This is a cross-post from my personal blog; I’m copying it here for Erich, so he can argue with me. I’m bored at work; I think an argument would help.
An atheist organization has filed suit over Obama’s plan to be sworn in on a Bible, for God to be mentioned in the ceremony and so forth.
I’m having a hard time with this, but not because I am one who believes we are “one nation under God.” I am all for the separation of church and state. I am not a Christian. I am a spiritual believer in God, but I cannot subscribe to organized religion. I believe in a vast unknown. My daughter has declared herself an atheist on her facebook page, even though most of the time she labels herself agnostic. She’s 13, so trying on different labels to see how they fit. We believe in doing good for its own sake, to improve the world and to share positive energy. I believe we don’t know a fraction of what is out there. I believe none of us has a closer or more direct connection to God than anyone else, and mostly that religion, rather than honor God, often gets in the way of humanity’s ability to behave.
My favorite bumper sticker is “Born right the first time,” and nothing will raise my hackles faster than someone telling me they have the inside track to God and if I don’t get on it, I’m doomed to burn. Uh-huh.
So it’s not like I’m against the atheists. Just so that’s clear.
As a nation, we have promised to respect everyone’s right to their own religion, yes? Someday, we might even practice what we preach. And Barack Obama has made it clear, repeatedly, that he considers himself a Christian. I’m as big a supporter of the man as they come, but I admit to being more than a little disappointed in his choosing Rick Warren ::::::cue gagging, wretching noises:::::: to speak. I am trying to be open-minded, though. If only Warren would be.
So again, I could easily jump on the atheists’ bandwagon. Here’s the thing, though. That whole respecting everyone’s right to practice his or her own religion comes into play here. This is HIS swearing-in ceremony. One can argue, and I’m sure they will, that anything about the presidency belongs to The People. Perhaps that’s true, but we chose one particular man for this role, and in so choosing, did we not agree that we want HIM as president, to lead us HIS way? I think we did.
He is Christian. So his ceremony should be welcomed, in my way of thinking, to include aspects of his own faith. Were he Jewish, I would expect him to be sworn in on a Torah; Muslim, a Quran. Whatever book means the most to him, so that when he swears on it, he will mean it.
Since the ceremony is about one specific man, I have no problem with that man’s religion being included. I don’t see that as the same thing as prayers in school, or creches in city halls. Those have no place.
I get the atheists’ point, but I truly believe that instead of creating a more open society through their efforts, all they are going to accomplish is to reinforce the image of atheists as godless meanies. Big, blue meanies, trying to rain on this phenomenal inaugural parade.
Lots of work is needed to remove religion from government, so I applaud their willingness to throw themselves into the fray. My only advice would be to pick a different day.
There is a general principle to be recognized in democratic society. My rights end where your rights begin and your rights end where my rights begin.
I see no problem with the oath of office. The swearing in is a traditional ritual, and to many of our Presidents it has no meaning
"I do solemnly swear 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."
It is quite obvious that Pres Bush did little to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The point of being sworn in on a bible, is more a show of the president elects sincerity in his intention to abided by that oath. If he truly believe that some divine punishment will occur if he breaks the oath, if any President elect, or elected official honestly believed that breaking the oath would result in getting hit by lightning, we would have a much more honest government.
Any atheists that are offended when a Christian uses the name God in an oath totally miss the point. It is his right under the constitution to do so, just as it is the right of the atheists to refuse to use a bible, or to say "so help me god" if one of them should be elected. I think they should forget about finding someone to knock the chip off their shoulders and address the real problems caused by the encroachment of fundamentalist zeal in the processes of democracy that the last 8 years have brought about.
BTW, I have been an agnostic existentialist since I was 15 years old. I am an agnostic because I don't claim to know there is no god. This doesn't mean that I think there might be, because by definition, divine existence is unknowable. I realize this concept is difficult to understand for those that see everything in black and white terms. I prefer to see the world in vibrant color, and I acknowledge that there are things I don't understand, but because I don't understand some things, I don't feel the need to artificial explanations for such things that may prevent me from understanding them later.
A few decades ago, if you walked around in public having a conversation with some one that obviously wasn't there, passers-by would think you were nuts. Now they just think you have a cell phone with an earpiece.
Mindy: You'll get no argument from me. It seems to me that the religious figure neither holds nor claims any political power. These religious leaders serve the purpose of making sure that the taker of an oath know that they face the fires of hell if they make a false promise to keep their oath. It's much like the courtroom clerk who asks each witness to promise to tell the truth, "so help you God." BTW, for non-believers, an "affirmation" is available in lieu of an oath. Those who affirm do so "under the penalty of perjury" (prison rather than hell).
For me, the oath-taking with a religious tinge doesn't bother me in the least. Just bring in "O" and let him start doing some thoughtful things to counteract the reckless and dangerous things of the past eight years.
Your comment about the Koran triggers an intriguing thought experiment. What if a Muslim (e.g., Keith Ellison of Minnesota, for whom I have much admiration http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/08/repre… stood up and took his oath on the Koran? Could you imagine the outrage? It's not hard, because it already occurred when he took his oath of office as a member of Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_oath_contro… . Perhaps to deflect the expected attacks, Ellison chose to use a Koran once used by Thomas Jefferson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
Mindy: It appears that you're not very good at starting arguments.
Yeah, Erich, I'm pretty disappointed about that. Don't worry. I'll keep working on it!!
I started following this (silly) suit since Monday, via Hermant (the Friendly Atheist): Atheists Sue Over the Inauguration.
The windmill is expected to win this one.
"He is Christian. So his ceremony should be welcomed, in my way of thinking, to include aspects of his own faith. Were he Jewish, I would expect him to be sworn in on a Torah; Muslim, a Quran. Whatever book means the most to him, so that when he swears on it, he will mean it."
For the very reason you cite, Mindy, I would much prefer if Obama took the oath of inauguration on a copy of the Constitution. I don't want him to value any other document over that one.
I don't have much sympathy for Newdow's lawsuit in this case. I don't think he has any legal grounds to stand on. However, I can't disagree with his overriding concern: the Presidency is a secular position, one that's supposed to represent the concerns of all Americans, regardless of faith.
An inauguration ceremony specifically themed around one religion, even if it doesn't rise to the level of an official act of establishment by the government, sends the wrong message about how Obama views the job and whose concerns he expects to serve.
I like the idea of swearing on a book that "means the most" to Obama, but I don't think that is the reality. People actually swear on the Bible because of tradition, and a weird, vague interloping of church and state that is too nonthreatening to get the boot. I can't say this for sure, but I'd wager that plenty of Jews, Buddhists, and ho-hum agnostic Christians have sworn in on a Bible in court, rather than opt for a text of more significance to them. It's easier. It's more traditional. But it smacks of religious tenets seeping delicately into state affairs, and it leaves me feeling a little queasy.
I suppose that Obama, as a Christian, might truly feel that swearing in on a Bible is a momentous, symbolic act. But would it be acceptable for a atheist/agnostic/vaguely Christian President to swear in on a copy of the Constitution, the way some atheists do in court? Such an act would offend the American public and the media, and that's because it is irrelevant how much the text in questions "means" to the swearer-in. It's just "supposed" to be the Bible.
That's better – thanks, Erika. I wanted to hear someone run with this who is less flammatory, let's say, than Newdow.
And while I stand by my point, I am sure you're right that the people would fuss about swearing on the Constitution because it's not "supposed" to be that way. I just think it certainly should be that way – the swearing-in should be done on the official document most significant to the swearer.
Although it is hard to argue with the fact that the Constitution should be that document to anyone taking over the office of President. Ebonmuse, that is an excellent point.
Many Christian groups, including Quakers, Mennonites, and Jehovah's Witnesses, have issues with swearing on the Bible and the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, if not the pledge itself. The early Christians seemed pretty clear that speaking the truth and fulfilling your promises should not require a special ceremony:
I do think that traditions like swearing on the Bible do provide a reassuring sense of continuity for many people, and I don't begrudge others their symbolism.
I'd like to address two issues.
First, Obama should affirm his pledge on the Constitution. Whether the Bible means more or less to him than the Constitution doesn't matter, because he will be committing himself to be the leader of a secular government, not a priest or spiritual leader of his people. If he were making a religious pledge, then, yes, a religious text would be appropriate. In the case of this particular secular pledge, I can't think of any document more appropriate than the one he will be promising to uphold and defend.
Having said that, if he chooses to add the words, "so help me, God," to the pledge (the phrase is not included in the official pledge), that's his right. I'd rather he didn't, but he has a right to do so. The Chief Justice should not prompt that phrase, but he can allow the president to add it, if he desires to do so.
Second, I understand that it would be political suicide for Obama to dispense with the invocational and benedictory prayers at his inauguration. Nevertheless, I think the Rick Warren controversy illustrates how inappropriate such prayers are in what should be a purely secular ceremony in an increasingly multicultural, society. Obama's selection of two Protestant pastors to pray has excluded – inadvertently, I presume – adherents of a multitude of other religions. And yet, it really doesn't matter who he would have chosen because many groups would have to be excluded in the interests of time and practicality. This public ceremony simply isn't the occasion for sectarian prayers of any kind. Obama will have, or could create, an opportunity to participate in a private or semi-private chapel service, should he wish to consecrate his presidency in that manner. Ideally, that would be a matter entirely between him, his god and his pastor.
Why swear at all? Why not simply acknowledge to the folks that you'll try to do your best? I suspect that this is the issue explored at length by Amotz Zahavi, who found (in his studies throughout the animal world) that reliable statements must be expensive. http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/04/the-i…
The oath raises the stakes of the person pledging to do a good job. It's no longer someone merely promising something. Rather, he or she is now risking hell, and that's an expensive proposition for any person who believes in hell.
Let's not forget for whom this ceremony tolls. A ceremony is not so much for the benefit of the celebrant, but for the witnessing hoard. Sociologically, we are not far removed from having God-Emperor leaders. Our country was established explicitly without having such a position. But the masses feel more comfortable with traditional symbols invoking their most popular deity as in support of the elected, human, non-hereditary, non-warrior leader. It shows everyone with whom the buck will stop, and assures them that this post will be treated soberly.
It would be nice if those of us who outgrew imaginary friends were at least recognized. But for the sake of our safety within the larger community, this is a relatively peaceful hornets nest to be swatting at this time.
I maintain that a better use of an aggressively atheistic agenda might be to revert our pledge to the flag and our currency back to their pre-theistic conditions.
Leave this essentially somber and primarily secular ceremony alone until "Atheist" stops being an en word.
"Barack Obama has made it clear, repeatedly, that he considers himself a Christian."
How successful are atheist politicians in the States? He had problems with his middle name already. What would have happened if he had proclaimed that he was Christian, but just liked to go to church once in a while?
I think I would support the atheists, just to make it clear to those who haven't realized it yet that in the US government and church are separated. People also should also have the chance to prepare themselves for the day when an atheist president will be sworn in who may not feel the need to hear God being mentioned during the ceremony.
And a president is a political leader not a church leader, whatever his religion is, it should stay at home.
Projektleiteri states:
"And a president is a political leader not a church leader, whatever his religion is, it should stay at home.
Fine leave your atheism or agnosticism at the door as well. Be real and accept that a persons values are part and partial of the package.
If people who have faith in some religion have to check their brains at the door then drop your faith in naturalism or evolution and I'd say we have something in common.
It's not a question of if people will put their faith in something, the question is what or who will they place their faith in. DI people beleive in the promise of plain old people, worts and all getting along under the sun.
Most religions believe the same thing, but they also recognized the history of leaders of all types (religious, educational, and political – prophets, priests and kings) as being unable to let people get along without trying to tweak what they see as their piece of the pie.
Would it make you happy to see the billionaries of this world voluntarily share their wealth with anyone who requested help?
Would it make you happy to see any person treated with respect even when they would disrespect everyone else?
Would you have felt better if the guy who threw the shoes at President Bush had better aim?
Would it make you happy to see a drug pusher pay for counselling to help his regulars take responsibility for their addiction and help them go cold turkey?
Would it make you happy to see everyone's debts in the whole world just vanish into thin air? (I kind of like that one, even if it is Biblical.)
Would it make you happy to see Washington D.C. impeach negligent leaders whose own states think they are just great leaders because they have seniority and they can bring home the bacon?
All of these issues involve religious perspectives and what people place their faith in.
John Lennin's utopia of "no religion" is really pie in the sky impracticality that is ignorant of the value ladden nature of human knowledge and decision making. If people could just sit around and get what they desired for no cost to them personally that really would be heaven on earth.
See, I knew a discussion could ensue. 🙂
I wish someone had something I could argue with, though. I just find myself agreeing with y'all and realizing that yes, it should be a completely secular ceremony. And still, I don't think a suit is the way to go.
"And still, I don’t think a suit is the way to go."
I agree, Mindy. A polo shirt and khakis would set a better tone.
Karl, do a little research on the town of Antelope Oregon, and look for details about the political events in 1984 in that small town. Here's a hint… What if the government was taken over by a group that based their laws on religious beliefs that did not coincide with yours, and you were given the choice to join them "Or Else".
Antelope Oregon, was not a unique case. even today there are numerous small towns governed by cults.
