't see it as appropriate for secular council meetings to start in prayer or any kind of church/mosque/temple choir to sing at a presidential inauguration, royal coronation or similar event.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
Is there some reason Barack Obama doesn't count as a president? Is it the Kenyan usurper thing?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
Is there some reason Barack Obama doesn't count as a president? Is it the Kenyan usurper thing?
He doesn't count as a Republican President, though, does he
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Nor does Lyndon Johnson, which makes it an unusually confusing way of stating the case.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
According to the MTC's own website it still isn't true that they've sung at "every Republican inauguration since LBJ". They missed Nixon in 1973, Ford in 1974, Reagan in 1985, and George W. Bush in 2005. You could claim that they've performed at inaugural ceremonies for every Republican president from Nixon onward, but you'd have to add "except Ford" at the end. There's also so many unspoken exceptions being covered by changing "inauguration" to "inaugural ceremonies for" to exclude the missed quadrenniums that it seems more like stretching to make whatever point is trying to be made.
Of course simply saying "the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has performed at five of the last nine Republican Presidential Inaugurations" (which seems the most straightforward way to put it) doesn't sound nearly so impressive. [ 15. February 2017, 13:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir did not sing at the inauguration of President Obama, or at any Democratic Inauguration other than LBJ.
At Obama's first inauguration the San Fransisco Boys Choir and the San Fransisco Girls Choir sang.
At his second inauguration, the Fifth Grade Choirs of Public School 22 (Statin Island, NY) sang.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
IMHO, the presence or absence of a church choir at an inaugural is not very core to the separation between church and state one way or another. These appearances are often booked way in advance, before the election even, so that funds for the trip may be raised -- it costs a goodly bit to haul a hundred choir members from SLC to DC and house them.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Point of information: There was no official inauguration ceremony of President Ford. He was sworn in after Richard Nixon resigned, but there was no parade or public review of the troops.
On August 8, 1974, President Nixon tendered his resignation at 1135. At 1200 hours, Nixon left the White House grounds by helicopter. At 1205 Ford was sworn in in the East Room of the White House. Ford was not elected as president when he came up for a national vote. Reagan was elected.
LBJ, you might remember was sworn in on Air Force One after Kennedy was shot. There was no inauguration ceremony then, either. But when LBJ won the election in 1964 the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang at his first, and only, inauguration.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Let me clarify just a bit.
The MTC performance was at the swearing in of LBJ, in 1965.
The swearing in of Gerald Ford in 1974 was an emergency swearing in, so no ceremony was planned.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: Point of information: There was no official inauguration ceremony of President Ford. He was sworn in after Richard Nixon resigned, but there was no parade or public review of the troops.
On August 8, 1974, President Nixon tendered his resignation at 1135. At 1200 hours, Nixon left the White House grounds by helicopter. At 1205 Ford was sworn in in the East Room of the White House. Ford was not elected as president when he came up for a national vote. Reagan was elected.
Incorrect. Ford's inauguration (called an 'extraordinary inauguration' by historians who care about such things) consisted of the ceremony being conducted in the East Room of the White House. It may not have had all the pomp associated with an ordinary inauguration, but it was still an inauguration ceremony.
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: LBJ, you might remember was sworn in on Air Force One after Kennedy was shot. There was no inauguration ceremony then, either.
Another 'extraordinary inauguration', and yet a ceremony was still held, albeit a very truncated one. It was commemorated in this somewhat obscure photograph. Maybe you've never come across that image before?
Interesting historical footnote: the book LBJ has his hand on in that photo is not a Bible but a Catholic Missal, the only vaguely scriptural book they could find aboard Air Force One that day.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Semantics
The extraordinary swearing in of LBJ and the extraordinary swearing in of Gerald Ford were not planned and were not public.
My point about the MTC performing at all Republican public inaugurations still stands.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: Semantics
The extraordinary swearing in* of LBJ and the extraordinary swearing in* of Gerald Ford were not planned and were not public.
My point about the MTC performing at all Republican public inaugurations still stands.
