₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO: Do the British have a written constitution or is is a vague collection of traditions and court rulings?

A Constitution does not have to be an individual or even a particular written document. And yes the British have a Constitution which is more than a mere collection of traditions and court rulings. (By the way, was that from Wikipedia?)

Pastor AIO: Since it has been determined by both parties in this thread that their 'students' are mumus, what else can we learn from this thread?

I would say that it suggests that various irreconcilable parties in American politics are getting more entrenched and recalcitrant and the situation resembles a powder keg that is about to blow up in the face of American politics.

This gives me much food for thought. I ought to go back and continue writing in my Wars of Religion thread.

There are quite a number of things to learn from this thread but I will point to only one. Many of the people who were shouting "separation of Church and State" on this thread are/were quite ignorant. I guess, some of them would be better informed by now --- hopefully including my student ---- indeed a mumu as the thread has shown.

OLAADEGBU: Not only history, but tradition. . . . .

And indeed their Constitution.

Even quite a number of European and the Scandinavian states that militant/evangelical atheist mumus shout about still have Christianity as their official state religion to this day. In one of them even, the Constitution stipulates that the monarch must be a member of the state church.

Oh by the way, returning to America briefly, the National Day of Prayer was mandated by Congress obliging the President to declare one such day each year. Further, Congress certainly had primarily Christianity and Christian prayer in mind granted that because of increased diversity now it is reasonable to take it that the celebration is not meant for Christians only.

Oh and the American Supreme Court ibid in 1962 1952 said:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction.

Relevant bits from the Jefferson letter which originated the expression "separation of Church and State" in this context.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect . . . .

Per the same Thomas Jefferson later elsewhere

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

An even better link, i.e. more explanatory on the specific issue for which Ben Carson has been subjected to the witchhunting.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-05-13/news/bs-ed-carson-20120513_1_michael-ruse-morality-evolution

dianah: . . . there are many closeted Christians! By closted christians I mean people who know what is right, even do what is right but fail to say so, or publicly declare their moral values and beliefs because they are worried of what poeople will say. No one wants to be called a goody tow shoe I guess. . . .

The witchunting of the mercurial and accomplished Ben Carson, as commented upon in the following link for example, will give an indication of why some keep their Christianity 'closeted' ---- especially in "intellectual" Western countries I mean. [EDITED]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ben-carsons-creationist-views-spark-controvery-over-commencement-speech/2012/05/08/gIQAi0vsBU_blog.html

One more ----- especially for the uninformed, misinformed or disinformed.

Per the American Supreme Court in 1962 1952+

The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist* or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

* Militant/Aggressive/Evangelical/Fundamentalist/etc atheist more like.
+Zorach v Clauson

@Olaadegbu

It is this one first posted on age 11 of this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969378

One more thing and I'll make it loud just in case it will help in getting the point across to those sadly slower to assimilate things.

Jefferson who originated the phrase "separation of Church and State" must have had a different idea of what it means compared to what many mumus shouting the phrase nowadays use it to mean.


For example: as previously posted, Jefferson attended a church service on government property two days after coining the phrase "separation of Church and State"; not only that he continued to allow church services to be held on government property and himself to attend those church services.

Nowadays the evangelical/militant atheist mumus will shout at him "hey, you can't do that, 'separation of church and state'!"

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

^^ On top of which I had posted the below previously.

Controversy over use

The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional.

thehomer: I understand the concept but both of you obviously do not. How can it be a myth when courts in the U.S have used that as a basis for many rulings? . . . .

Courts use myths quite frequently as a matter of fact.

oludyke: . . . The Bible does not discuss with the atheist for not believing in God but reproves him for doing so. Psalm 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” . . .

From https://www.nairaland.com/954252/being-god-part-1#10997523

Absence of belief as with a dog, a cow and a monkey!

Absence of belief or the claimed absence of belief?

Absence of belief (passive) or actual disbelief (active)?

Who's fooling who?

