Given that Michael Newdow, and one "village idiot atheist" troll to this post are showing that they should be forever banished from a courthouse until they pass two philsophy classes - one in logic (including modal logic) and another in epistomology, or something similar, I'm overhauling the original post.
First, no, I have not read the actual lawsuit. And, now that, per a comment from the troll, it's clear that Newdow is a fucking idiot, I have no need or desire to do so.
I assumed (a dangerous action with some people), that Newdow and the FFRF were suing Barack Obama as well as, possibly an ancillary plaintiff, Chief Justice John Roberts.
But, NOOOO.
They're suing ONLY Roberts.
That, despite the clear fact that "so help me God," as well as the person administering the oath of office, are both a choice of the new president.
Given that the "so help me God" is not Constitutionally prescribed, it's a matter of individual choice. Therefore, if Obama wants to say "so help me Allah," "so help me Buddha," or "so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster," he has that right. And, the Newdow/FFRF suit could be seen as violating HIS civil rights.
Washington chose to add the phrase, and use a Bible, at his inaugural and the two actions have become traditional since.
From Washington's adding of the "so help me God" and use of a Bible onward, these issues are adiaphora, matters of choice for the individual president as part of his (or her, should we ever get there) day of inauguration.
Nothing is stopping President Obama from ditching one or both as it is, though.
Commenter Brian Westley shows his own ignorance on the second part of the president's choice, as well as showing himself ignorant of history.
Newsweek points out they have a whole crockload of other things wrong in their suit, starting with the fact that they’re suing the wrong branch of government over the wrong oath.
(Update, Oct. 23, 2015. Having now run into Westley on Patheos, on the
Update, June 16, 2020: Per my response to Mr. Westley, who I guess is still a mix of bored and Gnu Atheist 11-plus years on, I do need to update one thing. Godless in Dixie is not very good at all. Neil Carter, and his paid minions, it would appear, are pretty hardcore Gnu Atheists. I say this after having been blocked from commenting there multiple times. Carter also doesn't know the bible quite as well as he claims. A bit on the updated reality of Godless here, and much more from my primary philosophy, critical religion and critical thinking site.)
Nothing requires the Chief Justice, or ANY Supreme Court justice, to conduct the oath of office. (I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it says that).) Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by a justice of the peace after Harding's death. LBJ was sworn in by a federal district judge after JFK's assassination.
I have no problem pointing out where atheists are wrong, or acting as "village idiot atheists" or "ugly atheists." I said so about the Dennett/Dawkins idea of "brights."
And, given that Mr. Westley, the trolling commenter here, refused to tell me what he thinks of the merits of the case legally, or the atheist grounds for filing it, and also refuses to disavow Newdow's illogic, until he can address the facts of the matter in a more logical manner than he has, I don't think he'll be commenting here again.
In other words, if Newdow really has no problem with Obama adding the words, since it's Obama's choice who swears him in and what words they ask him to read, Newdow is even more of a fucking idiot than he was four years ago.
I'm am atheist myself who can point out that other atheists are in fact ignorant of the constitution. And, the ignorance is not about the presidential oath; it's about the First Amendment issue involved.
In short, in what is a Twilight Zone moment, I agree with the Veep from the Family Research Council Fox quoted in its story.
That said, Peter Sprig of the Family Research Council is full of bullshit when he claims a successful suit would establish atheism as a national religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion. As a cyberfriend of mine notes, in an online aphorism, "Calling atheism a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."
Or, per another truism, from before the Internet: "Atheists and Christians are alike, except that we disbelieve in one more god than all the gods you disbelieve, such as Zeus, Allah, Odin, Ganesh, Krishna, etc."
Would I prefer an inauguration free from religious symbolism? Yes. But, the other atheists in question are clearly looking down the wrong end of the First Amendment telescope on this issue, and in so doing, perpetuating steretypes of the "ugly atheist."
Frankly, I think Newdow is as much a gloryhound as American Athiests' Dave Silverman.
2 comments:
Commenter Brian Westley shows his own ignorance on the second part of the president's choice, as well as showing himself ignorant of history.
No, I quite clearly pointed out that the lawsuit was ONLY over the chief justice in ADMINISTERING the oath. He could no more add "so help me god" than to add anything else to the oath. The person being sworn in can add it if they want to.
But you apparently couldn't understand the situation.
Tell me, if an atheist was to testify in court and wants the affirmation, should the bailiff feel free to add "so help me god" at the end, even though that isn't part of the affirmation?
No, I understand the situation.
As for your last graf counterfactual, that's a different situation. And I think you know it's a different situation, therefore that IS your answer.
That said, I do need to edit the body of the post. Further years of interaction with Neil Carter and/or his paid staff have made it clear that Godless in Dixie is much more of a Gnu Atheist shop than it seemed at the time.
Post a Comment