Send a short note to the White House

NAP
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Send a short note to the White House

 Go to the White House comments web page and send them this brief message:

Before President Obama takes his oath of office, please instruct Chief Justice Roberts not to append an extralegal monotheistic codicil as he did during the previous presidential inauguration. A person taking an oath of office can speak freely after the legal oath recitation ends and should not be directed what to say by the person giving the oath. It is unseemly for the person leading a government oath to spatchcock a religious phrase.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NAP wrote: Go to the White

NAP wrote:

 Go to the White House comments web page and send them this brief message:

Before President Obama takes his oath of office, please instruct Chief Justice Roberts not to append an extralegal monotheistic codicil as he did during the previous presidential inauguration. A person taking an oath of office can speak freely after the legal oath recitation ends and should not be directed what to say by the person giving the oath. It is unseemly for the person leading a government oath to spatchcock a religious phrase.

Judge Roberts knows damned well what "no religious test" means. If any president were to refuse to say "so help me god", there isn't a damned thing that judge can do and they know it. The reason, unfortunately that has become a tradition is not because of law, but because of a mostly uneducated voting public. Even though Obama cant be re-ellected the immage of not saying that could cause him to have even more problems with his opposition.

 

You may not know that Muslim Congressman  Keith Elleson caught flack for swearing in on a Koran instead of a bible.

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

 

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3348
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NAP wrote: Go

Brian37 wrote:

NAP wrote:

 Go to the White House comments web page and send them this brief message:

Before President Obama takes his oath of office, please instruct Chief Justice Roberts not to append an extralegal monotheistic codicil as he did during the previous presidential inauguration. A person taking an oath of office can speak freely after the legal oath recitation ends and should not be directed what to say by the person giving the oath. It is unseemly for the person leading a government oath to spatchcock a religious phrase.

Judge Roberts knows damned well what "no religious test" means. If any president were to refuse to say "so help me god", there isn't a damned thing that judge can do and they know it. The reason, unfortunately that has become a tradition is not because of law, but because of a mostly uneducated voting public. Even though Obama cant be re-ellected the immage of not saying that could cause him to have even more problems with his opposition.

 

You may not know that Muslim Congressman  Keith Elleson caught flack for swearing in on a Koran instead of a bible.

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

 

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

It would be interesting if someone used the Satanic Bible to swear their selves in to office.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NAP wrote:

 Go to the White House comments web page and send them this brief message:

Before President Obama takes his oath of office, please instruct Chief Justice Roberts not to append an extralegal monotheistic codicil as he did during the previous presidential inauguration. A person taking an oath of office can speak freely after the legal oath recitation ends and should not be directed what to say by the person giving the oath. It is unseemly for the person leading a government oath to spatchcock a religious phrase.

 

Judge Roberts knows damned well what "no religious test" means. If any president were to refuse to say "so help me god", there isn't a damned thing that judge can do and they know it. The reason, unfortunately that has become a tradition is not because of law, but because of a mostly uneducated voting public. Even though Obama cant be re-ellected the immage of not saying that could cause him to have even more problems with his opposition.

 

You may not know that Muslim Congressman  Keith Elleson caught flack for swearing in on a Koran instead of a bible.

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

 

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

It would be interesting if someone used the Satanic Bible to swear their selves in to office.

 

It is not unconstitutional to allow the ellected to swear on any book or to any god or no god. What is immoral is that our citzenry even the left, to much to much a great degree are fasley taught that "so help me god" is required. It is voluntary not manditory.

"no religious test" refers to the ability to apply to run and once you win, they cannot be denied the office. On issues of religion it is supposed to be a ban on either excluding or including based on issues of religion. It is the anti monopoly concept of neutrality.

You still have to do the work as one running for office to convince enought people to vote for you. But no one can stop you from running if you meet the constitutional requirments of age and birth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NAP
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: If "no

Brian37 wrote:
 

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

The president elect's oath is specified in the constitution, while the federal employee oath recited by the Vice President and other federal government employees is specified by Congress. All of the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts prior to the Civil War show that this phrase was not uttered during presidential inaugurations, neither by the Chief Justice leading the recitation nor by the president elect.  The federal oath of office was modified by Congress to try to keep confederate sympathizers out of federal government, and it was at that time that a statement referring to god was first added to that oath.  But even after the Civil War it remained the exception, not the rule, for a president to reference god during the president elect's oath recitation.  Chester Arthur as vice president would have recitated the Civil War oath, so when he suddenly became president after president Garfield was murdered, he ended the presidential oath that same way.  

Since at least the 1930's, the Chief Justice, when leading the presidential oath recitation, has added this extra sentence to the oath.  One of things that changed in the 1930's was the introduction of commercially produced radio.  This probably happened in part because of public expectations and preference after radio turned the words of the oath recitation into a national public affair.

Public opinion can arguably justify the partisan president making a comment referencing god after the legal oath recitation is completed. However, the Chief Justice is not elected, is not identified with any political party, and is supposed to disregard such partisan considerations and uphold the constitution. There is a good reason why the public thinks this phrase is part of the oath, it is because they witness this phrase being incorporated into the oath by the Chief Justice while leading the oath, which clearly implies, incorrectly, that this phrase is part of the constitutional oath. The Chief Justice shouldn't be changing the oath by adding or removing words from it, and there is no good excuse for the fact that they have been doing this for 90 years.

