Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"so help me god"?? separation of church and state, anyone??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:46 PM
Original message
"so help me god"?? separation of church and state, anyone??

just caught Justice Sotomayor's swearing-in on CNN, and curious if i was the only one somewhat irked by the anachronistic refrain of "so help me god". i'm totally tolerant and respectful of other people's beliefs and religions, but does that kind of religious rhetoric really belong in the courtroom? let alone, the *Supreme* courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. did you ever consider SHE might believe? and that portion of HER oath
might mean something to HER? Hmmmm...I imagine if she wanted to go without it, she could have.

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. she was repeating, word in word, after Roberts.

that's my main objection - institutionalized religiosity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. i would bet dollars to doughnuts that SHE had all the choice there
but you wouldn't even agree if she did. nice job of making an issue of a non-issue.

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. "I imagine if she wanted to go without it, she could have." - unfortunately, she could NOT have.

sorry, but your "imagining" has nothing to do with reality.


and like i said, i respect people's beliefs and religions, i just don't think they belong in the courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. there are atheist in congress who avoid the 'so help me god'
so why couldn't she? you don't respect shit...she made the choice; i guarantee it.

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Are your sure she legally can't skip it word - my understanding is it was her call
and if she can be a member of the supreme court I think she should be able to choose the wording in this instance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. If there is God, I hope she helps Justice Sotomayor. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. so do i.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. If one is a believer, then what does it hurt, really? If a non believer,
don't say that part of it. Just simply swear to tell the truth, or whatever the oath of the moment is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Separation of church and state is DESPERATELY needed in this country! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. and THIS is NOT an example of where it is a problem n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I totally agree with you. It sucks that to make an issue of it, even to ask to have it left out, if
that;s even an option, would draw attacks. And that's due to the fact that the religiosity has been institutionalized into our government, in opposition to the supposed separation od church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Its actually pretty separate just as demanded in the constitution
freedom to believe and not just atheism is part of the constitution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seeviewonder Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. How is it "pretty separate?"
We do not tax the churches, their property, or their tithes. Can you even imagine how much money would be made by taxing their property/income? Let me give you a hint, goodbye deficit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Oh awesome! Everything else in the country is absolutely perfect!
About the only reason I can think of to worry about *that* piece of small potatoes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. lol! dearest Boo in Blue, your post makes absolutely no sense in relation to the op. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. It was HER choice
Sorry, buit your complaint is bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. "It was HER choice" - prove it.

i didn't have a "complaint" btw, all i said was that i was somewhat irked by institutionalized religiosity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. nah you just wanted to make a little stink...congrats
i love it...PROVE IT...the argument of a four year old who has nothing to go on...

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. lol, very effective riposte.
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seeviewonder Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. I am with you on this even though the "righteous" among us on DU are not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. Can't I swear by the most important thing I can personally swear by? -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. you could swear on the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language if you wanted...
the only people that give a shit are the people here who wish to make an issue of it...

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I'm not sure. If I ever got appointed to the Supreme Court, could I swear on Sigourney Weaver?
It took me three minutes to determine that Google images does not have a jpeg that adequately illustrates this possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. You are well within you rights to be irked by this. I'm within my rights not to be.
It's a matter of tradition, not oppression, that people invoke God in oaths of office. I'll bet you could name at least 100 issues that are more important than this part of the oath and on which it is actually possible to effect change. But I know how you feel and I'm sympathetic. I feel the same way about people who use the nonword "irregardless." And, like "so help me God", it hurts me not one whit that it goes on without my approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. "I feel the same way about people who use the nonword "irregardless."" - or, "anyways"!!
("anyways" always gets me.)

lol
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seeviewonder Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
25. I don't think anyone should have to put their hand on a Bible because they are forced.
I am appalled at the idea of having this much religious involvement in government. Personally, I think she should have said "so help me flying spaghetti monster."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudbase Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. It doesn't acknowledge any particular religion,
so I don't have a problem with the usage. I doubt it was in any way coerced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlyDemocrat Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
29. Maybe's she's a Catholic that believes in God
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. Blame General Washington for that one.
He added it to the end of the POTUS Oath of Office, and it took off like Hannah Montana.

Not to mention that every President we've had has been a Christian of one denomination or another--hell, the most we've deviated from the formula was electing Kennedy (a Catholic) in 1960.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. That may be a genie that will not go quietly back into the bottle..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
32. She, like every other citizen, has the choice of "affirming." Some religions forbid oaths, too...
Mountain, meet molehill.

Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, are forbidden by their religions to swear an oath. They have the option of substituting "and solemnly affirm" and leaving out the words "so help me God." Their interpretation of the Bible is that it forbids oaths as a form of taking God's name in vain.

This same option is available to atheists, and always has been.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. The line, "so help me God," doesn't need to be said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
34. I agree
Even if it's not required, it gives the impression that swearing to God is necessary to ensure that our government officials properly do their job. It therefore promotes the idea that those who do not believe in God are in a sense second class citizens IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
35. high school football starts in three weeks
and we ALWAYS have an invocation before games.

Do you suggest I jump up and down screaming *fuck Jesus on a pogostick*while they do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seeviewonder Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. As a matter of fact, I would love to see you do that.
Please get it on video!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. Still she stays on with a love of some kind / It's the lady's choice /
Hear the hissing of summer lawns.

(J. M.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
37. It's up to the person being sworn in.
Let it go. We have bigger fish to fry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
39. I hate it but
nothing can be done. The RW cry babies are already claiming they are a persecuted minority.

Just look at this war on Christmas. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC