Lawsuit over "so help me god" in oath of office.

Fount, you wrote:




Okay, I am willing to concede that a group of all white all male New Englanders aren’t representative of America. I am also willing to concede that a group of all black New England footballers aren’t representative of all atheletes. But what would either of those concessions on my part have to do with this issue?

The signers weren’t all New Englanders, if that is what you are asserting. In fact, just as the number of slave owners among the signers were a minority (not a majority as you quote Lincoln saying)…a majority were not New Englanders (only 6 of the 39 signers were from New England"only 15 of the 39 were from states where slaves could be owned.)

Not sure where and in what context the Lincoln quote comes from...but if you cite a reference, I'll deal with it.

In any case, Fount, if you are this reluctant to concede a point that can be specifically established…what reason do we have to suppose you will ever reasonably concede a point where such specificity cannot be established.

Abolitionists said the United States Constitution was a slave document created by slave owners. After 50 years of secrecy the deals made behind closed doors were exposed by James Madison’s newly published Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. Many of the founding fathers who owned slaves had varying opinions about whether slavery should be abolished. Worcester Womens' history Project

As the American Constitution recognized slavery and most of the signatories to the Constitution themselves owned slaves "White-mans
history"

There seems to be claim and counter claim. I have seen variations from most to all. Really my point is that the founding fathers were not representative. They certainly had an interest in maintaining slavery.

I've read through around 20 sources I just took the first two: I couldn't find the Abe Lincoln quote. Read the Black American History on the signatories to the constitution, they are a lot more angry than anything I would say.


I don't really want to get bogged down. There is a first amendment which forbids established religion. Why should anyone what to have the words " So help me god." Scrap this nonsense or scrap the constitution. I mean if you are going to ignore amendment 1 then forget it.
I am actually willing to be reasonable with those who reciprocate. It seems to me we both believe the solution lies in taking the constitution seriously.
I would say on these grounds alone we should dispense with religious oaths.

Fount…calm down. This is just a discussion…not an inquisition.

You wrote:

That simply is not true…and you seemed to acknowledge that it is not true…and here you are raising this thing again. Many of the signatories to the Constitution were abolishonists…and the majority were NOT slave holders. The majority, as I pointed out, lived in states where it was illegal to own slaves!



You can find anything you want to if you search far enough. It is the quality of the claims that’s important. Someone may one day point to your comment that “all of the signers were slaveholders” as evidence that in fact all of the signers were slaveholders.

You are being careless with you claims. The majority being slaveholders and the majority being New Englanders are just wrong. Your need to try to establish that this is not the case is unseemly.



No they were not. I have no problem with that! Not one black man among them; not one woman; not one coal miner; not one Bowery bum!

The Senate and House of Representatives is not truly representative. It is very, very difficult for any institution of that sort to be truly representiative. You’ve acknowledged Parliament is not representative.



They had an interest in establishing a Union…and in establishing a constitution. Doing so took losts of bargaining. Some of them bargained away items I am sure the loathed bargaining…but the end results…a Union and a constitution were, in their opinion, worth it.






I loathe those words…and if it were in my power, they’d be out immediately. But we still are a country that has a majority who want those words used in certain instances…and I say, let ‘em. If your sensibilities are so fragile that you cannot abide to watch a public event at which those words will be spoken…stay away. (And perhaps take classes in how to be adult enough to deal with what is a relatively minor intrusion into the adult life.)



We don’t want to!



I’m beginning to question that! I want very much not to…but I am beginning to question whether you honestly can be reasonable. The problem exists…we are dealing with it. What is the problem with that?




When the climate is right for this particular change…and I hope that happens soon…it WILL change. Until then, we are in a “don’t sweat it” mode.

Lots being written about it…lots of lobbying to change things…and eventually, I think, it WILL change. Don’t get all worked up about it. Change that comes too easily in these kinds of areas can be very dangerous. I don’t want national law to be subject to whims and caprice; I’d just as soon the process of change be difficult. When we finally do change it…I want the process to change back, should movement in that direction take shape, to be every bit as difficult.




Yes, I can understand blacks being very angry about the constitution as orignianlly written. Same for women. As for the quote: As I said, I cannot image Lincoln actually saying that most of the signatories to the constituion were slave traders or owners…but anything is possible. If you ever do find it, please share it with us.

When does white history month begin?

I don't understand what you are defending. I am proposing that under the constitution religious stuff is disallowed from state affairs. I think religious oaths are therefore unconstitutional.
Far worse is the second amendment: however I accept that if there is a constitutional right to be a danger to others, then people have to live with it.
I disagree with whole rafts of the law. But I can't ignore it. It seems that this law is being ignored because no one dare take on the church. The law is there to be obeyed or changed but not ignored.
You say ignore it, but the whole point is I have a constitutional right not to ignore it. Its not a matter of whether it upsets people or not. I personally am not offended by anyones religion, it is a matter of choice. You have a right to believe any insanity you want.
However, this does not apply to the state, Once the state gets involved in stuff you have a different ball game.
This argument is based solely on the constitution.

What is really rather pathetically amusing is that this all comes from England, which is responsible for there having been slavery in the continental colonies in the first place. The Jamestown settlement was made in 1607. In 1609, a Dutch slaver which had been driven off course by a storm in the middle passage made landfall at Jamestown. The ship's Captain tried to sell off some of the slaves. He only found a couple of buyers, and those were wealthy gentlemen who were looking for "body servants." The colonists there had enough problems feeding themselves--they weren't interested in buying more mouths to feed.

In the West Indies, the European nations who opposed Spain--England, France and Holland--had taken the small islands on the fringe of the Caribbean basin, and were producing sugar as a valuable cash crop. At first, they tried indentured workers from Europe. But the work was extremely difficult in an age without mechanized farming, and the climate combined with the hard work, and the malaria which the Spanish had imported from their wars in Italy took a fearful toll on the European bond servants, and the initially small supply of labor dried up entirely. The Dutch were the European leaders in the slave trade in those days, and had been regularly supplying Brazil and some of the Spanish colonies, although the slave trade was technically illegal. They began to bring blacks to the European West Indies--once again, English, French and Dutch--and these workers survived. They were inured to the heat and humidity of the climate, which was not substantially different from the climate of tropical, sub-Saharan Africa. They might not have enjoyed the hard labor, but the middle passage of the Atlantic tended to kill off those too weak to endure, so they were able to support the labor. Most importantly, sickle-cell anemia is endemic in West African negroes, and that settled the final problem of malaria. In the quaternary stage of the life cycle of the plasmodium which causes malaria, the organism colonizes the red blood cells. It was much less successful in that phase of the life cycle in persons with sickle-cell anemia. What we see as a debility tended to favor the survival of those blacks in a malarial environment. At different times, a great variety of different populations were tried in the sugar cane brakes of the West Indies--including even "coolies" from China and the Indian subcontinent. But malaria was the clincher, and simply by default, the West African negro became the laborer of choice.

Initially, the blacks were indentured just as European laborers had been. But they were illiterate, and even after long exposure, spoke English or French or Dutch but imperfectly. When the term of their indenture expired, they had no place to go, no way to return to Africa, and likely didn't even know they were free to go--their lives had already descended into slavery, and it didn't take long for the planters to make de facto slaves into de jure slaves.

The North American colonies continued to have very few slaves, and no real need for them, as their survival was to precarious to support a huge, dependent labor force. That, when combined with the complete breakdown of colonial authority during the civil wars in England (1640-1650, roughly) and the Protectorate (1650-60), meant that there was little commerce other than that which could be carried on by the colonists themselves, and by adventurous traders--usually Dutch--who were willing to exploit the political power vacuum. A lively trade grew up supplying food, either in the form of livestock, or salt beef and salt pork, to the planters who needed to feed their growing populations of laborers, but on islands with little arable soil, and most of the useful land of which was given over to the production of sugar cane. When, after 1660, the continental colonies of North American began to expand, this trade expanded to meet the growing demand of planters in the West Indies whose slave populations were also growing. In fact, the demand for food for the slaves was so great, that the new colony of South Carolina specialized in growing rice to sell to the planters of the West Indies.

