RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
The answer to your first question is perfectly obvious. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions, and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Sorry, but because I just recently began following this line of discussion would someone kindly inform me as to the meaning of the subject line which has "George Washington adding 'under God' to the Presidential oath." Or, is it merely a bit of humor? And, I hope my grammar is okay. Thanks. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Newsom Michael wrote: The answer to your first question is perfectly obvious. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Does grammar have a role to play in the controversy between Marty and Jim? If so, it seems Marty wins. "Democratic" is, of course, an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun. If not, why not? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only pretend to be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned out to be impeccable even if his personality and ethic did not. My pretense was offered because, in pointing out the McCarthy connectionMarty, deliberately or not,stains with the broad brush of "McCarthyism" folks whose use of the label had nothing to do either with a devotion to the truth that took the dismantling of the USSR to confirm or withthe politics of personal destruction that the Senator employed. Jim "And is Widgets in the Dictionary?" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever. It is a middle school level insult, and the whole governing party seems addicted to it. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 7/20/2005 8:14 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only pretend to be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned out to be impeccable even if his personality and ethic did not. My pretense was offered because, in pointing out the McCarthy connection Marty, deliberately or not, stains with the broad brush of McCarthyism folks whose use of the label had nothing to do either with a devotion to the truth that took the dismantling of the USSR to confirm or with the politics of personal destruction that the Senator employed. Jim And is Widgets in the Dictionary? Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ winmail.dat___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
So help me God seems to have been used in at least some of the state constitutional oaths in the late 18th century. Here is an excerpt from the 1776 South Carolina Constitution (available at http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/constitution_of_south_carolina.asp) XXXIII. That all persons who shall be chosen and appointed to any office or to any place of trust, before entering upon the execution of office, shall take the following oath: I, A. B., do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the constitution of South Carolina, as established by Congress on the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, until an accommodation of the differences between Great Britain and America shall take place, or I shall be released from this oath by the legislative authority of the said colony: So help me God. find all such persons shall also take an oath of office. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:55 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath It comes from the concept of Shuva! Or a Jewish oath. Remember the framers originally wanted to make Hebrew the first language (attributed to Ben Franklyn-as reported at Harvard) In fact that is why Hebrew was a required language in most of the Ivy League Colleges for so many years! The original framers wanted to get away from the English at all cost. The Jewish requirement for an oath is very strict. This is why a religious Jew only affirms an oath, rather than swear it, because it is a serious matter , to invoke G-ds name and his wrath! Frank Hirsch - Original Message - From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:21 pm Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath Volokh, Eugene wrote: I've heard various people mention that George Washington added so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in government affairs; others stress that so help me God isn't actually a part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of so help me God is the Presidents' own detour and frolic. Here's my question: In the late 1700s, did people who said oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include so help me God or some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths? If so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include so helpme God. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various saints. So common, in fact, that the so-called Pilgrims were often offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath bloody. Read Shakespeare. Marry was a variation on Mary. This was before the standardization of spelling. While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office were viewed as having religious significance by individuals. Hence the addition of So help me God. I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual peccadillos, and not something required by the office. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a message dated 7/20/2005 9:15:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. You can, of course, call the Democratic Party anything you wish. However, the explanation/justification, to use this non-standard grammar, should be forthcoming. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
At least you concede that you were taunting. And I thought that that was inappropriate comment on this listserv. It would help if you would respect the norms. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:29 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 10:22:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever. It is a middle school level insult, and the whole governing party seems addicted to it. It is really more like sophomoric than middle school. Middle school taunts include (from experience with middle school children up to today) are heavy on claiming that the others' taunts are immature. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail h! as the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. If I had my voter registration card with me here, I could see just what it says I am. Since I don't, I'll have to go on memory alone. I'm pretty sure I'm a registered member of the Democrat*ic* Party. That would make me a Democrat, (an individual member of the Democratic Party) wouldn't it? Obviously you aren't talking about my political affiliation, and so no skin off my nose if you wish to refer to a non-existant party. Knock yourself out, J. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
What about the Pale Mint folk? Samuel V wrote: And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