That's the spirit! Keep cramming those modifiers in there and you'll get it right eventually. Still waiting for your explanation as to why the 1973, 1985, and 2005 inaugurations don't count as "Republican public inaugurations".
Maybe if you tweak it a little to "all regularly-scheduled Republican first-term inaugurations" it'll finally be right. Quite a mouthful though, and I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to prove. That Republican Presidents like Mormon singing, but only in their first terms?
-------------------- *A "swearing in" is more commonly known as an "inauguration" in politics. Semantics, I know, but sometimes terminology can be important.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
How so?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Not so. They prove that the -person being sworn in- is either Christian or (in the case of the PGinChief) hoping to be taken for one. You don't see it so far at the Presidential level, but judges, congresspersons, etc. are also sworn in and they can use any volume they like or none at all.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
How so?
Because they swear on the Bible (or in that case, the Missal, a Christian prayer and Scripture reading book.
Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
If it's simply a matter of what book they're placing their hand on then we're forced to conclude that Theodore Roosevelt was not a Christian when he was (extraordinarily) inaugurated in 1901, but had converted by the time of his second (ordinary) inauguration in 1905. Likewise John Quincy Adams has to be classified as a non-Christian, since he took his oath of office on law book.
Even more interestingly, using this technique we can determine that LBJ was actually a Catholic, since he used JFK's missal in 1963. It would certainly have alarmed voters in 1960 to know that both halves of the Democratic ticket were Catholic.
[x-post] [ 15. February 2017, 18:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Oh, and Franklin Pierce followed JQA's lead by taking his oath on a law book. Pierce even went one step further by being the only president (to date) to affirm rather than swear his oath of office.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: If it's simply a matter of what book they're placing their hand on then we're forced to conclude that Theodore Roosevelt was not a Christian when he was (extraordinarily) inaugurated in 1901, but had converted by the time of his second (ordinary) inauguration in 1905. Likewise John Quincy Adams has to be classified as a non-Christian, since he took his oath of office on law book.
Even more interestingly, using this technique we can determine that LBJ was actually a Catholic, since he used JFK's missal in 1963. It would certainly have alarmed voters in 1960 to know that both halves of the Democratic ticket were Catholic.
[x-post]
We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible. Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible.
Well, you were the one who claimed we could prove things by the texts used during extraordinary inaugurations. Using your endorsed standard, LBJ was a Catholic.
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
John Quincy Adams allegedly wanted to emphasize that his primary duty as president was to the laws of the United States.
Of course, we actually don't know a lot of details about early (meaning pre-Lincoln) presidential inaugurations. It's possible that using a law book was commonplace and George Washington was the exception for using a Bible. Or maybe JQA and Franklin Pierce were oddballs for emphasizing law over scripture. It's even possible that a book was a non-standard prop and most early presidents didn't place their hands on anything. We just don't know.
Or at least most of us don't know. You claim to have some kind of inside information on all past U.S. Presidents having used Bibles at their inaugurations. Perhaps you'd care to share the source of your insight? [ 15. February 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: Wasn't there a mainline cathedral choir that sang at his inauguration? People were aghast at that, but I wondered why he'd invited them in the first place if he only loves evangelicals.
Yes, a choir from the National Cathedra (which is formally the cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington) sang at the inauguration.
To reply to the OP, yes we do have separation of church and state in the US. The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the idea is clearly present. There shall be no established religion, and the government takes a fairly hands-off attitude toward the practice of religion. There shall be no religious test for public office. We can quibble about the amount of separation that is proper, but church and state are clearly separate institutions in our country. Of course none of this means churches can't express themselves on issues of the day, Johnson Amendment or no Johnson Amendment.
-------------------- Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Crœsos, When did I say such a thing? [ 15. February 2017, 19:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Crœsos, When did I say such a thing?
You said it here, when you claimed that "Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian." Note: Extraordinary inaugurations of American presidents go back to 1841, so you're claiming knowledge at least that far back.
You then clarified that all American presidents, even those inaugurated under extraordinary circumstances, "swear on the Bible (or in [Lyndon Johnson's] case, the Missal". This is a falsehood, contradicted by presidents who held other books (JQA, Pierce) or nothing (Theodore Roosevelt at his first inauguration). Or at least it's a falsehood according to the historical record as most people know it. Which brings me back to your claimed special knowledge. We have no real evidence that John Tyler, for example, used a Bible at his (extraordinary) inauguration in 1841, but you assert this as fact. Where are you getting this information from? [ 15. February 2017, 19:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There is sufficient evidence from the founding fathers to establish that there was indeed intended to be separation of church and state in America. To claim otherwise is simply a distortion of facts and history.
-------------------- On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This is the sum of what I wrote:
quote: Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
I was asked how could I know that the extraordinary inaugurations were Christian. In the context of Johnson and Ford, the only ones mentioned, I replied: quote: Because they swear on the Bible (or in that case, the Missal, a Christian prayer and Scripture reading book.
I then asked, because I genuinely wanted to know and was interested to read: quote: Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
I was not in any way claiming special knowledge about all Presidential inaugurations -as evidenced by my question about others (other than recent presidents and the two extraordinary inaugurations, whether other books had indeed been used.
I then asked a simple question, firstly referencing the Johnson inauguration and then referring to the John Quincy Adams inauguration, which I didn't know :
quote: We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible. Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
It was a genuine question. I think you misunderstood my questions. I never claimed 'inside information'.
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Al Eluia: To reply to the OP, yes we do have separation of church and state in the US. The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the idea is clearly present.
I guess that depends on how one spins it. But the first line of the First Amendment,* pretty much says just that. Given the background of Jefferson and the founding fathers, any spin other than the separation is special pleading.
*The Amendments are technically part of the constitution as soon as they are ratified by three-fourths of the states.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Nicolemr: There is sufficient evidence from the founding fathers to establish that there was indeed intended to be separation of church and state in America. To claim otherwise is simply a distortion of facts and history.
It hasn't slowed down those fundies who incessantly claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (and the corollary, that it is specially ordained by God). It is particularly annoying when they put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths. As if we cannot go and read the Federalist Papers for ourselves.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Brenda Clough: It hasn't slowed down those fundies who incessantly claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (and the corollary, that it is specially ordained by God). It is particularly annoying when they put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths. As if we cannot go and read the Federalist Papers for ourselves.
Like virtually everything else, "the Founders" did not have a uniform opinion on this question. There were "accommodationists" like George Washington and John Adams who believed that the government should not take sides in religious controversies but that it could promote religion generally, provided it did not favor one sect over another. Then there were the "separationists" like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who thought even the vague, feel-good promotion of non-sectarian religiosity advocated by Washington and Adams was going too far. Jefferson notably drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison pushed through to passage by the Virginia legislature and later used as a template for the religious portions of the First Amendment.
The term "wall of separation between Church & State" was actually coined by Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They had written then-President Jefferson saying:
quote: October 7, 1801
Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association. Nehh Dodge Ephram Robbins The Committee Stephen S. Nelson
TL;DR = We're glad you've been elected president and look forward to the day something like the First Amendment is applicable to the Connecticut state government. (Until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections of the First Amendment were applicable only to the actions of the federal government.)
Jefferson replied:
quote: To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
TL;DR = Thank you for your lovely letter, and I look forward to the day something like the First Amendment is adopted by the government of Connecticut.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Simple question the answer to which may resolve the arguments about swearing in a President.
In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?
Here, what determines upon what you swear is what you hold sacred. The background is that you swear by what might make you terrified of the moral consequences of your lying or breaking your oath. It isn't about the state endorsing one religion over another. The issue is what's binding on you.
Courts keep a stock of different holy books. It is also possible to affirm. Originally this was for Quakers, Moravians and others who take Jesus's command seriously about not swearing oaths. For well over 100 years, this has been extended to those who do not believe in any god at all.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?
I think it may vary from state to state. In any trial on which I've been a juror, the witness is simply asked to raise his/her right hand and "swear" that the testimony about to be given is true. No hand on a book, although I've heard "so help you God" tacked on the end.
When I worked as a legal secretary and set up an office conference room where a deposition would be given, I always placed a Bible on the table but to my knowledge it was never used in the administration of oaths. [ 15. February 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
-------------------- "I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And, although Lyin' Don put his hand on a Bible when he was sworn in, I am certain he has no more Christianity in him than my cat. (Who attends Bible study and folds his paws neatly for prayer.) The action means nothing, it's purely cosmetic PR.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Can't say I understand swearing on a bible means anything at all. Nor "one nation under God". Better would be to swear on an accounts ledger.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: It won't affect the imams. How come they didn't get invited on the same basis as the "Judaeo-Christians"?
IIRC, there was an imam at the National Cathedral service, and possibly a Buddhist or Hindu.
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by Siegfried: And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
Well I guess a nation that proclaims 'One Nation Under God' is always going to offend atheists and Buddhists. They should just get over it; it doesn't actually take anything away from them.
And that is precisely the question I want to ask: What does the mention of God in the public and civic realm actually remove from the atheist? What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?
And, if, for example, the Inauguration became an entirely secular-themed event, what would the atheists actually gain that at present they are deprived of? (other than having to hear the name 'Jesus' spoken in their intolerant ears?)
That's easy to figure out. Ask the Christians who are so insistent on Jesus being mentioned how they would feel if the mention of Allah was central.
As far as "In God We Trust" being on the coins, it does upset some theists because it appears the god is Mammon.
As for those noisy Christians who are upset that secular people don't want religion endorsed by the government, they should just get over themselves.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Actually an interesting thing is how relatively recent all the clergy at the inauguration is. Franklin Roosevelt seems to have been the first to do it. The later public prayer service didn't start until 1977; the Episcopal Washington Cathedral got involved in 1985.
-------------------- spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?
Courts keep a stock of different holy books. It is also possible to affirm. Originally this was for Quakers, Moravians and others who take Jesus's command seriously about not swearing oaths. For well over 100 years, this has been extended to those who do not believe in any god at all.
Any judge here to whom you speak would say that there shoud not be a religious oath at all, and most of us at the Bar would agree. All that is needed is a short affirmation that what will be said is the truthmuch along the lines of the non-religious oath ; an acknowledgement that the witness has moved into the witness box and is now of a different status. We don't do any holding up the right hand though.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: Any judge here to whom you speak would say that there shoud not be a religious oath at all, and most of us at the Bar would agree. All that is needed is a short affirmation that what will be said is the truthmuch along the lines of the non-religious oath ; an acknowledgement that the witness has moved into the witness box and is now of a different status. We don't do any holding up the right hand though.
I wasn't asking what anyone thinks ought to happen. I was asking 'what does happen?' and so 'what does the current practice enshrine?'.
If, in a US court a person simply 'swears', without mentioning by whom they are swearing, then that answers the question one way. On the other hand, if a person is required to say 'so help me God' at the end of it, then presumably that's either a reference to whoever they believe God is (i.e. my test in the previous post), or to the same God as the one 'in whom we trust' on your coins. I recognise though that that though leaves the position ambiguous. Perhaps it's supposed to be.
Amanda, when a person swears their deposition in an office, if they don't have to use a holy book, does the standard wording include 'I swear by Almighty God that' or is it just 'I swear that'?
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
In US courts, I think there's an option of saying something like "I solemnly affirm", because some people don't believe in swearing an oath. I don't think that version mentions God.
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Going back to Jefferson, it is is interesting to note that his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom begins: "Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free ...". I suppose that, at the time, there was still a general consensus that "God" exists. Moreover, although the Statute doesn't define "God", there seems to be a strong presumption for thinking of Him is largely Christian terms. So, in a sense, there appears to be a bias built into this Statute which seems to be arguing for the opposite point of view. [ 16. February 2017, 08:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think that's the problem pretty much everywhere in "Judeo-Christian" societies. They were established in a context of religious belief.
