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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by paisley101
 


"ever hear of the separation of church and state as declared in the Consitution?"

We've already covered that.

Thanks for pointing it out again.

And it is 'Constitution' - If you can't even spell it, then I know how much you respect it...




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Good point but I doubt the revolution thing, most Americans are happy being blind deaf and speechless. Besides I believe most Americans want peace not war especially at home.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I am going to call you on this. Mr. Constitutional Authority. What does the constitution say on this matter and how does the issue contradict it?


I'm so glad you did. Thanks for the title! First time I've been called that one, but hey I will take it...

First... since I'm now a Constitutional Authority, I'll redirect you to Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution...

www.usconstitution.net...
Quoted word for word, the oath as written in the United States Constitution...

"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."

Can you think of anything missing? Perhaps one single friggin' mention of the word God? Seriously, if anyone can find a copy of the United States Constitution where the word God appears anywhere in the President's Inauguration Oath, PLEASE POST IT HERE.. so in short, Huck, to answer this question: "How can the oath violate the constitution?" .. Well, I guess it would have to be that the Oath containing any use of the word God didn't come from the United States Constitution.

Let's pretend I didn't even make that point. Let's quit talking semantics. Let's forget lawyer speak. Let's forget open ended interpretations of what our founding fathers wanted... LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT FROM THEM...




Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).


quote taken from: candst.tripod.com...

Before anyone takes into question "contrary to their conscience"
definition of conscience:
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.

If one was does not believe in God and the word God is used in one of the most important Oaths ever uttered in a country that this one supposedly stands for, such as things like free speech and separation of church and state, that would go against THEIR conscience because as much as someone holds the belief there is a God, they are equally as sure there is no God. This goes against what is right and what is moral to them.

When you need information on something, say like the Constitution, start with the constitution and with the founding fathers... you might learn a thing or two...

So HuckFinn, I want to end this portion of the post with a quote from your post...

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

... do you?

PS: No more sarcastic name calling, mkay?



[edit on 15-1-2009 by ImaNutter]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


"Well, I guess it would have to be that the Oath containing any use of the word God didn't come from the United States Constitution. "

But that Oath is Sworn with one's hand over A BIBLE....

That is why they whine about 'church'n'state' being separated - Even though God existed before any church and has nothing to do with Religion.
(which is just a control mechanism created by men and, and not god who apparently does not like to EVER make himself known, except that one time, and look where that got him)

Read my post about Common Law and the Bible - which is why it is used in courts today, You do not swear to god to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth... The bible is there to Affirm the Common Law.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Is it just me....

Or are athiests trying to bully God believers around... just because they can?

Athiests... I say this to you...

If you do not believe in God....

WHY...

do you care if the president, that DOES believe in God, use the word God in a ceremony created by a bunch of guys that did believe in God?

If you hate the word God so much why don't you just boycott the event, cuz we sure as hell aren't gonna change the words around just for you.

Suck on that.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


"Or are athiests trying to bully God believers around... just because they can? "

Yup.

They are as bad as the 'Anti-Smokers' and their bully tactics.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."[1] There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.It is important not to conflate two forms of administering, and taking, the oath of office. The first, now in disuse, is that the administrator, usually the Chief Justice, articulated the constitutional oath, requesting an affirmation, as in, "Do you George Washington solemnly swear....." At which point a response of "I do" or "I swear" completes the oath. It is reasonable to believe that this was the common procedure at least until the swearing in of Chester A. Arthur in 1881, where the New York Times article [2] reports he responded to the question of accepting the oath with the words, "I will, so help me God."

It is the second, and current form of administration, where both the Chief Justice and the President articulate the oath, that appending "So Help Me God" is arguably a breach of the constitutional instructions. This is the contention of a Federal law suit filed in the District of Columbia by Michael Newdow on December 30, 2008. In this suit a distinction is made between the words spoken by the administrator, which must conform to the exact 35 words of the constitution, and the President, who has a right to add a personal prayer, such as "So Help Me God."

The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" to his acceptance, not to the oath, is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the event.[3] Even if Irving's report is accurate, it would not by logic, law or intent alter the actual words of the oath, being more accurately described as a personal prayer by the President after completing the oath of office.



