Theocratic United States?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. Don't tread on me.

Agreed, God, prayers, and religion of any persuasion has no place in government. Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified that the oath of office has any connection to religion. Therefore, the any reference to religion and God violates the Constitution. Any additions or subtractions from the oath of office violate the Constitution.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Agreed, God, prayers, and religion of any persuasion has no place in government. Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified that the oath of office has any connection to religion. Therefore, the any reference to religion and God violates the Constitution. Any additions or subtractions from the oath of office violate the Constitution.

The unfortunate truth is this:

Senate Oath of Office:

Originally Posted by United States Senate

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

See history here.

Congressional Oath of Office:

Originally Posted by Office of the Clerk - U.S. Capitol

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

See Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

Unlike the oath for President, which is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, oaths for the other branches are not spelled out in the Constitution

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

The unfortunate truth is this:

Senate Oath of Office:


Congressional Oath of Office:


Unlike the oath for President, which is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, oaths for the other branches are not spelled out in the Constitution

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

The only place that I have seen what would constitute a breach of the 1st Amendment is with people being sentenced to complete AA and the like as part of their sentencing in court.

Originally Posted by 12 Steps

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptlym admitted it.
11. Sought though prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Originally Posted by 12 Traditions

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
5. Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.
8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers.
9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.
10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.
12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

I would say that compelling people to participate in this program would be public enemy number one in the fight to separate church and state.

Bill

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

The only place that I have seen what would constitute a breach of the 1st Amendment is with people being sentenced to complete AA and the like as part of their sentencing in court.



I would say that compelling people to participate in this program would be public enemy number one in the fight to separate church and state.

Bill

I'm with you on the AA bit; got in a raging argument (er...debate ) with Ace just last night over it. Faced with having to go to such a crap laden ball of dung I would rage the entire time over my refusal to accept the first tenet.
As to the prayer in Congress however, I am staunchly in the opposite corner to you. My interpretation of the first ammendment's phrase 'respecting religion' is tantamount to an admonition to disrespect religion. My extensive readings of the biographies, letters, and conduct of our founding fathers leads me to the conclusion that they are rolling over in their graves at the utterance of prayers in a government body as well as the presence of the Bible or any other religious texts. At the very least I recommend you get a copy of Gordon S. Woods' Pulitzer Prize winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
Patriotically,
Turtle

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

I agree with TBD.

There is undeniable a tradition of religion in US government. Prayer has been spoke in every congress since the first in 1789 (see http://chaplain.house.gov/histInfo.html). Congresspersons and staff cannot be compelled to acknowledge or participate in it – though, to my knowledge, at least all congresspersons do.

A minority of congresspersons take oaths of office omitting the words “so help me God”. At least one (I remember the event, in 2001, but not who it was) used the original oath - "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Although it’s arguable that they are violating congressional rules, I’ve never heard of any objection being raised over such alterations.
I suspect the reason is that, Constitutionally, congresspersons are required only swear to support the Constitution. Given the wording of Article 5:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It seems clear that any effort to compel a congressperson to “pass a religious test” such as speaking the name of God couldn’t withstand judicial scrutiny. By the same reasoning, if the “official” oath did not contain the word “God”, congresspersons could not be sanctioned for adding them – or “Allah”, “Krishna”, or “the Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

This has not always been the case. Particularly, during the cold war, there was near ubiquitous reluctance among congressmen to appear religiously devout. This was a period where numerous congressional resolutions were voted in – perhaps most famously, the 1954 inclusion of the words “under God” in the previously not-theistic Pledge of Allegiance, and the 1956 changing of the official US motto from "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) with “In God We Trust”.

Many have suggested that the religiosity of this period was due to a “witch hunt” mentality pervaded Congress, comparing it to conditions just after the Civil war. I’ve long suspected that it was also due to what one might call a “legislative myth” that a covert communist would be unwilling to pay homage to God, and that religious test were permissible because they were actually political tests.

I personally feel that the US Federal government would benefit from less religious speech, and that congressional actions such as the 1950s revisions of the Pledge and the motto were unconstitutional, represent a theocratic assault on the Constitution, and should be judicially challenged and revoked. However, I also believe that forcing people – government officials or private citizens, in public or in private – to refrain from religious speech is as grave a violation of the Constitution as forcing them to engage in it. “Freedom of religion” means freedom to have it, or not. Atheists, such as I, need to be careful that we are not ourselves religiously oppressive.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. Don't tread on me.

No they aren't 'the government'. People are people, and laws are laws. People have freedom of religion, while laws do not. Legistators may do as they choose. Legislation may not. When inanimate US law determines what people believe and how they express it, then yeah, politicians have crossed the line. An example of such would be for you and Freddy to have your wishes of conditional prayer-banning legislated. THAT would violate freedom of religion, and also free speech.

It is the politicians' right to express their beliefs, and it is the citizens' right to vote according to their beliefs. It would not be constitutional to restrict beliefs or expression of any sort. And we wouldn't have a democratic process if one party could simply disqualify the competition based on their position.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

To have standing in a court of law to bring a challenge that would require someone to show that they have been harmed, that their rights have been violated by taking one of these oaths. First, that would require an atheist to actually get elected to one of the branches and secondly to be turned down from that office for refusal to utter the end of the oath. IMO, it is unlikely this will ever occur.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

No they aren't 'the government'. People are people, and laws are laws. People have freedom of religion, while laws do not. Legistators may do as they choose. Legislation may not. When inanimate US law determines what people believe and how they express it, then yeah, politicians have crossed the line. An example of such would be for you and Freddy to have your wishes of conditional prayer-banning legislated. THAT would violate freedom of religion, and also free speech.

It is the politicians' right to express their beliefs, and it is the citizens' right to vote according to their beliefs. It would not be constitutional to restrict beliefs or expression of any sort. And we wouldn't have a democratic process if one party could simply disqualify the competition based on their position.

Our difference of opinion is in this respect the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent. As C1ay pointed out, a legal challenge is not in evidence and may well be unlikely; nonetheless, it is a commonly held mistaken idea that the founders were all Christians and the US a Christian nation. To the contrary, our independence as a nation is in large part due to the denying of religious tenets as the basis for law.
In the strongest possible terms, I am disgusted and disheartened to see the Bible brandished in the Congress and courts as some supreme authority over that of reason.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Our difference of opinion is in this respect the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent. As C1ay pointed out, a legal challenge is not in evidence and may well be unlikely; nonetheless, it is a commonly held mistaken idea that the founders were all Christians and the US a Christian nation. To the contrary, our independence as a nation is in large part due to the denying of religious tenets as the basis for law.
In the strongest possible terms, I am disgusted and disheartened to see the Bible brandished in the Congress and courts as some supreme authority over that of reason.

I don't think you see my point. The basis for new law isn't what counts. What counts is what the new law enforces. Majority rule is the mechanism that curbs the radical ideas whether they be scriptural, hallucinative, or coldy AI-conjured.