Should Obama be sworn in on his Christian Bible

[PeterS]

Or will that upset the atheists, pagans, wiccans, agnostics, liberals, catholics and/or Oprahians?

He can be sworn in on a roll of toilet paper as far as I am concerned. Why would you think it would matter?

 

[frazzledgear]

Separation of church and state and we have to swore in people on a bible. Take the bible/religion out of government.

Separation of church and state is not in our Constitution. But when did that stop an atheist from insisting it is. It came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. And I doubt Jefferson would be pleased with how his letter has been distorted and twisted to try and sever religion from public life -when that was never his intent at all. Especially since later writings and conversations indicate he considered it entirely a political letter and not some theoretical pronouncment on the relations between government and religion.

If you really want to know Jefferson's intent when he wrote this letter -then taking a look at both the letter from the Danbury Baptists and his unedited reply is necessary:
The Danbury Baptist's letter to Jefferson

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Clearly the Danbury Baptists were concerned that there existed a risk that someday their religious freedom would be considered to be a state-granted PRIVILEGE instead of an inalienable right -which could potentially result in a government capable of punishing people based on their religious beliefs. With Jefferson reassuring the Danbury Baptist Association that he took the Constitution seriously when it said Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -and that the "wall of separation between church and state" (he meant the Constitutional restrictions placed on Congress, not religion) meant legislators could never turn religious freedom into mere state-granted privileges and become capable of punishing people based on their religious beliefs. Rather ironic that this letter, written by Jefferson to address the specific concern of the Danbury Baptists that they might lose their religious liberties -was bastardized in the way it has been.

The establishment clause forbids government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion -it forbids government from creating a state religion. That part you got down. But act as if what follows that doesn't exist whatsoever. You know, the part about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? No one taking public office loses their right to freely exercise their religion whenever they want. Which means if someone wants to be sworn into office using a Bible -they can. If they want to be sworn in with a law book, they can. If they want a minister to offer prayers at their Presidential Inauguration -they can (and do). If Congress wants someone to offer prayers at their opening session -they can. If the Supreme Court wants to open their start of business with "God save the United States and this honorable court" -it can. The establishment clause restricts using the authority of government to establish a state religion or using the authority of government to prevent individuals from freely exercising their religious beliefs. It was not intended to try and restrict the free exercise of religion by an individual SERVING in government. NO ONE loses any of their constitutional rights just because they got elected or hired by government. Which means if someone wants to be sworn in on a Bible -it in NO WAY violates the Constitution.

This is such a dumb discussion. Whatever someone CHOOSES to take their oath on is their right to choose and isn't anyone else's business at all.

It sure isn't about the fact you think "separation of church and state" means that those actually serving in government have lost THEIR religious rights just because of who their employer happens to be. Where is THAT in the Constitution?

 

[Father Time]

Well we get it from Supreme Court precedent now so it's not entirely baseless.

The right to privacy is not in the constitution but it was ruled that it was covered under the 9th amendment.

 

[frazzledgear]

Well we get it from Supreme Court precedent now so it's not entirely baseless.

The right to privacy is not in the constitution but it was ruled that it was covered under the 9th amendment.

We get WHAT from the Supreme Court precedent? That individuals who get hired by government or elected to office somehow lose their constitutional rights? LOL No such precedent exists and never will. Who your employer happens to be in NO way determines what rights you have as a US citizen under the Constitution. If someone wants to be sworn in with a Bible -it is THEIR business only. And not yours. THEY have the right to exercise their religious beliefs when they want -and if they want to take that oath on a Bible or any other religious book, it has nothing to do with you whatsoever. You have NO right to demand government forbid them from doing so when the Constitution specifically bans it from interfering with the free exercise. The fact you don't LIKE seeing someone else exercise THEIR rights in that way is just too bad -your personal displeasure is not allowed to interfere with the rights of others and it sure hasn't prevented any President from being sworn in on a Bible if they wanted to do that.

I'm pretty sure you understand there is no "right" to demand government silence those who have a different political opinion from you because you just don't LIKE what they are saying and the way they are exercising their free speech rights. You also have no right to demand that government prevent people from exercising their right when it comes to religious beliefs either. One right is not more valuable than another in the Constitution -they all exist in the Bill of Rights together. But just because you personally have no use at all for one of them at all doesn't mean you get to restrict that right for those who have much more use for it.

This issue isn't related to privacy rights. But while no justice on that court agrees with the premise that who happens to be the employer of an individual determines what rights they have under the Constitution - there are justices on that court who strongly disagree the Constitution guarantees any privacy rights whatsoever. Which means that has a greater potential to be overturned at some point in the future than a Supreme Court actually ruling that who hires you is the determining basis for what rights you have as an individual and citizen of this country.