Quoted form wikipedia, it appears that nobody and no law tell the president elect to include "so help me god" in the oath of ofice, so what are these atheist's worried about anyways?

Source



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
Is it just me....
Or are athiests trying to bully God believers around... just because they can?
Athiests... I say this to you...
If you do not believe in God....
WHY...
do you care if the president, that DOES believe in God, use the word God in a ceremony created by a bunch of guys that did believe in God?
If you hate the word God so much why don't you just boycott the event, cuz we sure as hell aren't gonna change the words around just for you.
Suck on that.


First off, I doubt that you ever met the true Atheist in your life


Its just a silly game (God or no God) you regular/new born Christians play with new born atheists, whose little brains were "raped" with indoctrination when they were lil' kids, so now they are trying to get back at ya...

Yep, real Atheist are just sitting back an watching it, laughing, as we are watching bunch of little kids playing in the sand and fighting each other.

We do not care about word God used, misused and abused whenever is possible or convenient to ya...

Simply, they are much, much more important things in life to do or to care about.

Here is little question for ya...

Would you care if "In God we trust" was being taken off our money if it is, let say, 25% Christians in this country and 75% Atheists ?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


I agree I think this Newdow character is a trouble maker myself, he's tried these lawsuits in the past and failed, this one will probably be included in his list of failures as well.. what a looser



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


"Would you care if "In God we trust" was being taken off our money if it is, let say, 25% Christians in this country and 75% Atheists"

I'd accept that if the Illuminati Symbolism was also removed - Pyramid, Eye, Phrases and even the Owl.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I'd accept that if the Illuminati Symbolism was also removed - Pyramid, Eye, Phrases and even the Owl.


There is no owl on the one dollar bill, if anything it is a spider or maybe an octipus, but not an owl. (see below), but at any rate (i'll add later) there were several issues of U.S currency where "in god we trust" did not appear.






[edit on 15-1-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


He shouldn't swear an oath on a fictitious tome.

Really, all you God squaders don't realise how ridiculous and hypocritical it is for the president of the worlds most 'advanced' nation to declare alligance to a make believe fairytale.

Utterly unbelievable.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonrat
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


He shouldn't swear an oath on a fictitious tome.

Really, all you God squaders don't realise how ridiculous and hypocritical it is for the president of the worlds most 'advanced' nation to declare alligance to a make believe fairytale.

Utterly unbelievable.



Any proof that god is a "faritale"? by chance or are you upset with life and have since denounced god? and cursed his name for your troubles, just curious.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by moonrat
 


"Really, all you God squaders don't realise how ridiculous and hypocritical it is for the president of the worlds most 'advanced' nation to declare alligance to a make believe fairytale."

LOL.

Go read the oath - it is on this thread.

Then you'll see why your post is so funny.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I still don't see what the big deal is. He isn't required to say "so help me God", and no law has been made establishing a religion. He is choosing to say the phrase at the end of his oath, just like he is choosing to use a bible and he is choosing to have a preacher say a prayer. It is his choice, it isn't hurting anyone.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


While were at it, why not remove all letters and numbers our society...The church is also responsible for literacy. Why not just get rid of everything that can be shown to have been directly or indirectly inspired by a belief in a God.

Why nitpick?




[edit on 15-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Atheists are more annoying than PETA.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
This is no surprise. Agnostics, want God completely out of society, and so far, seem like they are doing a pretty good job. Wish the TPTB did as good of a job in kickstarting the economy as these guys did in removing God from public.

However, history shows, either we will get totally taken over by another country, or, become bankrupt as a nation or both.


You can't have it both ways.
There is no free lunch & the Emperor has NO CLOTHES!. period.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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? 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)


None of this is News, not really. It was all foretold:

Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 said, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
This is no surprise. Agnostics, want God completely out of society, and so far, seem like they are doing a pretty good job.


Atheists should really question their methods. If all the theists are gone, who will they go around feeling superior to?

Look, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are trying to figure out what do now that everyone is an atheist......



Dawkins: - "Everyone's an athiest, how will I continue to hide my Social Darwinist agenda?"

Hitchens thinking: "Go after those who don't believe in Global Warming or Peak Oil"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join