The fact that the Oath recitation was redone last time because a word or two was wrong highlights the hypocrisy.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NAP wrote:Brian37 wrote: If

NAP wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

The president elect's oath is specified in the constitution, while the federal employee oath recited by the Vice President and other federal government employees is specified by Congress. All of the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts prior to the Civil War show that this phrase was not uttered during presidential inaugurations, neither by the Chief Justice leading the recitation nor by the president elect.  The federal oath of office was modified by Congress to try to keep confederate sympathizers out of federal government, and it was at that time that a statement referring to god was first added to that oath.  But even after the Civil War it remained the exception, not the rule, for a president to reference god during the president elect's oath recitation.  Chester Arthur as vice president would have recitated the Civil War oath, so when he suddenly became president after president Garfield was murdered, he ended the presidential oath that same way.  

Since at least the 1930's, the Chief Justice, when leading the presidential oath recitation, has added this extra sentence to the oath.  One of things that changed in the 1930's was the introduction of commercially produced radio.  This probably happened in part because of public expectations and preference after radio turned the words of the oath recitation into a national public affair.

Public opinion can arguably justify the partisan president making a comment referencing god after the legal oath recitation is completed. However, the Chief Justice is not elected, is not identified with any political party, and is supposed to disregard such partisan considerations and uphold the constitution. There is a good reason why the public thinks this phrase is part of the oath, it is because they witness this phrase being incorporated into the oath by the Chief Justice while leading the oath, which clearly implies, incorrectly, that this phrase is part of the constitutional oath. The Chief Justice shouldn't be changing the oath by adding or removing words from it, and there is no good excuse for the fact that they have been doing this for 90 years.

The fact that the Oath recitation was redone last time because a word or two was wrong highlights the hypocrisy.

They key to get this voluntary habit to stop isn't to outlaw it, the key is to grow diversity in the government. Get enough minority religions and atheists in government then they will be forced to let it all in, or keep it all out. What they are not intitled to is a monopoly of venue.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
NAP

NAP wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 

If "no religious test" were taught widely as it should be, it wouldn't be an issue. But since day one of the ink drying on the Constitution, the voting public has constantly tried to bypass this concept. It is just something you are viggle about long term it is not something that will change over night.

And you may know that in his initial inaguration Obama did not put his hand on the bible when he redid the Oath in chambers, when it was discovered that he flubbed the words the first time. So the Judge does know what the law is.

The president elect's oath is specified in the constitution, while the federal employee oath recited by the Vice President and other federal government employees is specified by Congress. All of the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts prior to the Civil War show that this phrase was not uttered during presidential inaugurations, neither by the Chief Justice leading the recitation nor by the president elect.  The federal oath of office was modified by Congress to try to keep confederate sympathizers out of federal government, and it was at that time that a statement referring to god was first added to that oath.  But even after the Civil War it remained the exception, not the rule, for a president to reference god during the president elect's oath recitation.  Chester Arthur as vice president would have recitated the Civil War oath, so when he suddenly became president after president Garfield was murdered, he ended the presidential oath that same way.  

Since at least the 1930's, the Chief Justice, when leading the presidential oath recitation, has added this extra sentence to the oath.  One of things that changed in the 1930's was the introduction of commercially produced radio.  This probably happened in part because of public expectations and preference after radio turned the words of the oath recitation into a national public affair.

Public opinion can arguably justify the partisan president making a comment referencing god after the legal oath recitation is completed. However, the Chief Justice is not elected, is not identified with any political party, and is supposed to disregard such partisan considerations and uphold the constitution. There is a good reason why the public thinks this phrase is part of the oath, it is because they witness this phrase being incorporated into the oath by the Chief Justice while leading the oath, which clearly implies, incorrectly, that this phrase is part of the constitutional oath. The Chief Justice shouldn't be changing the oath by adding or removing words from it, and there is no good excuse for the fact that they have been doing this for 90 years.

The fact that the Oath recitation was redone last time because a word or two was wrong highlights the hypocrisy.

 

 

 

                             You have been here 4 1/2 years and only 10 posts??????     I like what you have to say, speak up more often!!!!!!!! In can be NO worse then anyone else and highly likely to be very informative and astute, don't be shy speak UP!!!!!!!!

 

                              and watch my videos..............

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


NAP
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-06-29
User is offlineOffline
I don't know what you are

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "outlaw it", this is an appeal to the White House to tell the Chief Justice to properly recite the legal oath as it appears in the constitution. Technically, I believe it is usually a violation of existing regulations for an oath giver to change the wording of legal oaths except under certain circumstances which includes following some procedure which must be initiated by the oath taker to formally request a change. Nor would all such requests be automatically granted, and it appears rather difficult to properly justify a request for an oath giver to append an additional sentence to the end of an oath given that the oath taker can add one or more sentences after the oath is completed without the participation of the oath giver.

The key is for secularists to publicly insist, with one voice, that the Chief Justice adhere to the same standard that applies to all oath givers and not add an extralegal codicil of any sort to the legal oaths that he leads. We should have insisted 90 years ago. The long-standing establishments of monotheism, such as this, can be defeated only after we stop embracing self-fulfilling defeatism and call for the wrongs to be righted. Last time, Chief Justice Roberts said he wouldn't append this sentence to the oath only if the president told him not to, which is backwards. It should be an opt-in, not an opt-out, by the president to change the wording of the oath, just like it is for all other oath takers.

As mispractices like these become entrenched over time they become more and more difficult to reverse. This becomes a closed circle under your approach, the exclusion of atheists is justified in the minds of the public by the establishments of theism, so we are unable to change this from the inside. This self-fulfilling defeatist notion that we should not seek to remedy mispractices that exclude us until after we are included is foolish. No one acquires their civil rights with such a passive, sit on their hands, strategy.