Woman sues to remove 'So help me God' from oath of U.S. citizenship

[sl8]

From http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/woman_sues_to_remove_so_help_y.html :

Woman sues to remove 'So help me God' from oath of U.S. citizenship
By Dan Glaun, [e-mail]

For years, Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo, a French national and green-card holder who has lived in Scituate since 2000, has wanted to become an American citizen.

That dream, she claims in a new federal lawsuit, is being denied by four simple words: "So help me God."

On Thursday, Perrier-Bilbo, an atheist, filed a federal lawsuit claiming the inclusion of that phrase in United States' citizenship oath is an unconstitutional violation of her religious freedom.

"Accordingly, the current oath violates the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights, and to participate in a ceremony which violates that key portion of the United States Constitution is not supporting of defending the constitution as the oath demands," the lawsuit says.

...

More at link.

[Kentonio]

1. Good on her. Doubt it will work, but I wish it would.

[onenote]

2. Loser of a lawsuit

She doesn't have to say "so help me God" and the fact that she's allowed not to say doesn't burden her or make her less of a citizen.

[Vinca]

3. Good. God should have nothing to do with it.

[Not Ruth]

4. No one should never have to say God again

[FBaggins]

6. She doesn't have to

Her position is the opposite... that no one should be allowed to say it again.

[Orrex]

11. It certainly shouldn't be part of the oath or any formal governmental statement

[sl8]

5. PDF of complaint:

http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/citizenship-atheist.pdf

[Jim Lane]

15. Thanks for that. Her own complaint shows the weakness in the case.

The complaint (in paragraph 143) quotes the applicable provision of the Code of Federal Regulations:

8 CFR 337.1(b) allows for an alteration of the oath:
When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of
religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or
for other reasons of good conscience, cannot take the oath prescribed
in paragraph (a) of this section with the words “on oath” and “so help
me God” included, the words “and solemnly affirm” shall be
substituted for the words “on oath,” the words “so help me God” shall
be deleted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form. Any
reference to “oath of allegiance” in this chapter is understood to mean
equally “affirmation of allegiance” as described in this paragraph.

She doesn't object to "on oath" so that's not an issue. She can just stand there, not saying anything about God. Her right to do so was expressly confirmed in a letter to her from the USCIS (see paragraph 133 of the complaint). Her having recited the rest of the oath will mean that she's a citizen, on a fully equal footing with everyone else who was naturalized that day.

She objects to being in the same room with some people who are affirming their belief in God. Well, I don't believe in God, but I can't get torqued about other people expressing a contrary belief.

[sharedvalues]

7. Focus on criminal in White House! Remember, GOP and Russia trying to divide us on social issues

"So help me God" debates are a perfect GOP social wedge issue. They produce a huge amount of debate and noise.
I also saw chatter online about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.


Look. DON'T SPEND TIME ON THESE ISSUES right now. We have a national emergency where our president is a criminal and actively harming US national security. And the GOP, taken over by billionaires, is trying to destroy our government and society to cut their own taxes.


Both of those groups are trying to stop Democrats from resisting. How? By DIVIDING US. Any issue that's not about stopping Trump or the GOP destroying America is a distraction. We can take up these other issues in 2019.

Focus on 2018!

[Fritz Walter]

9. Spot on!

This is another distraction.

FWIW, if I'm in a situation where I'm expected to utter that phrase or a similar one, I substitute the word "cod," and move on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. This issue is a loser.

There are freedom of speech and freedom of expression hills "I would die on". This isn't one of them.

[sharedvalues]

16. Exactly. Focus on treason and trump crimes

[Hortensis]

8. Good for her, but if no one's accomplished it before, why

would it work with this SCOTUS in this era? Nevertheless, try, try again. Thank you, Ms. Perrier-Bilbo.

[catbyte]

10. I wonder if it's been there only since the 1950's, just like the Pledge of Allegiance.

[TomVilmer]

13. Her point is the contradiction in allowing just those specific word

I like her thinking:

Plaintiff wishes to relinquish that citizenship and become a citizen of the United States. However, because Defendants have placed her in the situation where, for religious reasons, she cannot comply with the terms of the oath of naturalization, she cannot obtain her citizenship. Plaintiff must participate in a public oath ceremony. That she very much wishes to do. However, the oath that will be administered ends with the religious phrase “so help me God.” Because Plaintiff’s sincere religious beliefs specifically deny that there exists a God, Plaintiff cannot in good conscience include those words in her oath.

Plaintiff recognizes that she is permitted to omit the “so help me God” phrase However, Plaintiff takes oaths seriously, especially an oath as momentous as the one she will be taking to become a citizen of the United States of America. Because she will be swearing “to support the Constitution of the United States,” and “to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States, she cannot in good conscience participate in a ceremony that violates that constitution and those laws.

Plaintiff has read and studied the Constitution in her preparations for United States citizenship. She knows that the first ten words of the Bill of Rights explicitly state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Her understanding of those words – and the history and the principles they reflect – is that “The government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma,” By its very nature, an oath that concludes “so help me God” is asserting that God exists.

[zentrum]

14. Didn't this come

....in under Eisenhower as part of the Cold War when there was pandering to the Christian Rightwing?

A decade ater we had the "Moral Majority". Today we have the Mercers and "Christian" white supremacists right in the WH.

Stuff like this can really matter.