Or are the evangelical atheist mumus just fooling themselves?

The Bible does not discuss with the atheist for not believing in God but reproves him for doing so. Psalm 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

I really like this line.

OLAADEGBU: You may like to know the reason for the 'intelligence' of our resident evangelical atheist evolutionists.

Per Francis Bacon

. . . nothing can be more justly allotted to be the saying of fools than this, "There is no God"

Ah, Mr Dunce runs away ------ again as on about 4 or 5 previous threads now. NID of course.

It was e'er thus. The thick mumu always runs when he is exposed for the dumbass that he is despite his bluffing and pretensions to "intellectualism".

And of course he has once again been exposed to be a patent liar.

Look at what he said, when I informed him for the umpteenth time that the President is the only one not legally required to say "so help me God".

thehomer: . . . Oh? So the president has two heads or what? So other than the president, all others must swear to a God?

When the penny dropped for the mumu, after three days of learning from me what an intelligent person would have learned from my very first post on the point, the mumu pretends and LIES shamelessly.


Oh, and the mumu is now trying to wriggle again after being exposed once more for the dunce that he is in his statement that the courts do not render judgments concerning religious expression.

A classic example that evangelical atheists are not only dumb, contrary to their pretensions of 'intelligence', but also out and out amoral liars.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@Enigma, Humanism and atheism are not exactly the same thing but then again all secular humanists are atheists. Humanism is an attempt to make sense of the immorality that results from rejecting God.
At this point, I dare say that there cannot be any atheist who doesn't have a belief system that guides his morality because once you say there is no God, you are confronted with the problem of how do we measure good and evil? by answering that for yourself (which ever way you choose) you end up with a belief system or moral guide akin to a religion. hence if the statement that "atheism has no moral codes or guidelines" is true then no one can possibly be a true atheist or else anyone who is a true atheist would be the worst of tyrants (even the worst of tyrants must justify their deeds to themselves).[/quote]@ Mr_Anony

Something you might find interesting as food for thought.

Previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/2#9514467

Lack of belief in God is substantively different from belief in the non-existence of God thus a dog, a cow, a monkey is as much an "atheist" as the evangelical atheist! (Very good company ; and as a bonus: insist that man is an ape but become angry if called a monkey )

Those who will get it will get it.

This kind of thing will not be understood by those who don't understand this kind of thing.

For the fun of it, let me address one point that I deliberately ignored earlier.

Christianity is not a religion because of "theism"; rather Christianity is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

Militant/Evangelical atheism is not a religion because of "atheism"; rather militant/evangelical atheism is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

Those who will get it will get it.

Addendum

See e.g. here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml

While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes.

The British Humanist Association and The International Humanist and Ethical Union use similar emblems showing a stylised human figure reaching out to achieve its full potential.

Humanists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by.

They reject the idea of knowledge 'revealed' to human beings by gods, or in special books.

Humanist ideas

Most humanists would agree with the ideas below:

There are no supernatural beings.
The material universe is the only thing that exists.
Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe.
We only live this life - there is no after-life, and no such thing as reincarnation.
Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs.
Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought.

How does that differ in substance from the belief aspect of evangelical atheism?

phxc: Come on, you yourself don't believe that. You only said this to stir the hornets nest.

In the final analysis what I said is what it is.

It may sound confusing because of the appropriation of terms and the idea that e.g. a deist or even a Christian can be a "humanist" of some sort. Really, that is then not correct because what those truly are is best would then be better described as "humanitarian". Humanists are atheists and "humanism" is an attempt to cloak evangelical atheism with some respectability.



EDITED

thehomer: You are well and truly idiotic. Please tell me which court judgement tells Muslims when to begin fasting or when to break their fast in the U.S. This is why I say you simply fail to understand simple things. At the rate you're going, you're going to fail this course and have to repeat it.

I've told you to stop playing with yourself and read.
Tutorial dismissed.

You see that you are a mumu now. You have such poor comprehension skills, you cannot grasp concepts.

