Are SCOTUS Ruling Unconstitutional?

[CrusaderFrank]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

How can SCOTUS, a being of the State, ask for help from God? Does that not breach the Wall of Separation? Does that not call into question the Constitutionality all SCOTUS rulings?

 

[kyzr]

The official ruling is that the "In God We Trust" and references to God, without subscribing to any particular religion does NOT breach the separation of Church and State. Its the exception allowed under "tradition".

IMHO, the court ordered removal of references to God is the imposition of a State sponsored religion, its called "atheism".

 

[KittenKoder]

The official ruling is that the "In God We Trust" and references to God, without subscribing to any particular religion does NOT breach the separation of Church and State. Its the exception allowed under "tradition".

IMHO, the court ordered removal of references to God is the imposition of a State sponsored religion, its called "atheism".

However, there should be "alternatives" to the oath, I don't believe one solid oath should be given, that each person should be allowed to make their own within time constraints, though a simple "I vow to keep the law" should suffice in any instance.

 

[ihopehefails]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

How can SCOTUS, a being of the State, ask for help from God? Does that not breach the Wall of Separation? Does that not call into question the Constitutionality all SCOTUS rulings?

It does not violate the constitution at all and neither does a public official saying there particular belief that many agree with violate the constitution either since the first amendment says "congress shall pass no law..." so any references to anyone violating the constitution must be done within the framework of a law being passed by congress.

Now that I have said this I do believe that there is a willing attempt by the left to kill Christianity in this nation but there methods usually revolve around acceptable American values that they know no one will argue against such as the separation of church and state. They use this not only in supressing legislation but also to supress individuals from speaking their faith because you don't know how many times I've heard a liberal to tell a christian to be silent on the grounds separation of church and state when a private person executes their power to express their religion.

 

[ihopehefails]

The official ruling is that the "In God We Trust" and references to God, without subscribing to any particular religion does NOT breach the separation of Church and State. Its the exception allowed under "tradition".

IMHO, the court ordered removal of references to God is the imposition of a State sponsored religion, its called "atheism".

However, there should be "alternatives" to the oath, I don't believe one solid oath should be given, that each person should be allowed to make their own within time constraints, though a simple "I vow to keep the law" should suffice in any instance.

I really don't want a president to make an oath to a wicca god simply because it does not hold any value to me. The point of making an oath based on someone's belief is that the same belief is held by the people that he is making an oath to. Its like saying "swear on your mother's grave". Most people hold their mothers as "holy" and something that people universally respect so any person making an oath on their mother's grave will establish trust to everyone who holds their mother in esteem.

 

[KittenKoder]

The official ruling is that the "In God We Trust" and references to God, without subscribing to any particular religion does NOT breach the separation of Church and State. Its the exception allowed under "tradition".

IMHO, the court ordered removal of references to God is the imposition of a State sponsored religion, its called "atheism".

However, there should be "alternatives" to the oath, I don't believe one solid oath should be given, that each person should be allowed to make their own within time constraints, though a simple "I vow to keep the law" should suffice in any instance.

I really don't want a president to make an oath to a wicca god simply because it does not hold any value to me. The point of making an oath based on someone's belief is that the same belief is held by the people that he is making an oath to. Its like saying "swear on your mother's grave". Most people hold their mothers as "holy" and something that people universally respect so any person making an oath on their mother's grave will establish trust to everyone who holds their mother in esteem.

So ... then none of the politicians hold any value to me ... perhaps we should have different government for each religious belief?

 

[ayiakri]

The official ruling is that the "In God We Trust" and references to God, without subscribing to any particular religion does NOT breach the separation of Church and State. Its the exception allowed under "tradition".

Agreed. Even as an atheist, I don't have real problem with "So help me god" at the end of an oath, although I suppose if the new Supreme Court justice being sworn in really took offense, he/she wouldn't have to say that part. I'm equally non-offended by "In god we trust" on the money, since it's not picking out any particular god, in an of itself. I wouldn't complain if it got taken off the money either, though - just a non-issue to me.

IMHO, the court ordered removal of references to God is the imposition of a State sponsored religion, its called "atheism".

The problem with that statement is that atheism is not a religion. A religion is an organized belief system based on faith in some supernatural entities, forces, or other phenomena unfathomable (and untestable) man humans. Nearly all religions (all the religions I'm aware of, at least) are accompanied by systems of tax-exempt non-profit organizations, aka Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples, where believers in the religion can optionally congregate.

Atheism is, by definition, non-belief (technically, "without God", but in practice, "no religious belief").

Atheists don't have churches where they pray to any supernatural entities, or hold any common articles of faith. One might argue that the American Humanist Society is akin to a "church", but it's not: because there are no core articles of faith that one must accept in order to "be an atheist", and many religious people are members of the AHS, since that group promotes programs to better humanity, and separation of church and state (which benefits religion by precluding state interference).

To the other poster that complains that Christianity is under attack or something - puh-lease The U.S. population is something like 70% - 75% Christian, an overwhelming majority. Not since Thomas Jefferson have we had an openly non-Christian President.

There are only 48 (out of 535) openly non-Christian members of Congress, and 45 of them are Jewish, a kindred religion. Of the remaining three, two are muslim, and a single openly-atheist congressman from California.

Granted, more of them are probably secretly non-religious, given that secular (atheist, agnostic or "no religious belief") Americans are about 20% of the population.

But to pretend that Christianity is in any way "under attack" is pretty ridiculous in a county where Christmas and Easter are national holidays, "In God We Trust" is printed on the money, part of the oaths, the pledge of allegiance, etc.

Atheists, on the other hand, have zero chance of getting elected President, and not one member of the US Senate will admit to being non-religious, since the Christians would immediately vote him/her out of office.