It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words in the inaugural oath.

Newdow and other atheists and agnostics also want to stop the use of prayers during the inaugural celebration.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
First the schools, Now the presidential Inaugural oath is next to be targeted by atheists. Why would they care if god was to be included in the oath? Hasn't this been done since George Washington took his oath? and hasn't every president elect taken their oath's with a right hand on the bible followed by the words "so help me god"? IMO this is one of those "if it's not broke don't fix it " kind of things, weather or not you believe in god should have no relevance as to the completion of the president's duties.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
As an atheist of sorts, I think it's fine that it be included in the inaugural oath as long as the person taking the oath is happy with it. And even if the person were an atheist too, then it would still be fine, because most Americans believe in God so I think it's a good thing for their president to include, right?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I think it's fine to include god into the oath, this has been done always and nothing is wrong with it IMO, now if the whole country suddenly became atheist then we'd have an issue.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I, as an atheist, don't particularly care about the "so help me God" part in his speech but I DO think that religion should not be intertwined in a supposedly democratic government no matter what the founders believed in. Why? Well because not everyone believes in God so there can be conflict from other religions or non-religions within our country that don't worship the God of the Christian faith. Anyway, I think it's fine if "so help me God" is in the speech because it is his speech and, well, it's a free country so there really isn't anything anyone can or should try to do about it because it is kind of a personal speech

Cheers!


[edit on 1/14/09 by MoothyKnight]

[edit on 1/14/09 by MoothyKnight]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MoothyKnight
 


Good point, I feel that the issue that the atheist's need to explore her is not the oath, but weather the belief's of the president elect effect his decision making skills. So what if any given president believes in a higher power, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and it's not as if presidents shove them down our throats anyway.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I am surprised that they arent arguing the misinterpreted "separation" clause to argue for NO Bible at all....Obama is using Lincoln's tho.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
This is ridiculous, next they will want it off your money too (doesn’t your money say “in god we trust”).

Most Americans believe in God, why should they change it because of a minority?

Mikey



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry too much about this; I think they get their panties in a bunch every year over the "so help me God" part of the oath, or any other time that phrase is used.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikey84
 


Exactly! that"s my point. Now on the flip side what would people say if a president elect happened to be atheist and wanted to omit god from the oath? would the majority label him/her as "unAmerican" They already managed to have the pledge removed from schools due to the "one nation under god" line.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
Now on the flip side what would people say if a president elect happened to be atheist and wanted to omit god from the oath?


I don’t think it would get that far, simply because most Americans believe in God they probably wouldn’t vote someone in who didn’t.

If it came out that someone running was an atheist I don’t think they would have a chance at winning.

Mikey



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84

Most Americans believe in God, why should they change it because of a minority?

Mikey


atheists aren't that much of a minority.

Christians 78%
Atheists 16%
Jewish 1.7%
Buddhist 0.7%
Muslim 0.6%

minority compared to Christianity but outnumber the other religions

source - religions.pewforum.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Some people just look for reasons to cause a fuss and Michael Newdow is one of those people. He's the one who filed a lawsuit basically claiming that the Pledge of Allegiance harmed his daughter because he's an atheist, and presumably she is too.

Something that struck me as rather amusing is this paragraph from the article about him on wikipedia.


Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong separation of church and state in public institutions.


Bit ironic that he's an atheist minister, isn't it.



Back to the topic at hand, even though I'm not a religious person by any definition I don't see what the fuss is all about. It's not like anyone is being forced to say "so help me God". If Obama wants to say that phrase during his inauguration, then that's his choice.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikey84
 


Well people said we'd never see an African American president didn't they and look what happened. I just point that out to question the changing levels of understanding in the American people as it pertains to the question I posed in my last post. I know the ideal candidate possess a "rounded out" lifestyle wich includes being religious, but could we see that change? Possibly.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
An individual can never be PROVED to believe in god.

Have it changed for something like "on my family's life".

[edit on 14/1/2009 by nerbot]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I also don't see the big deal in it either. Lots of other things to worry about besides something like this. This has no bearing on the Presidency whatsoever.

Just more people making something out of nothing IMO.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Only if snoop dog or master p became the president elect
never in a million years would they change it to that. I do see what you mean however.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Manipulations, manipulators and front men will always be with us creating controversy to continue subjugation.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


Ya I know, give us "other" stuff to argue over to keep us from the real issues! I agree.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Can Obama be sticken from the Inauguration?


But seriously, people are only scared or deny things they do not understand.
If they don't want to hear him say it.. turn the station.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join