Originally posted by Cio88
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.

Maybe the atheist's in question would be able to add him to their "wish list"
but all in all even with the birth cert, stuff I think the man is untouchable unfortunatly.

See, I told you that the atheist movement is without a real purpose. They claim to be rational, logical and reasonable yet they actions show that they are extremists.

make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

the government doesn't even acknowledge that the statement is religious and doesn't hear cases concerning religion. don't you get it yet?

I seriously doubt this "Newdow" character speaks for all atheists.

to be honest i can see a bit about what the fuss is, although in my eyes it is not the fact that they use the word god, more the fact that the religion is a part of the state, supported by it at least.

i for one have been fighting in denmark for the seperation of religion and state, i will however say that a lawsuit is pushing it, we would never use methods like that, kinda seems like extortion in a twisted way.

Just out of curiosity, exactly how does any mention of God or swearing on a Bible make the inauguration "better?" Why is it necessary?

Yes, I understand that there are a lot of people out there who believe in and possibly fear that supernatural boogie man, so naturally they would like to have their leader pledge that he isn't going to do anything to piss the boogie man off.

On the other hand, not everybody believes or fears that boogie man. To that kind of person, maybe you can see where swearing to any kind of mystical, supernatural creature might seem a little silly for grown, responsible people to do. It might be a little cause for worry that this leader might do something according to voices he hears in he head. Who knows? Scary stuff.

Or maybe there are some people whose particular belief system (Buddhism, for instance) works perfectly fine for them without a boogie man.

Personally, I don't care what people believe. But when we're talking about representation, and representing everybody, why should the pro-boogie man people get more attention than the non-boogie man people? What makes them so special?

Why not just make sure as many people are included as possible? It's easy. Just get rid of all the stuff that has to do with the boogie man, and let those people who believe in that sort of thing pray or sacrifice their goats or do whatever they feel is necessary to appease their creature do whatever they want. Does it really matter that the leader swear allegiance to God? Will the wrath of God come down any harder on the United States more than it already has, even with the former leaders swearing up and down? I don't see how.

The United States is all about inclusion, right? Not giving one religion priority over anybody else's, including yours? Nobody would be stopping anyone from praying or worshipping in any way they saw fit. It would just be making sure the most people feel represented.

Originally posted by Oodain
to be honest i can see a bit about what the fuss is, although in my eyes it is not the fact that they use the word god, more the fact that the religion is a part of the state, supported by it at least.

Agreed. This is a big deal.

As long as the word 'god' is included in any formal government proceedings, there is not a separation of church and state.

The USA, by promoting an acceptance of god in an inaugural speech and on its currency has not separated church from state.

It is a bit silly to make an oath to an imaginary person. Why not make an oath to Little Red Riding Hood or Yogi Bear instead?

Oh yeah and separation of church and state is important too.

That's all wrong. Religion and God don't share share an inherent connection. You can believe in God and not be religious or belong to a religion or ever attend church or know what church is or read. You can be an illiterate living in the jungle and believe in God, Gods, the Sun or a specific animal. It's has nothing at all to do with religion.

So you are all wrong. The constitution says CHURCH and STATE. It says nothing at all about God, a Deity of any type. Show me that a Church OWNS, as intellectual property, the notion of God.

Its impossible to draw the connection, case dismissed. I can't wait until the Supreme court actually follows the constitution and throws all such nonsense out on it butt.

No Law respecting an establishment of Religion.

Respecting, as in with regards to, concerning...don't you get it? They shouldn't even be listening to these cases. The government doesn't even know what you are talking about.



[edit on 14-1-2009 by huckfinn]

Originally posted by alyosha1981


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?

Oh, I dont know..maybe that thing about separation of church and state?

But I do realize that asking for anything that our constitution and bill of rights states or says we are entitled to is completely out the window these days..

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.

Are you saying that "it's not broke"? Don't forget it was Christians that put Bush in power, theoretically after that debacle they should be banned from voting. For those of you that haven't realized it yet, "it's broke".

"Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath"

Atheists?

More like Communists or Communitarians or Socialists or W/E they call their Godless Existentialist Selves nowadays...


"Why is it necessary? "

For the same reason it is still used in Courts - To affirm The Common Law

You want a president that acknowledges The Common Law don't you?

To affirm the Common Law does not require one be religious or have belief in a singular God - However all the documents that Contain the Common Law also contain a reference to God:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law.... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.

How can the oath violate the constitution. If Congress has passed no laws respecting religion, how could the oath being in the inauguration violate a law?

What is the matter of law, which this psychopath is suing about. Or is he just doing this for publicity?

Atheists are like aliens in this country. They really don't know what is going on.

Once again we have a small minority of people trying to change the way the majority live.

Yeah, God should be stricken...ever hear of the separation of church and state as declared in the Consitution?