As one poster once asked: "where ya brain dey, inside ya yansh"?

Let me give you a teaser (I won't go beyond the teaser because you are both a slow-learning and an ungrateful student).

Here is something the American Supreme Court said as far back as the 19th century.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

thehomer: I'm telling you that it is not required by law. It is not mandatory. You truly are stupid for what you're saying. I shows your deep ignorance and failure to understand what is permissible and impermissible by law in the U.S.

Ah, so you are indeed that thick. Confirmed for all times now.

thehomer: I don't need to do that because there is no religious test for public office. This means that one doesn't need to refer to God for their oaths or affirmations they may if they want to but they do not have to. You seem to be so enamoured with tradition and this shows your failure to actually think through these simple and obvious issues. On a side note, there have been members of congress who do not believe in a God. Do you think they said "so help me God" in their own oaths? You are truly stupid and simple minded because that simple example tells you that it isn't a legal requirement. It isn't mandatory.

1. Of course you cannot say, simply because you don't know. And I knew you didn't know from your display of monumental ignorance.

2. And No, it is not and it is different from, the "no religious test" provision. I could teach you of course but on this occasion I will recommend that you go and ask the likes of Matt Dillahunty and/or the lawyers among your fellow militant atheists. I could recommend your only source of knowledge i.e. Wikipedia, only you will not know what to search for!

thehomer: Oh ho. So you've finally realized this too from me haven't you? Well you're almost as trainable as a circus animal because I have to force feed you in order to be successful. Since you've learned these things from me, what stops you from understanding that your regular reference to what most presidents did as some point in time is simply a fallacious appeal? The law is clear on this. I've told you, shown you yet you fail. This is what stops you from getting to the level of a circus animal.

1. You are a shameless, patent and bold faced LIAR!

2. I was of course the first to make that point; indeed that was the point in my post that you misunderstood idiotically and challenged and which led you to this display of gross idiocy and monumental ignorance. Here is the link, read it again and maybe this time you will understand.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10921743

thehomer: I've answered this simply read my previous posts. Check the first place you asked this question for my response. If you're dyslexic and need an interpreter, get one. If you're suffering from Alzheimer's disease or damage to your brain affecting your memory, please see your neurologist for invasive tests.

NO, you are lying shamelessly, again. Fact is that you have avoided answering the question because it would expose the sham that is your understanding of "separation of Church and State". You know it, I know it, and you know I know it.

thehomer: You are too stupid to be addressed on these issues that have been addressed. How hard is it to understand that if there is no religious test for public office, then no one can be forced to say "so help me God" in their swearing in ceremonies. Just get your head out of your rectum or get your rectum out of your head if that is the usual direction of flow of the products of your egestion.

1. That ignorance again! This is not a religious test and this is not "the religious test" issue.

2. It is not a case of anyone being forced to say "so help me God". That is why there is the alternative of an affirmation. The point which has escaped your thick skull is that any person taking the oath of office is obliged by law, in other words legally required to say "so help me God".

3. I am quite glad about this exchange because it shows just how thick, obtuse, ignorant and daft the militant/evangelical atheists really are despite the misconception that atheists are "intelligent".

thehomer: You've not explained this in our discussion. You've only tried to correct what others were saying by posting pointless articles. I gave you an assignment on your understanding of the separation of church and state and you ask me the same question. You stupidly lazy student go and read your books and get back to me with your response otherwise you'll fail this course despite the slight improvement you've shown.
So, answer the question I asked you twice already on this separation of church and state.

1. Just admit you have no clue about the "separation of Church and State" that you were bandying about. Exactly the same thing about the way you were shouting "for First Amendment purposes" on another occasion that I exposed you as a dunce (remember that was where/when you got the name Mr. Dunce?).

2. At least I have given an explanation of "separation of Church and State" in a number of posts now. If you dare and you are not a coward, set out YOUR understanding of "separation of Church and State" for all to see.