World history has shown that state sponsorship of a particular religion, the result is not a virtuous government, but a corruption of the church and the religious beliefs.
LOL, Alison – I think you're right. A suit shows the plaintiff taking himself so very seriously, while the more casual attire you suggest lends an air of "everyman" to the proceedings. Much better, I think.
And Niklaus – I love your last paragraph – – so true. Some things, it seems, we never learn.
I do not understand why Christians are asked to check their worldviews at the door when it comes to politics yet other worldviews are welcomed in the realm of politics. If you are a secular progressive then you have a worldview and it is actually encouraged in politics. A secular progressive and a Christian view the world much differently yet are we going to cherry pick whose world view we allow in politics and whose must be checked at the door? Is that intolerance?
J.C.
Presumably (at least according to some relgious folks) secularists would like to do away with religion entirely. That worldview is not welcome in the political arena, either, so the secularist must "check it at the door" as well.
Secularists and Theists, if you will, presumably share a great deal of common worldview—law and order, equality, fair practice—so where their commonalities meet, so we have functional politics.
Obviously, the compartments are porous and stuff "leaks" through all the time, so we have constant wrangling over what is or is not acceptable in the political arena.
But ultimately, if I read your point as I think you intend it, the fact is that politics is that which people arrive at through mutual understanding, not what a divine entity says it Should Be.
Any worldview that excludes should be checked at the door. Christianity is one of the most exclusionary religions out there – accept JC as your savior or off to your fiery doom. Not you, J.C. The other J.C.
A secular progressive allows for each to honor his or her own diety(s), or not – privately, within your own life experiences. When your God starts dictating how *I* should behave, your view has no place in politics.
The abortion issue is an easy example of this: If your God says that life begins at conception and that every zygote is as deserving of protection as a breathing human being so therefore abortion is murder, you are inflicting a non-proven worldview on others. I can respect that you believe it is wrong, and I can honor your right to not have an abortion and counsel others not to have abortions and even protest (non-violently) at medical facilities where they are performed. But you cannot legislate against it, because science – and what feels like common sense to many of us – does not bear out your belief.
If we were to be quashed for not realizing all the potential that is human life, each and every one of us would have to be flailed, because I'm fairly certain that not one of us truly lives up to our full potential. My spiritual guide professes that I do my part to care for the living, breathing children already struggling through life whose needs are not being met. My spiritual guide professes that I practice fairness, equality, compassion, openness – and try to pass those values on through my actions and my words. I wish everyone believed as I do, yet I have no expectation that compassion for the living be legislated. It, like most things, is a choice.
Mind,
A fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is not just as blob of goo as believed in the 19th Century. We are now in the 21st and we understand that the fertilized egg is very complex, having all of the characteristics that we (on the outside of the womb) have . . .
[Admin note: I have allowed only a portion of this comment. I have decided to not allow further comments regarding the morality or immorality of abortion, as it is tangential to this post. Comments regarding abortion will be welcomed at any of the many DI posts that focus on that issue].
J.C., you believe what you believe. I will believe what I believe. I respect Erich's desire not to turn this into an abortion debate; my bad for using that as an example. My mind has been changed on many issues in my lifetime, and my perspective on this particular issue has evolved. But I have no doubt that religion is behind your beliefs, hence they should not be legislated.
As a matter of fact, I have come to the conclusion that even as I still think a lawsuit in this case is going overboard, I do agree that swearing on the Constitution makes the most sense – for anyone taking office anywhere. And the invocation/benediction is unnecessary. I'm not offended by it, nor would I be offended if the prayers were Muslim or in Hebrew or in any other form as long as it was significant to the incoming office holder, but honestly, it has no part in a civil ceremony, which can be solemn and significant and meaningful and breathtaking without any religion at all.
Swearing on a bible or a Constitution is easy for a liar. It is theatre. In four years we will get another "good cop/bad cop" routine and the demopublicans and republicrats will have slept several times. By their fruits {not their oaths} you will know them.
Mindy,
I think we all bring our moral sensibilities to politics, and for religious people that includes their religion. I don't think we can expect them to leave their religion at the door in political debates. I agree with Juergen Habermas that religious moral insights are capable of undergoing a "saving translation" into universal secular values. The example often given is of the human being as image and likeness of God influencing the development of the idea of equal worth of human beings. Likewise Gandhi and MLK helped to universalize and secularize the ideas of peacableness towards enemies. As for "compassion for the living" of course it is practiced through legislation! Just think of all the campaigns for civil rights, against child labor, etc.