I hope they point out that there are a number of states with laws on their books that ban atheists from running, which to me is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
(I know states have rights to determine qualification for elections, but that seems to me to be egregiously supporting religion and contradict the first amendment).

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "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."

This is especially true of modern Presidents.

although it's probably said automatically more often than not.

Oaths are not required, either, since Quakers, Presbyterians, and some others object to them. Affirmations hold the same legal standing as oaths, and one can say "I affirm" instead of "I swear" in any legal setting. This is a carryover from British law.

Presbyterians have largely forgotten this, but Quakers haven't. When Hoover was sworn in, he merely said "I do" as prior Presidents had, but Nixon, the other Quaker President, did say "I solemnly swear..."

Nixon was never considered a particularly good Quaker for a lot of reasons.

I would think the ACLU would be all over this. It's shameful that 6 states still have these laws on the books.

were found to be unconstitutional in 1961 by the SCOTUS. Such laws and state constitutional language are null and void. That includes the oaths taken in courts. Anyone may simply affirm any such oath. My home state of California was one with such a constitutional clause in its constitution. When the SCOTUS ruled, I was a sophomore in high school. I remember it well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

I support the atheist protest.

But the speeches were a slice across the demographics of this country. Some said, "God bless America." But many did not.

Isn't that what the USA is about? I have no problem with that. It just isn't important to me, unless some idiot maligns somebody for not saying it.

I am uncomfortable with Bishop Dolan having anything to do with this affair. What were they thinking when they selected that fucking asshole.

About the swearing in. I think that it should never include the "so help me God". Clearly it is a violation of the Constitution. Not only does it diverge from the oath explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, but it also implies a religious test (a clear violation of Article VI), to say nothing of the fact that it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. If I were an elected president being sworn in by a Chief Justice who said, "so help me god" I would be furious, and rightly so.

I think the convention is going great and am so relieved to see so much less religiosity than we saw last week. When it does come up, it seems very personal (like when Castro from San Antonio talked about his grandmother and his own child).

And almost everyone makes a reference to GLBT civil rights and women's choice.

What a great event so far.

It should not be an insult to an atheist. Only a crass fool would consider it such.

There were those that blessed and those that didn't. Vive la difference between the Dems and the Reps. None of the Reps did not bless America.

However, sometimes when I sneeze and somebody says "Bless you" I am tempted to mischievously respond, "Thank you, your eminence." Normally, I just say, "Thanks, I needed that." As a known atheist, it often somehow satisfies them. And all are thus happy.

I grew up saying "Bless you", but later came to hear it more metaphorically. I think the tradition is that you are ridding yourself of a demon and the blessing would prevent it from reentering (or something).

Anyway, I have a weird sneezing thing I call sneezles, where I can sneeze up to 40 in a row. When around people who are unaware of this, many will "bless me" the first 2 or 3 times, then begin to get irritated. I have to tell them that they can stop.

Please explain your reasoning behind this claim.

For instance, if I as an elected president took the oath and instructed the Chief Justice not to prompt "so help me god", or if he prompts it and I opt not to repeat it, that might put me in an awkward position, at the least with the electorate.

It would be tantamount to a religious test. It requires me to reveal my personal beliefs, which by the Constitution no government agency can legally do. And do not forget, it would be a government agent, a SCOTUS justice who would be the main actor in this.

Your revealing yourself as an atheist has no effect on your position in the government or your right to hold any office. The people may set up a 'religious test' to determine their choice as to your fitness to hold office but the Constitution is entirely silent on their right to do so if they chose, it has no role. The electorate can use whatever standard they wish to determine who they will support. I do understand the dilemma it would put you in but it is in no way a Constitutional issue but a matter of individual voters conscience.

That is the highest government official in one the three coequal branches of the government putting the new top government official in another of the branches in a situation which gives him/her a Hobson's choice.

So you are wrong about "So help me God" in the swearing in as is every single person who claims that it is harmless. It is not because clearly its sole effect is as an implicit religious test.

Would a Jew or Moslem or Buddhist or whatever like it if the Chief Justice prompted, "In Jesus' name"? Well, invoking God does precisely the same thing.

to seek or hold or perform your office in the government. Your likes or dislikes, your courage or your fear of the preception of the electorates' reaction or even fellow office holders reaction is not a Constitutional issue.

And when the Chief Justice does it to the chief executive of the executive, you say that has no constitutional consequences?

That says nothing about Article VI's prohibitions of religious tests. That says nothing about the explicitly prescriptive wording of the actual oath which says nothing about "God", a word which does not appear anywhere else in the document or its amendments.

I am amazed that anybody could take a stand to support such a thing. Unless, you think that theists should somehow be privileged. And that, my friend is the clearest statement of religious test that anybody would care to characterize.

"privilege" usually used when the cupboard is bare.

It is one of my primary positions that:

A. We maintain an entirely secular government which has no voice in what people believe or not.

B. Nothing the government does can either advance or impede the people's right to believe or not as they please.

C. The purpose of any action by the government has to be neutral with regards to belief or no belief.

These are the things enshrined in the Constitution. If you don't agree, than you're wrong. See "Lemon Test" for details.

Personally, I believe that politics, and especially government, mixed with religion is always toxic. See "world history" for details.

I have a cordial relationship with many theists here. I am very tolerant toward other people's religious beliefs. I do not prostelytize my atheism here or anywhere else.