The challenge now is to find the best accommodation of religious belief, religious pluralism, and secularisation.
I think that starts by decoupling religion from the state and making the state the referee ensuring fair play for those of all faiths and none.
That is a very different proposition from having the state replace or suppress religion.
I do think protestantism, especially dissenting protestantism, is well-placed in this debate because a) envisaging other beliefs is pretty much an intrinsic part of its identity b) its emphasis on the individual makes it less susceptible to territorial aspirations. [ 16. February 2017, 09:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think you are right. However Dissenting Protestantism has to my mind strayed from its roots in that (and I speak from the English context) it is now often demanding that "Christian values" and laws be upheld. You will often find Evangelicals - from admittedly all ecclesial traditions - arguing vociferously for what, in effect, is a privileging of the Christian faith over others.
Of course they don't know our Dissenting history which shows difficult things were for their forebears under the National Church of the early 17th century; they ought also to think of the disaster of the Commonwealth later in the same century.
I of course agree that Christians deserve to be heard equally with other groups; possibly more so, given our nation's religious heritage and the fact that the churches still represent a significant minority of the population. But I think these folk also need to recognise that, in fact, they have been in a situation of religious inequality which is now becoming normalised.
I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan: IIRC, Jefferson was a Deist, not really a Christian.
quote: Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan: I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
I think less marginalized than receiving less priority. If Islam has a higher profile than before, it is because it is actually under threat.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan: Going back to Jefferson, it is is interesting to note that his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom begins: "Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free ...". I suppose that, at the time, there was still a general consensus that "God" exists. Moreover, although the Statute doesn't define "God", there seems to be a strong presumption for thinking of Him is largely Christian terms. So, in a sense, there appears to be a bias built into this Statute which seems to be arguing for the opposite point of view.
Jefferson was always fairly vague and cagey when discussing his religious beliefs in public, describing God in the most generic terms available. He was a lot more detailed in his private correspondence, particularly with John Adams with whom he cultivated a strong friendship after they'd both retired from politics.
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: Baptist Trainfan: IIRC, Jefferson was a Deist, not really a Christian.
Historian Gregg Frazer uses the term "theistic rationalism" to describe the religious beliefs of most of America's key founders, including Jefferson. Unlike deism, theistic rationalism posits a deity that intervenes in the affairs of human beings; "divine providence" in the terms Jefferson would have understood.
quote: Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan: I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
Given that some of Islam's higher profile involves things like an American travel ban I'm not sure a higher profile is all that beneficial.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Golden Key: In US courts, I think there's an option of saying something like "I solemnly affirm", because some people don't believe in swearing an oath. I don't think that version mentions God.
Courts in the US use a variety of oaths. I testify as an expert witness from time to time, and the form used in my jurisdiction these days is: "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth?" No Bible, no "So help you God." I don't think I'm any less truthful as a result.
As to the Presidential oath of office, here's the full text as given in the Constitution: "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." Again, no mention of God. Adding that and placing one's hand on the Bible is an extraconstitutional tradition. I can just imagine the s--tstorm from the religious right, though, if a President--especially a Democrat--were to omit these traditions. They'd insist he or she is not validly sworn in and is probably the Anti-Christ.
-------------------- Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Al Eluia: As to the Presidential oath of office, here's the full text as given in the Constitution: "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." Again, no mention of God. Adding that and placing one's hand on the Bible is an extraconstitutional tradition. I can just imagine the s--tstorm from the religious right, though, if a President--especially a Democrat--were to omit these traditions. They'd insist he or she is not validly sworn in and is probably the Anti-Christ.
We don't have to actually imagine it, just remember their reactions to the idea that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was going to take his oath of office* with his hand on a Qur'an. There were a lot of folks on the American right who argued all that and worse. Ellison eventually used a Qur'an (in English translation) owned by Thomas Jefferson in (the staged re-creation of*) his oath of office.
-------------------- *Congressional representatives are actually sworn in en masse without having their hands on anything, but a staged recreation with scripture and other trappings for each individual Representative is done later for photo-op purposes.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|