Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[construct]

With all the talk about proof in this thread, let me raise two questions. First who has the burden of proof. The person making the novel claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the Constitution makes no reference to any god in the oath or anywhere else, and it specifically excludes a religious test for public office. Therefore, I would argue that the believers in God should logically have the burden of proof about his existence.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit the plaintiff must prove all elements of his claim. In this case, the non-believers are claiming that the appended words are a violation of the establishment clause. So what relevance does the actual existence of a god have to the suit? None that I can see.

The second question is what standard of proof should be employed. Should it be a preponderance of the evidence? In other words, must religionists merely pass the 50% mark? Or must they prove their assertion beyond reasonable doubt (which can't be precisely quantified but surely must be greater than, say, 85%)? Since a religion-free government is a fundamental right preserved by the establishment clause of the first amendment, I'd prefer the harder standard.

However, I'm not sure that an invocation of a deity appended to an oath of office rises to the level of an establishment clause violation. It doesn't involve Congress, after all, and it is purely ceremonial language with no religious content. It is analogous to "under God" in the pledge or "IGWT" on money. So I'm having a hard time seeing how the proposed lawsuit avoids summary judgment for the defendant without ever requiring that the believing defendant offer even a scintilla of proof for the existence of this entirely rhetorical "God."

This ceremonial god is a signifier without a referent. I'm not sure this signifier has even a signified.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no lack of theists who are sick of religion.
^
I wouldn't be surprised if this were a title of one of Rev Wright's sermons.

Heh -- maybe.

I remember at college that there was no lack of Christians who were sick of religion, since the most visible representatives of Christianity on campus were very bad ones, hung up on rules and judgment and trying to be righteous.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's the Fundie Right's solution
To put Christian absolution
In the U.S. Constitution
And that don't sit well with me!

I dunno about that "absolution" part, though; they don't seem ready to absolve anyone.

How about:

It's the Fundie Right's resolution
to make a Christian institution
of the U.S. Constitution....

 

[Kulindahr]

Indeed and I've seen this with the religious fundamentalists in my family. It weakens the reasoning ability of the mind to such an extent that people will easily believe all sorts of nonsense (even on nonreligious subjects), and it's almost entirely subconscious. Quite an unfortunate thing.

I've observed the phenomenon myself, but it's fallacious to apply that to all belief in God. There are numerous cases in which people -- solid, educated, clear-thinking people -- set out to prove things such as that the Resurrection never happened, and came away with the opposite conclusion; there's also a plethora of Christian writers and thinkers of the past and present who serve as examples that the generalization is false.

 

[White Eagle]

No problem, just pointing out that it's a parallel to where Rick Warren stands -- a position of faith.

Oh yeah, I heard that Obama has received an answer about what to do with Warren and the ones objecting to him. He is to pray dressed as Richard Simmons.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh yeah, I heard that Obama has received an answer about what to do with Warren and the ones objecting to him. He is to pray dressed as Richard Simmons.

Well, that would certainly be truly different!










Hey, what happened to the jaw-dropping smiley?!

 

[White Eagle]

I hadn't noticed but surely it is resting with the vomit one.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hadn't noticed but surely it is resting with the vomit one.

JUB Supporters should be able to use them.

 

[hotatlboi]

I've observed the phenomenon myself, but it's fallacious to apply that to all belief in God.

I would agree with this, more just referring to the people who believe it because they were taught that as a child, rather than doing any thinking themselves on it, or those who still believe the elements of the Bible which are clearly and easily contradicted by modern evidence because their church tells them to do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would agree with this, more just referring to the people who believe it because they were taught that as a child, rather than doing any thinking themselves on it, or those who still believe the elements of the Bible which are clearly and easily contradicted by modern evidence because their church tells them to do so.

I was taught it as a child, walked out on it when I encountered "confirmation" in the United Methodist Church, re-examined it, found that most of what was popularly "known" about Christianity was nonsense, discovered that there really isn't much, if anything, in the Bible that's contradicted by modern evidence, noted that its observations of human behavior were right on target, realized that the world is in deep need of its teaching, and returned (not to the Methodists!), soon learning that both the best people and the worst I've ever known have been Christians.

We're talking here, in general, about the second group.

 

[hotatlboi]

discovered that there really isn't much, if anything, in the Bible that's contradicted by modern evidence

oh boy, are you colossally wrong on that one.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People's need to uphold the Bible makes them eject logic from their mind. It's very sad.

 

[G-Lexington]

Well, if he's read his press releases enough, maybe he'll just say "so help me Me."

Lex

 

[construct]

Well, if he's read his press releases enough, maybe he'll just say "so help me Me."

Lex

Frankly, I'd rather he do exactly that.

 

[bankside]

leave it. it's part of the tradition and has been like that since the beginning. but it's up to him to whether he wants to or not. not becuz of atheists' want so.

I have to point out that it has not been like that since the beginning. It has only been said consistently by presidents since Franklin Roosevelt.

I'd support returning to the tradition, and to the constitution.

If Barack Obama actually does believe in god (I'm not even sure he does; more that he just professes a belief out of political expediency in a country with deep theocratic conflicts) then he can pray to whatever god he imagines to be listening to him before he turns up to be inaugurated that day. Indeed if he does believe, I hope he would pray. And then, as it is none of our business, nor relevant to his constitutional task, I hope he would leave the country out of it and just stick to the oath.

