Michael Newdow’s challenge to Obama’s plan to end his oath of office with the words “so help me god” has failed. The judge apparently found that Newdow did not have standing because he couldn’t show any concrete harm that would come from allowing the religious overtones in the Oath.
I strongly disagree that there wouldn’t be concrete harm: We are a secular state, and injecting religion into politics is a large part of what has caused America’s stock to tumble.
However, Mr. Obama still has First Amendment rights of his own — and if Mr. Obama wants to say “so help me god,” then god-damn it, the First Amendment gives him that right.
Newdow is one of my heroes for bringing his case to remove “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance. But, on this one, he really damaged his credibility.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
I would argue that secularization is as bad as religious extremism. No matter how hard we try the law cannot fill the role of morality in society. In fact, if you had a society of moral people you would have no need for law.
Marc I wonder if you’ve studied any of the eastern religions because my sense is that your beef with religion is more directed at the authoritative, hierarchal structure that is much more prevalent in western theology. Eastern religions tend to focus more on that which cannot be put into words. It’s more about experiences that must be discovered, not given in a book, or from a man in a funny hat.
Wow, have you got me pegged!
You’re right about me (you should be a therapist), and I do find much that is persuasive in Buddhism.
However, in addition to the “authoritative, hierarchal structure that is much more prevalent in western theology”, I also find apocalyptic belief systems and belief systems that demand or encourage (or even conceive of the concept of) “conversion” to be disturbing.
Depending on your answer I was going to suggest Buddhism because of Buddha’s attempt to create something for which the pronoun does not exist. Because anti-religion, would be the closest. But in the end Buddha wanted to create something that would be without all of the expected structure used to define a religion. No tradition, no hierarchy, no heaven/hell, no good/evil. Buddha wanted to find those who could reach enlightenment, and to teach them, so that everyone could be taught. Everyone being only those that wish to learn. Not to mention, God (who is associated so heavily with all the things you don’t like) is absent. Yes, you will always have someone that needs a humanized figure to work off of, but it’s not intended for everybody. I liked how reaching enlightenment was explained in Huston Smith’s The World ‘s Religions, “That Hinduism has shared her land for centuries with Jains, Buddhist, Parsees, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians may help explain a final idea that comes out more clearly through her than through the other great religions; namly, her convition that the various major religions are alternate paths to the same goal. (P.72-73)
It goes on to say that even the fanatics, when you look at their teachings, it is very open. It’s a well written, and rewritten, book, the original was published back in 1958.
[…] since Chester A. Arthur, most (if not all) Presidents-elect have thrown in this little garnish. I previously opined that Mr. Obama could, if he wanted to, throw in a little extra props to his personal deity. In […]