But that's a rather one sided proposition, so far as the planters were concerned. The southern colonies weren't interested in sugar, and were developing their own monoculture in tobacco. The New England colonies were interested in sugar, in the form of molasses from which they made rum, for smuggling into Europe--but they didn't have any significant population of slaves, and most would eventually ban slavery within their own boundaries. The eventual answer for the West Indian planters was to sell slaves to the southern planters, buying rice, indigo (another South Carolina special) and tobacco. The rice, of course to feed their slaves, and the indigo and tobacco for sale either in Europe (smuggled of course) or in the islands to their neighbors. They would then continue up the coast with their primary cargo, molasses, which they would sell in New England.

Eventually, the New England traders took that trade away from them, bringing them rum (which, astonishingly, was not then produced in the West Indies in any large quantities), rice, livestock or salt meat and tobbacoo, and picking up slaves and molasses to take back to the continental colonies. Once there, they would make rum, which they smuggled into England and Holland, and would buy the cheap trade goods for use in West Africa, where they would pick up slaves, and make a circle of the trade route.

The need for the West Indian planters to balance their books when they bought rice and meat from the continental colonists lead to the growth of the slave trade there. The English were responsible for the growth of slavery in those colonies. What is more hypocritical is that slavery was still legal in England at the time the American constitution was framed, although, of course, it was safely out of sight and out of mind in the West Indies. William Wilberforce was only 30 years of age at that time, and just beginning his campaign to abolish slavery. Slavery would not be abolished in the British Empire until 1833, about a month after Wilberforce died. Even then, the considerable power of the political interests of the West Indian planters was such that it was necessary for government to buy their slaves from them in order to effect the change--they spent 20,000,000 pounds sterling to compensate the slave owners, an enormous sum in 1833.

Englishmen complaining about American slavery are nothing less than bloody hypocrites.

A lengthy post: That fails to mention oaths, the constitution, or the first amendment. Irrelevant hogwash. Riddled with errors and half truths.

Lets look at what the Constitution actually says...



That is the 1st amendment.
Now, where does it ban religion?
It says that the govt cannot establish a STATE RELIGION, like the Church of England.
It does not say that God cannot be mentioned in any type of govt function, nor does it specify which God.
If your God is a potato plant, then saying "so help me God" means you are talking to a potato plant.

"God" can be whatever you want it to be, to fit your pwn personal beliefs.
I think you are attacking something you dont understand.
This debate has gone for almost the entire history of this country, and will continue to go on for as long as this country exists.

You also said you dont like the second amendment, so lets look at that...



At the time it was written, this country had just fought a war and won its independence from England.
The crown had become almost dictatorial in how it treated the colonies, and the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure it didnt happen again.
They believed that an armed populace would be an effective deterrent to the govt ever becoming any type of dictatorship.
And it has worked that way since it was written.

I think you should actually read the Federalist Papers, and gain a better understanding of the US Constitution before you start to criticise it.
You might realize that while its not perfect, there really isnt a better alternative anywhere else on the planet.

This is such a pointless thread. As was pointed out at the very beginning, no one is ever obliged to add "so help me God" to any oath of office. That was the end of the discussion right there. The rest is Brit whiners making hysterical charges about Americans.

Somewhat maybe but the problem was tackled. For the USA, not so much.

It your are an Atheist, then saying so help me god is a negation of your beliefs.

Setanta is a halfwit: he knows no history at all. Google Gustavus Vassa. Slavery was banned on Britisih soil in 1774.
In 1789 there where strikes amongst Sheffield steelworkers against slavery, plus a petition.
In 1791 Several Yorkshire towns apologised for the way slaves had been treated.
Slavery was abolished in parts of the Caribbean from 1807, when British subjects were forbidden to trade slaves. This was difficult to police.
Nevertheless the British navy tried.
The last American state above the Mason Dixon Line to abolish slavery is New Jersey in 1804.
The last part of the British empire to abolish slavery are Jamaica 1831 then Guyana 1833.
Mexico Bans Slavery. Texas secedes so it can keep this evil trade 1840
13th amendment to ban slavery 1865

I in no way feel anything but complete shame where Britain and the slave trade are concerned. All major British cities have apologised for their part in the slave trade.
However, owning slaves has never been part of mainland British culture. Look at the demographics. Blacks make up about 5% of the population mostly immigrants from the Caribean during the sixties.
The proportion is much higher in America: for obvious reasons.
Now lets get some of you Americans to explain why you shouldn't obey your own constitution.
Unless of course, you're a nation of hypocrites.