I would think that many theists would support that position, not just other atheists.

...soon learning that both the best people and the worst I've ever known have been Christians.

Kulindahr, you acknowledge that some of the worst people you've known are christians, but I've noticed in many threads you always seem surprised and put off that other people would have met the same bad christians and judged them accordingly. It is true that not all christians should be judged by the same bad cases, but the kind of hypocritical unpleasant christians you acknowledge are common enough to be understood as the face of christianity by many outside observers.

My impression has been that you'll spring to the defence of "christendom" reflexively, and I think your arguments would carry more weight some times, if you'd take the trouble to clarify that you are willing to do the weeding in your own garden, so to speak.

 

[Kulindahr]

oh boy, are you colossally wrong on that one.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People's need to uphold the Bible makes them eject logic from their mind. It's very sad.

You speak in ignorance.

For fun, name one.

Hint: skip Genesis 1 & 2, which the fundies misread.

 

[hotatlboi]

You speak in ignorance.

For fun, name one.

Oh boy, here we go.

No sir, I speak from an objective comprehension of what the Bible claims, something you clearly lack. It is you who speak in ignorance.

Name one?

I wouldn't know where to begin.

The Bible says all life on earth was created in 6 days. We know this to be false. Don't give me that "metaphorical" crap. It clearly says, "the evening and the morning" were the days. And the word used is the Hebrew word referring to a 24 hour period and it is used elsewhere in the Bible as such.

The Bible says people lived to be 900+ years old. We know this to be physically impossible.

The Bible says that giants up to 40 feet tall once roamed the earth. This is completely unsupported by any other real historical, anthropological, or archeological findings.

The Bible says a global flood covered the earth to the tallest mountain peaks. We know this to be impossible. There is not anywhere close to that much water on the earth and even if their was it would have extended so far into the atmosphere that it would have killed all life. Noah would have been riding the ocean in space, lol. Furthermore, the rate at which the water would have to have precipitated to accumulate that much would have boiled the oceans and turned it into vapor anyway. Also, the idea that all species of the world could fit onto a boat the size of the ark (and cared for for 40 days inside) is outrageous.

The Bible clearly regards the earth as flat. It talks in many places about the "four corners of the world" and says that the earth's foundations are held up on pillars. Clearly the writers lacked any basic understanding of the shape of the earth. They also clearly regard the earth as the center of the solar system.

The Bible clearly regards the stars as small objects close to the earth in the sky. The stars "falling to the earth" is repeatedly mentioned. Such a phrase is entirely nonsensical given our modern understanding of stars.

The Bible is wrong about biology in more than one instance. It says that insects have 4 legs and that rodents chew their cud. Both statements are false.

I could go on and on, that's just all I can remember off the top of my head lol.

 

[bankside]

I don't think that metaphor was invented by Darwin. I can accept that people were speaking poetically when they wrote the bible rather than literally.

But that is unfortunately where the whole thing falls apart for me; I do accept that they were speaking poetically, not literally, and it has all the hallmarks of any other collection of fables. Like any work of fiction, it can inspire and teach, but I see no reason to posit a supernatural reality behind the ordinary human experience of its authors.

 

[hotatlboi]

Hint: skip Genesis 1 & 2, which the fundies misread.

Unfortunately that doesn't solve your problem.

For example, Jesus claimed more than once that he would return within the lifetimes of his immediate followers.

Did it happen? No.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't think that metaphor was invented by Darwin. I can accept that people were speaking poetically when they wrote the bible rather than literally.

But that is unfortunately where the whole thing falls apart for me; I do accept that they were speaking poetically, not literally, and it has all the hallmarks of any other collection of fables. Like any work of fiction, it can inspire and teach, but I see no reason to posit a supernatural reality behind the ordinary human experience of its authors.

That is exactly what I mean. If you are going to tell me that parts of the Bible are metaphorical, then why can't the whole thing be?

In Revelation it says that not one single character of the Bible is false or can be changed. If that is not true, then why should I believe any of it?

 

[FirmaFan]

I don't think that metaphor was invented by Darwin. I can accept that people were speaking poetically when they wrote the bible rather than literally.

But that is unfortunately where the whole thing falls apart for me; I do accept that they were speaking poetically, not literally, and it has all the hallmarks of any other collection of fables. Like any work of fiction, it can inspire and teach, but I see no reason to posit a supernatural reality behind the ordinary human experience of its authors.

The problem is that the bible is taken very very literally. The most extreme being creationists who believe that every last word of the bible is proven, historical fact. But, as many will argue, they are a minority, and, since it is only a small minority, the generalization of religious fundamentalism that I continually group all people of religion into is false. My generalization stops at those who believe no part of the bible is actual fact, and who simply use it, like you've described above with any work of fiction, as an inspiration to teach or to be moral (even then, morality is not sourced from the bible, otherwise, offering your daughter up for rape would be considered righteously moral, proof that morality from the bible is filtered by one's own bible-free morality). However, once any part of the bible is taken as literal fact, my fundamentalism generalization applies. Even those who answer "yes" to the simple question "are you going to heaven" or "do you believe in god" have allowed their minds to be open to the threads of logic that can lead to all things bad about religion. Do all go that far? No. Do all have the potential to? Yes.