On the other hand, I don't suppose President Zachary Taylor would have described his party as the Whiggish Party. Thus the name of a party need not be an adjective. And note that for Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, etc. the same word describes the party and a member of it (e.g., a member of the Republican Party is a Republican). Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather than Democratics. :-) Mark Scarberry Pepperdine -Original Message- From: Samuel V To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: 7/20/2005 12:10 PM Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Scarberry, Mark wrote: Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather than Democratics. :-) That's 'cause we're special*. *Noddle* Jean *For an unspecified value of "special" ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Arthur V. Watkins, a Republican, was an honorable man. Consequently, the censure of Joseph McCarthy was not done in error. Had his information been "impeccable," he would not have been censured. The Party of Joseph McCarthy may, if it chooses, call the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" in error. It shows pique and little regard for history and fair discussion. Arthur V. Watkins and others of honor will, in this author's view, remain a Republican. It's not the "Republic Pary," either. Smiling all the time, Ed Darrell Dallas, by way of Columbia Falls, Montana[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, Sandy, you got me. His information, on the grand scale, was impeccable. We were infiltrated, and the process was deliberate, targeted, and ongoing. Whether he played lawyer's tricks with rosaries tucked into hankies, or Ross Perot tricks with empty boxes allegedly full of documents, the large truth is that he correctly called attention to a clear and present danger, one that was pooh-poohed by many for years after his exit from the stage, but which history has proved to have been real. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Volokh, Eugene wrote: I've heard various people mention that George Washington added so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in government affairs; others stress that so help me God isn't actually a part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of so help me God is the Presidents' own detour and frolic. Here's my question: In the late 1700s, did people who said oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include so help me God or some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths? If so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include so help me God. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various saints. So common, in fact, that the so-called Pilgrims were often offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath bloody. Read Shakespeare. Marry was a variation on Mary. This was before the standardization of spelling. While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office were viewed as having religious significance by individuals. Hence the addition of So help me God. I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual peccadillos, and not something required by the office. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
It comes from the concept of Shuva! Or a Jewish oath. Remember the framers originally wanted to make Hebrew the first language (attributed to Ben Franklyn-as reported at Harvard) In fact that is why Hebrew was a required language in most of the Ivy League Colleges for so many years! The original framers wanted to get away from the English at all cost. The Jewish requirement for an oath is very strict. This is why a religious Jew only affirms an oath, rather than swear it, because it is a serious matter , to invoke G-ds name and his wrath! Frank Hirsch - Original Message - From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:21 pm Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath Volokh, Eugene wrote: I've heard various people mention that George Washington added so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in government affairs; others stress that so help me God isn't actually a part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of so help me God is the Presidents' own detour and frolic. Here's my question: In the late 1700s, did people who said oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include so help me God or some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths? If so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include so helpme God. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various saints. So common, in fact, that the so-called Pilgrims were often offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath bloody. Read Shakespeare. Marry was a variation on Mary. This was before the standardization of spelling. While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office were viewed as having religious significance by individuals. Hence the addition of So help me God. I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual peccadillos, and not something required by the office. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Caucus. With Pat Leahy at the helm, I observed that witnesses were not being asked to give an oath which invoked Divine assistance (the "so help me God" oath). Was this a deliberate omission? Was this an excited, inexperienced Senator's accidental omission? Did it mean anything? These were the questions I was pursuing. In a humorous vein, the Law Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, in Australia, prepared a report on oaths and multicultural society, included an anecdote about a clerk asking a magistrate if it would be a problem that testimonial oaths for two previous weeks of court were administered on the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the courtroom Bible having disappeared. In the process of my research, I did find older materials that run alongside the answerto your question. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the invocation of Divine assistance in swearing an oath, among other things concluding that to do so was permissible, was subject to becoming habitual and the source of abuse, and was, in its essence, a religious act. (Question 89 in Aquinas' Treatise on Prudence and Justice). Aquinas' discussion is important because it lays out an early available theological justification for the employment of religious oaths in juridical proceedings. John Locke, in his Letter on Toleration, adverts to the subject but does not take the matter on directly. In the letter he explains why it is that atheists cannot be relied upon in establishing truth or determining sincere commitments to duty: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." Blackstone explained the practice (apparently well-established) of judicial oaths invoking Divinity: "The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity." The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut include the text of an oath to be taken by magistrates that concludes with an invocation of divine aid: "and that I will maintain all the lawful priviledges thereof according to my understanding, as also assist in the execution of all such wholesome laws as are made or shall be made by lawful authority here established, and will further the execution of Justice for the time aforesaid according to the righteous rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Other examples also exist (God forbid that I suggest peeking at Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. US for sources?). During Washington's time, immigrants arriving into Pennsylvania from abroad undertook an oath of loyalty and fealty to the British Crown and of abjuration of the Pope, which in some ways might be likened to an oath of office (the office of resident?). That oath, the text of which appears at http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/oathsfidelitytrans.asp, omits any invocation of divine assistance. Subsequent in time to Washington's oath, Daniel Webster expressed a view quite similar to Locke's: "In no case is a man allowed to be a witness [in court] that has no belief in future rewards and punishments for virtues or vices, nor ought he to be. We hold life, liberty and property in this country upon a system of oaths; oaths founded on a religious belief of some sort . . . . Our system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property, and all our rights, is founded on or rests on Christianity and a religious belief." Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Jim: The proper adjective is Democratic, as in Democratic Party. (But then, you probably already knew that.) Sorry for the lecture, but this is a hobbyhorse of mine: The lockstep use of Democrat as an adjective is not only juvenile, and grating on the ears, it's also quite literally McCarthyist -- in the sense that it was a tactic first used by Joseph McCarthy, who wished to deny the Democratic Party the positive associations generally associated with the word democratic. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ---BeginMessage--- I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Caucus. With Pat Leahy at the helm, I observed that witnesses were not being asked to give an oath which invoked Divine assistance (the "so help me God" oath). Was this a deliberate omission? Was this an excited, inexperienced Senator's accidental omission? Did it mean anything? These were the questions I was pursuing. In a humorous vein, the Law Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, in Australia, prepared a report on oaths and multicultural society, included an anecdote about a clerk asking a magistrate if it would be a problem that testimonial oaths for two previous weeks of court were administered on the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the courtroom Bible having disappeared. In the process of my research, I did find older materials that run alongside the answerto your question. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the invocation of Divine assistance in swearing an oath, among other things concluding that to do so was permissible, was subject to becoming habitual and the source of abuse, and was, in its essence, a religious act. (Question 89 in Aquinas' Treatise on Prudence and Justice). Aquinas' discussion is important because it lays out an early available theological justification for the employment of religious oaths in juridical proceedings. John Locke, in his Letter on Toleration, adverts to the subject but does not take the matter on directly. In the letter he explains why it is that atheists cannot be relied upon in establishing truth or determining sincere commitments to duty: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." Blackstone explained the practice (apparently well-established) of judicial oaths invoking Divinity: "The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity." The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut include the text of an oath to be taken by magistrates that concludes with an invocation of divine aid: "and that I will maintain all the lawful priviledges thereof according to my understanding, as also assist in the execution of all such wholesome laws as are made or shall be made by lawful authority here established, and will further the execution of Justice for the time aforesaid according to the righteous rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Other examples also exist (God forbid that I suggest peeking at Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. US for sources?). During Washington's time, immigrants arriving into Pennsylvania from abroad undertook an oath of loyalty and fealty to the British Crown and of abjuration of
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Read the original charter at Harvard. Closely! It is a dead give a way! I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Caucus. With Pat Leahy at the helm, I observed that witnesses were not being asked to give an oath which invoked Divine assistance (the "so help me God" oath). Was this a deliberate omission? Was this an excited, inexperienced Senator's accidental omission? Did it mean anything? These were the questions I was pursuing. In a humorous vein, the Law Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, in Australia, prepared a report on oaths and multicultural society, included an anecdote about a clerk asking a magistrate if it would be a problem that testimonial oaths for two previous weeks of court were administered on the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the courtroom Bible having disappeared. In the process of my research, I did find older materials that run alongside the answerto your question. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the invocation of Divine assistance in swearing an oath, among other things concluding that to do so was permissible, was subject to becoming habitual and the source of abuse, and was, in its essence, a religious act. (Question 89 in Aquinas' Treatise on Prudence and Justice). Aquinas' discussion is important because it lays out an early available theological justification for the employment of religious oaths in juridical proceedings. John Locke, in his Letter on Toleration, adverts to the subject but does not take the matter on directly. In the letter he explains why it is that atheists cannot be relied upon in establishing truth or determining sincere commitments to duty: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." Blackstone explained the practice (apparently well-established) of judicial oaths invoking Divinity: "The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity." The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut include the text of an oath to be taken by magistrates that concludes with an invocation of divine aid: "and that I will maintain all the lawful priviledges thereof according to my understanding, as also assist in the execution of all such wholesome laws as are made or shall be made by lawful authority here established, and will further the execution of Justice for the time aforesaid according to the righteous rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Other examples also exist (God forbid that I suggest peeking at Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. US for sources?). During Washington's time, immigrants arriving into Pennsylvania from abroad undertook an oath of loyalty and fealty to the British Crown and of abjuration of the Pope, which in some ways might be likened to an oath of office (the office of resident?). That oath, the text of which appears at http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/oathsfidelitytrans.asp, omits any invocation of divine assistance. Subsequent in time to Washington's oath, Daniel Webster expressed a view quite similar to Locke's: "In no case is a man allowed to be a witness [in court] that has no belief in future rewards and punishments for virtues or vices, nor ought he to be. We hold life, liberty and property in this country upon a system of oaths; oaths founded on a religious belief of some sort . . . . Our system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property, and all our rights, is founded on or rests on Christianity and a religious belief." Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a message dated 7/19/2005 4:35:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim: The proper adjective is "Democratic," as in "Democratic Party." (But then, you probably already knew that.) Sorry for the lecture, but this is a hobbyhorse of mine: The lockstep use of "Democrat" as an adjective is not only juvenile, and grating on the ears, it's also quite literally McCarthyist -- in the sense that it was a tactic first used by Joseph McCarthy, who wished to deny the Democratic Party the positive associations generally associated with the word "democratic." I wrote Democrat and I meant Democrat. And whatever kind of person McCarthy was, personally or politically, the confirmations of his fears about communist infiltration borne out in the revelations from KGB files justifies this minor tribute that I give to his service as a klaxon of dangers ahead. As to whether it grates, of course it does. Just as so many other deliberately chosen appellations are found to grate and deployed in service of their cause nonetheless. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
