Not only is the second swearing in of President Obama perfectly valid (if almost certainly superfluous) without a Bible, but the use of one the first time around was at least arguably unconstitutional, although I am not one to press that sort of point, being all in favour public and civic Christianity, and not notably sympathetic towards Jeffersonian Deism.
In most of Europe and great swathes of Europe's old empires (not least the French one, in marked contrast to France herself) all the great civic events are very conspicuously Christian because all the small civic events are also very conspicuously Christian, and vice versa. But in the United States, the Lord's Prayer before a high school sporting fixture is illegal, yet Rick Warren's invocation and Joseph Lowery's benediction are perfectly fine.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
You do not, evidently, understand the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSo far as Obama's decision to use or not use a Bible in his swearing in, such is governed specifically by the Constitution. You might look at the section on permitting either oath (i.e. an oath in the religious sense) or affirmation (i.e. non-religious) for members of the Executive branch of government. What is not permitted by our Constitution is a religious test for qualifying to serve in government.
Oaths are a very different thing under our Constitution from forcing young people to pray or to say oaths to religious beliefs they may or may not believe in. Such runs afoul of the First Amendment's prohibition on any establishment of religion.
And these Bibles, and benedictions, and invocations do not? How, exactly?
ReplyDeleteI am the last person to advocate the pushing of Christianity out of the civic life of any country where it has come to occupy a place.
But such a pushing out was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, however long it might have taken the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution.
The problem, quite simply, is the Constitution itself, and thus also the men who wrote it.
No, Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteYou clearly do not understand our Constitution. It was not intended to push religion anywhere.
It was, instead, to make it possible for people of diverse religions to co-exist. Which is to say, it is intended to be and, in fact, is a secular constitution. That secularism takes two forms: One is freedom of religious belief and, with minor exceptions (e.g. poison snake charming or use of illegal drugs), freedom of religious practice. Two is that no one religion, group of religions or religions in general can become established.
Forcing children to say prayers written for other people's religion amounts to establishing religion. It is unlawful. Allowing a person to say an oath under God does nothing to establish that religion or any group of religions or religion in general because anyone is free, including a president, not to say an oath but, instead, to affirm allegiance to our magnificent constitution
Well, anyone even vaguely suspected of wanting to do that need not waste the time and money required to set up so much as an exploratory committee.
ReplyDeleteThis inauguration was a flagrant example of the establishment of a sort of generic Protestantism at the very top of American civic life. No change there. But that establishment used to exist from top to bottom. In direct defiance of the Constitution, of course. So it was stopped at the bottom, and in the middle. Yet not at the top.
Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteYou ought to take a look at American history a bit more closely. Not all American presidents have even said an oath on the Bible. Some have merely affirmed the required swearing in statement. Some have merely said "I do."
Moreover, I do not see how Protestantism was enshrined by the inauguration. The pageantry included prayers by clerics of a variety of religions - Jewish and Muslim, that I noticed.
And, the President made rather clear that non-believers are included as well, since he said that in his speech. Perhaps you did not notice.
I think you watched a different event that I did. Maybe the coverage in your country was incomplete.
"Not all American presidents have even said an oath on the Bible. Some have merely affirmed the required swearing in statement. Some have merely said "I do.""
ReplyDeleteHow long ago?
"The pageantry included prayers by clerics of a variety of religions - Jewish and Muslim, that I noticed"
Who? There was a white Evangelical and a black Evangelical. That was it.
David,
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama invited Ingrid Mattson of the ISNA to offer a prayer at his inauguration festivities. She was, so far as I saw, there. She is a woman so, I suppose, she is not technically a cleric for most Muslims. And, there was a rabbi there who blessed the event as well. I do not recall his name.
Saying "I do" was the common approach until the early part of the 20th Century.
The only President ever to decline to swear on a Bible was John Quincy Adams, who used a book of laws instead. Whether Jefferson used his own re-write instead of the real thing, I do not know.
ReplyDeleteI am all in favour of swearing on Bibles, but it is a flagrant breach of the First Amendment. Too bad for the First Amendment, say I.
The "festivities" to which you refer were practically a private function compared to main event, which featured two Protestant clergyman and that was all.
They were, however, a riposte to anyone who thinks that Obama is in any sort of hock to his foreign background. There are no women imams in Kenya or Indonesia, and Kenyan Anglican bishops certainly do not live with their same-sex partners.
Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteBeing a lawyer, I can assure you that swearing on the Bible does not breach the 1st Amendment. It is, instead, covered by Article 6, which states in clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
In other words, an oath can be taken. And, in American English and, further, as was understood in the 18th Century, Oaths were under God and, normally, with Bible in hand. So, again, you are way off base.
That is the original text of the Constitution. It is superseded by an amendment.
ReplyDeleteI do not dispute that the Founding Fathers wanted to banish religion from the public sphere.
David,
ReplyDeleteIt was not superseded by the 1st Amendment. That is in your head. The 1st Amendment doe not supersede any part of the original Constitution. It was a condition set by the opponents - e.g. Jefforsonians - for voting in favor of the passing of the Constitution.
Nice try, though. Better luck next time.
But being part of a political deal does not, in itself, make it the law.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later, this one is going to come to court. The generically Americo-Protestant character of Presidential Inaugurations may not be an expression of the most intellectually, morally or spiritually challenging form of religion. But neither have been plenty of other things found to have been in flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
And those other things have not been the American Republic's projection of itself both to the 'publica' and to the world.
Mr. Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteThe concern you have raised will not go to court because there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that is in issue. No one forces anyone to say an oath. No one is forced to hold a Bible. It is all voluntary. Hence, the 1st Amendment is not involved.
Further, as I noted, it was part of the fabric of how the courts, from the beginning of the Republic, have interpreted the 1st Amendment. Which is to say, it is interpreted, along with the other original Amendments, as being consistent with what was written before.
There is a reason for this manner of interpretation. The Federalists argued that the Amendments were not necessary because all of them were, by implication and intention, already part of the original constitution. The Jeffersonians did not dispute that point but, instead, argued that they wanted it to be sure that the noted principles were not forgotten.
So, you see that no one at the time even wanted to interpret the 1st Amendment as altering the Constitution. The point was to memorialize the intentions of both sides of the debate.
So, it was not, in the sense you note, a political compromise. It was understood to memorialize well agreed upon principles. So, there is effectively no chance that the Supreme Court would take the position that publicly stated views of the Founding Fathers are wrong. And, in this instance, there are no founding fathers who argued your interpretation. And, there is no interpretation of the 1st Amendment which affects voluntary acts by public officials or anyone else.