The idiot claim advanced was that the framers of the constitution were all slave owners. Not only was that not true, but slavery was legal, and significantly in practice in the British Empire in 1787, which was one of my points, the other being that the empire itself was responsible for slavery in the colonies. Had you read what i posted with care, you'd have noted that i already took notice of the end of slavery in that empire in 1833.

It could also be a colloquialism.

Fount, you wrote:



I'm assuming you meant "If you are..."...

How would anyone else saying "so help me god" possibly negate my "beliefs" that there are no gods, if I were an atheist? (I'm not, I am an agnostic!)

How would anyone else saying "**** all atheists and their heathen, pagan, atheistic beliefs" possibly negate my "beliefs" that there are no gods, if I were an atheist?

In fact, how could anything anybody says or does...negate my "beliefs" at all?

Really!

How?

Lets see: the tetragrammaton YWYH, mentioning this name of god is punishable by death, for strict Jews. Jehovahs witnesses dont like it.
Taking the lords name in vain: this is basically designed to prevent over use of oath taking. The logic being that god gets irked with people wasting his time with petty tasks.
Anyone who claims to be a christian should not swear oaths, espescially invoking the lords name. This is what the Tolpuddle martyrs were convicted of, with seven years transportation to Australia. It is a deadly sin for Catholics.
Atheists view them as irrelevant if tiresome. I see no point in having them, so by Occams razor let them be gone.
The point is asking people to invoke God is oppression on religious grounds. There is no need for it.

Set tantrum: the point I am making is your "historical account" is false on account of its omission.
A true statement would be Slavery was banned on British soil in 1774. However the practice continued in parts of the Empire until 1833.
Of course it would be fair to say this mirrors the less barbaric parts of America, with New Jersey giving a clean sweep of abolition above the M-D line in 1804.
The rest of the states needed a bloody civil war before recognising human rights.
However this acceptance was grudging and opposed at every step. The rest of the Union finally got round to preventing racial discrimination for voking purposes by constitutional amendment, after civil unrest in the 60's.
Even today, indirect harrassment, poor admininistration, queues and applying rules differently for black and white are common.
The Americans obviously don't understand irony when they talk of One nation or we the people.
The Land of the free shouldat least raise a chuckle.

Swearing of oaths is a way of disenfranchising certain groups. In Britain,Disraeli would not swear oaths of allegiance.
Neither (for obvious reasons will Sinn Fein,) this means that certain politicians altho elected cannot sit in parliament. Some Communists are also disbarred.
The Scottish Socialists can sit in the Scottish parliament, but not in the English one.
I accept this is trivial for you. But you are not everyone.

Fount wrote:



You never addressed my questions.

How would anyone else saying "so help me god" possibly negate my "beliefs" that there are no gods, if I were an atheist? (I'm not, I am an agnostic!)

How would anyone else saying "**** all atheists and their heathen, pagan, atheistic beliefs" possibly negate my "beliefs" that there are no gods, if I were an atheist?

In fact, how could anything anybody says or does...negate my "beliefs" at all?

Occams Razor has absolutely no applicability in this.

And the fact that you see no need for it…is not grounds for being done with it.

Please, Fount…I really would like the benefit of your considerations of my questions.

My argument is simple: it doesnt matter what you or I personally believe. It's the constitution that matters and the rule of law.
I have to accept rubbish, it is what democracy means.
You should accept that under the constitution the state cant do this.
Personally people are willing to die for some weird beliefs. Refusing blood transfusions for instance.
I would say that it is likely that in the future people will argue against oath swearing on rounds of taking the lords name in vain. It is the same argument that causes baptists to argue against Santa Claus.
If you believe in small government then I certainly dont want the state poking its nose into my beliefs. It is unnecesary. Therefore junk it.
Junking this now will prevent problems in the future. It is an anarchronism.