If you disagree with me, so be it. I only ask you that you respect that I must passionately, and hopefully respectfully, continue to defend my stand against these things.

reservations and I have no problem with you defending your positions. I enjoy the back and forth of contrasting points of view without the venom of personal attacks which your posts never seem to have you argue respectfully and I appreciate that type of discussion but you must be aware of some posters less than honest and respectful postings that use certain buzz words one of which that is now being used as a form of dismissal is 'privilege' if I mistook your use or your intent, my apologies.

My intent is honest, however -- and always with respect. Sometimes my passion gets loose and it is misunderstood as disrespect. But these are the difficulties of strictly textual communications.

Regardless, when I see my passion boiling up, I try to pull back and ground things to basic principles.

I always appreciate a good, and even heated argument, as long as there is mutual respect.

Thank you, my friend, for understanding that.

in the last section of your post #32. Some things are unclear to me as to what exactly you are trying to say specifically about support and privilege.

Non-believers are the most reviled demographic in the populace. To call oneself an atheist inevitably brings on scorn. Whereas, when one professes their belief in a god, one is elevated as moral and honest (the multitude of counter-examples notwithstanding).

In US culture, the religious enjoy a privilege that non-believers do not. That's what I mean by privilege, and it cannot be denied that it is a fact.

That's why non-believers, whatever they call themselves, are pissed off and becoming very active politically. We are trying to change the cultural discussion which is going to take some time. Part of that is whittling away at the privilege that religious hold over non-believers, to level the playing field, not to put non-believers above.

What exactly do you think I have that is denied you expressly because of belief?

If you run for public office you can, and undoubtedly will profess your belief in god. As an atheist, I cannot profess my non-belief because I could never be elected because of cultural bias for religion and against atheism.

If you do not see this, I don't know what else to say to you. The vast proportion of political candidates trip over themselves to profess their religiosity. How many profess secular beliefs? QED.

(I can think of one Congressman. Only one. Rep. Stark, D-CA.)

stand up for their nonbelief will find that inside the voting booth belief or lack of belief is not the make or break issue in peoples determination in who they will vote for. Until that day you and others will make the perceived and actual bias a self fulfilling prophecy. Until the most visibile and vocal proponents of atheism are no longer the anti religious bigot segement the bias against atheists will continue.

Stay classy!

(psst: by the way, that attitude is also a good indicator of one who has privilege)

So now this is about atheists being "anti-religion bigot(s)"?

So now it is no longer about religious privilege.

You are moving the goal posts, a logical fallacy. You conveniently ignore the unmistakable biases, and now blame the victim, a typical theist response. One, I might add is practiced by people who have no response to the topic at hand.

I have no problem with believers. I am friendly with many such folks on these forums. I reserve my revulsion to the religious leaders and religion's grip on culture. But when a religious person does not see or refuses to see, the cultural biases against the non-believer, especially in the USA, there's not much I can do for them.

But blaming atheists for that is something of which I will not be very tolerant, especially coming from a theist who form approaching 80% of the US populace. It is not an argument I am going to debate with you.

on edit: I apologize for my fractured grammar. I do my best with an iPhone.

mention of one of the reasons for some of the bias the general public has for atheists so you then do the exact thing you say you won't do. You distort what I say and then cry foul. That is something I find quite dishonest and beneath someone who made the previous claims you did as to how you interact here. I gave you the opportunity to show that I was was mistaken about the intent of your post earlier but I guess I was right all along. You know that I never denied any bias against atheism in this society and yet you state that I did. I did not move any goal posts so there again you distort . You know I never said atheists are anti religious bigots in the majority. This is what I said and I stand behind it. Until the most visible and vocal proponents of atheism are allowed to use anti religious bigotry as the standard of atheism the perception of atheists will always be negative in society at large just as the intolerant religious bigots who are the most vocal and visible in the religious community and have set themselves up as the standard for religion color the perception of believers and present us in the worst possible light to society. The constant call from atheists is for believers to clean their own house, I challenge you to do the same.

that is important to them (and should be for every one on DU) to light,
What is wrong with that?
They specifically say they are not attacking Obama. just using this as an opportunity.

You seem to look for divisiveness where there is none.

Especially the one in the last sentence.

"They specifically say they are not attacking Obama. just using this as an opportunity."

" This event is centered around the need for separation of religion and government. There is a need, even at the DNC, to make our voices heard in opposition to the overwhelming influence of religion in our political system.

As the last paragraph indicates, the protest isn't targeting the democrats per se. After all, there was certainly no shortage of religious drum-beating at last week's Republican convention or influence on the its party platform, but the Democrats aren't immune to it either. In fact, while there are things in the Democratic party's national platform that promote a secular view of human rights like one supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples, there are others that pander to the religious..."

I didn't hear about any atheist protests at the RNC. Did you?

The Atheist community must really be upset with Obama and the Dems and not the GOP. After all it isn't the Repubs who are thrusting Christianity into every aspect of public policy. It's those damn Dems.
And obviously this one group speaks for all atheists.

By the way this group is from Charlotte:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/09/04/atheists-will-protest-at-the-dnc-later-today/

What with all the passion for separation claimed by those of that ilk here, and such folks always champing at the bit to "work together".

What's the split? Two? I'll take the under.

treated like garbage, harassed and taunted.

.....rather than being gladhanded by other people. But that's just my weird atheist thinking I guess.

You want support from others, invite and welcome them. Otherwise, don't complain if they choose to stay as far away from you as possible.

There's your principle and reason.

And including a lot of god and religion language in political rhetoric ain't the way to get non-believers to come on board. Unless you don't care about that demographic, then go for it.

That also applies to this forum. Your dad and others could learn from your advice.

is cheapened when they don't follow their own advice.

May have fizzled out.