Oh, one thing to add! I'm sure the resident evangelical atheists will soon troop down to shout that "humanism" is different from "(evangelical) atheism".

Don't believe them for a minute; it is a lie.

"Humanism" is simply an attempt to provide a sort of respectable veneer for evangelical atheism. It is nothing more than that.

They make the attempt out of a variety of motives including e.g. shame and guilt about the hopelessness, meaninglessness and purposelessness at the end of atheism as a philosophical position/stance.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.

Then perhaps we will be able to say with Tom Paine that “the world is my country, all [hu]mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

John Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” in The Humanist (1983)

From Humanist Manifesto III: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

So, basically another religion then.

And even continues

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.

Ah ha ---- a belief system. i.e. a religion.

From Humanist Manifesto I: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. . . . .

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture. . . .

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

thehomer: You do realize that the courts don't render judgement regarding religious expression. If they did, they would have been able to shut down various religions e.g Scientology. What they do is prevent the government from sanctioning religious speech. Do you think the government should be allowed to sanction religious speech?

Another display of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is indeed a dunce!

Going even back to the 18th century and till present, the courts have rendered judgments concerning religious expression.

thehomer: I see that you've realized that the phrase isn't actually a legal requirement so you've shifted to saying it is must to say it in an oath. That is a slight improvement. I'm happy that you've learned you first lesson though you're failing another one here.
Well, unless you're dyslexic or something? I have told you that they do not need to say that phrase. Not saying it wouldn't stop someone from assuming a post.

Are you really this thick? I always said you were obtuse and a dunce but I had not realised it is this bad. A phrase, explicitly prescribed by statute, required by law to be said mandatorily ------- yet you are still daftly saying it is not a legal requirement? Astonishing stupidity!

thehomer: What do you think differentiates an oath from an affirmation? Do you think it is the phrase "so help me God" or saying "I [...] do solemnly swear"? Take your time in answering this.

Again you display your ignorance because of course you are unaware of the constitutional and statutory (more than one) sources of the distinction. Let me pose this to you (which I had deliberately spared you before for my own reason): Find and quote the source of the choice for ALL government officials other than the President to avoid having to say "so help me God". I doubt you can identify the source but if you can perhaps it would start to help your ignorance.

For my part let me post again the law that says ALL officials except the president must say "so help me God"; in other words the law that makes "so help me God" a legal requirement.

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

thehomer: Oh? So the president has two heads or what? So other than the president, all others must swear to a God? You must be really dull, unthinking and unable to process ideas that require a slight degree of understanding. It also shows you really don't understand what religious freedom is about. It isn't surprising considering how well you're aligned with characters like OLAADEGBU.

Another display of breathtaking stupidity and ignorance.

The very point is that the President is the only one not legally required in his oath to say "so help me God". And of course a more intelligent and knowledgeable person would also be aware that even though not legally required, most presidents have opted to say "so help me God".

An even more intelligent person would ask why is the President allowed to make reference to God when performing the official duty of taking an oath ---- considering the popular perception of "separation of Church and State".

Even more importantly for this thread, by law (statutory and constitutional), ALL other officials from Vice President down are explicitly and specifically required i.e. are required by law to say "so help me God" in their oath. The statutorily prescribed oath outlined above says so clearly. The only way to escape it is to choose not to take the oath but to make an affirmation instead.

Again, the important question: why would "so help me God" be prescribed in the first place? Not even merely allowed but prescribed by law, stated to be mandatory if taking the oath and thus a legal requirement if taking the oath?

Again let us even assume arguendo that it is "not a legal requirement", why would/should "so help me God" be prescribed for an official act --- considering the noises being made about "separation of Church and State"?

thehomer: Surely you're dyslexic or suffering from Alzheimer's disease because if you had read my previous response, you would have seen it there.
Now, what do you understand by the phrase "separation of church and state"?

