Sunday, January 18, 2009

"So help me God"

The oath of office of the President, dictated by the Constitution, is 35 words long and reads: "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."

There never was a "So help me God." Historians have searched for support for the urban legend that George Washington added it, but no one has been able to support the theory.

Nevertheless, U.S. Dist. Judge Reggie B. Walton refused to grant an injunction in a lawsuit brought by a group who were seeking to prohibit public prayers and all references to God at the ceremony. Judge White ruled the reference to God was a quaint historical reference that had little religious weight.
That's right. Judges can't exactly say that it's okay to favor one religion over any religion or no religion. That's clearly unConstitutional. So, to get the result they want, in order to leave the religious references undisturbed, they have to say sacred symbols are meaningless historical references of limited religious importance.

Surprised? Don't be. This Supreme Court has already ruled that affirming a belief in a Supreme Being is a quaint but mostly meaningless historical tradition. Here is an explanation:
The Supreme Court determined that a city's inclusion of a creche in its Christmas display merely recognizes NOT religion but ''the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday,'' 167 and that its primary effect was not to advance religion. The benefit to religion was called ''indirect, remote, and incidental...''
In some countries, suggesting that the holiest day of the year is significant only because some offices close that day might start a riot. Here, people ignore the suggestion that the holiest day of the year is a cute little tradition in order to get the chance to shoehorn a creche on a plot of government land at taxpayer expense. Instead they could proudly show off their freedom of speech and religion in their own front yard.

Like this guy, every year, near the DC line in Silver Spring.

How impressed would Jesus be with knowing that a group of taxpayers, even a majority of taxpayers, was forcing other taxpayers to help foot the bill for his celebration?

Here is a good wrap up of what is allowed under almost all interpretations of the First Amendment.

No comments: