FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration.
Some stuff is wrong, but we ignore it. Like seeing someone shoplift -- do you say something? Or is it none of your business?
Michael Newdow has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the January 20 inauguration. Newdow asserts that the presence of Christian ministers who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
I've always been of the opinion that this is a Christian country, and we should all just accept Christmas trees and the like... after all, what's wrong with letting the majority have their fun? But the truth of the matter is that the government is not supposed to promote any one religion over another, since it comes close to establishing that favored religion as a state religion, and having the president swear his oath on a Christian Bible is favoring that particular religion. The Constitution does not require the new president to place his hand on a Bible while repeating the oath; it is inappropriate, therefore, for the president's private beliefs to impose themselves on the public ceremony. What kind of message does it send to non-Christians? Perhaps it is that this man believes so deeply in his convictions that he is willing to swear on something he holds holy that he will uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend her against all enemies... or perhaps it sends the message that Christians get to be president, and the rest of us are out of luck.
Michael Newdow is probably a jerk once you get to know him, and that's unfortunate. Why? Because he's right about this one.
[Link]
6 comments:
Nah, I've read your blog...mine's not too deep :-)
Like your blog a lot. If it's okay I'm blogrolling ya.
Ran
You are correct in saying that it's not required to swear an oath on the Bible during any given inauguration, but it is also not outlawed. In fact, the reason that it is a tradition is that the founding fathers chose to do it...primarily because our law is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and English common law...all of which come from the Bible. To have a debate about this is fair, but to have one that is ill-informed or selective in historical perspective is unproductive(not saying that your's is, necessarily). A President's choice to follow tradition is left to him by every document and precedent that American history affords. This situation is no different. In fact, one can argue that it is not Bush that has an agenda here(the view of the Left)...as he is following a centuries old tradition, but that Newdow has the agenda in trying to disrupt that same traditional continuity for his own secularist ideas.
As president, what Bush does reflects on our country. Just as his behavior in the White House or as leader of the Free World represents America, so does his act of swearing on a Bible (and yes, I know that's what takes place in a U.S. court of law -- perhaps that's wrong also, I say). "If he wants to do it, that's fine" you say? What if the thing he wants to do next is declare Christianity the official state religion? Fine with you? (I love using ridiculous extremes in my arguments; they annoy people so thoroughly.)
Swearing on a bible is fine, that is not the thing to be upset about. The thing to complain about in terms of church and state is if Jesus in invoked in the name of all Americans. I can go along with God as a generic term, a term that means Jesus for Christians and not for Jews and others; but once you invoke the name of Jesus at a state function you are advocating Christianity.
I have to say that it is fine for him to swear on the Bible, and not because of my beliefs. I would feel exactly the same when a Jewish President wishes to place his hands on the Torah. It is symbolic of him holding his position in the same respectful manner as to his belief system.
A Jewish president? Who's dreaming now?
Seriously, as a Jew, I would not want a Jewish president to put his hand on the Torah (or a printed copy of the Old Testament) to be sworn in. First, we don't do that -- the Talmud is very picky about making oaths and promises. Second, we don't treat the Torah as an icon to be sworn against -- it's one of the Ten Commandments. Third, why would a Jewish president's religion prove his intention to serve his country and uphold the Constitution?
Religion is a private affair, and though it can be publicly demonstrated through good works, it should not be a part of the public role of the president.
Post a Comment