Now you totally confirm yourself to be dishonest as well as dumb. The only people who have explained "separation of Church and State" on this thread are myself and Olaadegbu. Of course in your dishonesty, you bury your head in the sand and revert to your previous robotic asking of pedantic question mode (as with the Antony Flew thing).


OK here is an assignment for you (and I'll keep it simple): explain what YOU understand by "separation of Church and State"

Expected.

Now my student earlier (and now again) showed some industry by linking to his sole font of knowledge --- Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

First of all let me demonstrate that my student is either too poor, lazy, thick or dishonest for failing to note what his own link says.

The first Congress explicitly prescribed the phrase "So help me God" in oaths under the Judiciary Act of 1789 for all U.S. judges and officers other than the President. It was prescribed even earlier under the various first state constitutions as well as by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.

So my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is explicitly prescribed by Congress and by statute & constitutions, by law!

Although the phrase is mandatory in these oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."

So again, my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory --- unless a person chooses to make an affirmation instead of the oath.

As I have asked: how many people choose to make an affirmation and how many stick with the oath?

For those who stick with the oath is it mandatory or not that they say "so help me God"? In other words, for those sticking with the oath, is it a legal requirement or not that they say "so help me God"?

Now my student refers to the first line of his link but is too thick to appreciate that the line only refers to the President. For all other officials, the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory as part of the oath.

Now, I will recommend my student to go back and read all my posts on this point starting with the one that kickstarted the whole issue.

Oh, and by the way, my student is of course avoiding the question: why is the phrase "so help me God" even prescribed in statute at all considering all the noise he has been making about "separation of Church and State"?

Ah, let me play with my student a little.

My student says there is no "legal requirement" for an oath or, to be more charitable, that the phrase "so help me God" is not a "legal requirement" for American public officials intending to take office.

But then my same confused student then says the following:

thehomer: . . .
Also, an affirmation is synonymous with an oath. They have an equal validity so the legal requirement is for an oath or an affirmation. . .

Unfortunately my student is unable to recognise the implication of his statement and implicit illogic of his position.

OK here goes:

1. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an affirmation -------- ok I agree with my student to the extent that this is an alternative legal requirement.

2. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an oath ------- of course this was always my point from the onset and I will return to this after dealing with point 3.

3. Since my student says there is a legal requirement for an oath, a natural question to ask is "what oath exactly and using what words"? The wording of the oath, which my student himself says is a legal requirement, mandatorily includes the words "so help me God" ------ the very words which my student has been arguing "is not a legal requirement"!

4. My student fails to realise or dishonestly fails to acknowledge that if an intended public official does not choose to make an affirmation that official must say the words "So help me God" ---- because it is a legal requirement that s/he says those words, otherwise the person cannot validly/legally take office. And of course my student also fails to address the question of how many such public officials choose to make an affirmation and how many in fact choose the oath which includes the legal requirement of saying "So help me God".

5. Now let me return to point no 2 here because this is a most important point that my student has been missing or has deliberately turned a blind eye to: Why did the concept of "separation of Church and State" not prevent the inclusion of "so help me God" in a statutory prescription, in a federal law for that matter (and even more strongly in some states laws). This question is posed and remains valid even if I agree arguendo with my student that the phrase "so help me God" is not a legal requirement.

First Atheist Church of True Science: http://www.factschurch.com/

From http://unitedcor.org/sacramento/page/groups (various Atheist groups -'do not neglect the assembling of the brethren' and all that)

FACTS is Sacramento's (and maybe California's) only Atheist church. We meet on the Monday nearest the new moon each month, so that we can peer farthest in distance and time into the night sky. We have an Ermnal (ask us when you arrive) of songs, a Moment of Science, a Sign of the Brain, a Freethink Drink and (hopefully) a grand time as we skeptically join together. Our goal is to spread "godless goodness," with charitable works to help those in the local community. New members are always welcome.

Church of Atheism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-jMLaGPlBQ


And of course the US Supreme Court has confirmed that (evangelical) atheism is a religion.

https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/2#9227593

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/9#9232422