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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
So if the Oath doesn't contain it and the Constitution doesn't require it, the addition of so help me God is added at the discretion of the person being inaugurated?

Maybe Obama want's God's help. Being President will difficult and the atheists, gays and Muslims are already digging into the guy and he hasn't even started his job yet.

I'd sure want some supernatural help, mythological or not, if I had to deal with you people.



Yeah good answer!

I was just thinking, I could not care less who used it in the past, I just like the idea that Obama plans to. I knew there was something I liked about him.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
So if the Oath doesn't contain it and the Constitution doesn't require it, the addition of so help me God is added at the discretion of the person being inaugurated?

Maybe Obama want's God's help. Being President will difficult and the atheists, gays and Muslims are already digging into the guy and he hasn't even started his job yet.

I'd sure want some supernatural help, mythological or not, if I had to deal with you people.



Would you feel the same if he ended his oath: "So help me Allah"? Or "So help me Jahweh, or Jah, or Buddha", or some other name of God? I think that everyone who says it's no big deal would suddenly find it a big deal indeed. Let me suggest an experiment: post a youtube video of the inaugauration, editing out "...God", and substituting "...Allah", and watch the very same people who are saying it's no big deal scream their heads off.

Appending any reference such as these to an official oath is a violation of the Constitution, both directly and indirectly. If a president wants to say that, do it after the conclusion of the official ceremony, after he lowers his hand. I never understood that crap anyway, swearing on a Bible: damn near everyone I ever saw do that proceeded to break their oath or lie their asses off immediately thereafter. And such an oath has absolutely no force on anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible, such as me. I rarely swear oaths, but when I do, I keep them, no matter how uncomfortable or dangerous that may be. People who swear on the Bible seldom keep their oaths or promises, because Christianity and Islam have the perfect out: be as evil an oathbreaker as you like throughout your life, say you're sorry at the end, and you're clear...

Religionists of every stripe want to control and abuse anyone who they can con into believing them: give me your money, join me to attack my enemies, give me your sons and daughters, and above all don't think for yourself: I'll tell you what God wants.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I am a Christian but personally, I don't care if "So help me God" is part of it or not. Why? "So help me God" is just words. They mean nothing unless Obama means what he says. No one knows what is in Obama's heart except God.

I do agree with someone's post about how religion and the government should not be joined in any way. As I said, I'm a Christian but I know many people who are not. They either belong to another religion or they don't believe in God at all. For the government to make rules based on one faith is not right or fair to the people who don't believe in that faith.

Example. Bush says marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so. Does that mean people who don't believe in the Bible, people of the same sex, should be able to get married since they don't believe in the Bible? How about people of other faiths? If Bush is making laws based on the Bible, shouldn't divorce be illegal as well? Get my point?
reply to post by alyosha1981
 



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84
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


Yep. And most Americans are white. So... why did we ever change things in our country just because of the minority...
Maybe because America is a group of minorities?
Maybe because the government's role does not extend to religion or promoting any religious or ethnic agenda?

If a belief in Zeus was the majority in this country, how would you feel if the dollar said "in Zeus we trust"? Would you feel as though the government supported those who agreed with that statement more so than those that don't?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Has this thread forgotten that the Oath will made while his hand is placed upon a Bible, which will be held by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Is that next?

In your world the President will read the Oath on a Spiderman comic.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


In other places I am sure they do use those names. So are you really asking me how I would feel if this country were violently overthrown by buddhists and they promptly changed all references from God to Buddha?

Yes, I'd be pissed if my country were violently overthrown.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The problem i have with the athiest is that they are no better than the evengelical christians they are against, they are the opposite but very simmilar. The hardcore christians think this is the country of christ and christian practices should be used everywhere. Athiest think that there should be no religion at all. Athiest dont want God in the school system because the creationalisim "is just the christians trying to turn the bible into science" but we can teach kids the theory of evolution eventhough it is a theory with NUMEROUS holes in it and requiers the athiest to put faith in a theory and a missing link which has yet to be found. If Obama wants to use the word god while being put in office let him. The day an athiest gets ellected we should respect how HE wants to talk, but the athiests can't use the law to bar people from making any refference to God at the cost of anothers freedom of speech and religion.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Why is this site getting filled by religious nutters day by day ?

The word 'god' should be erased from everything that has to do with the state.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by bignick]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bignick
Why is this site getting filled by religious nutters day by day ?


Didn't your momma teach you not to look a gift horse in the mouth??



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


That is exactly what I was saying in my previous post...

Religious people like to go around (a LOT) and "beat" everybody in the head with their high morality propaganda that you should "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" but when you call them on it they always say that they are in majority (majority is apparently an exception).

One other thing.

Statistics on Atheists in USA are very blurry. Not lot of people here will admit it, because of the rejection they may encounter by their family and community.

I believe that it is much more socially acceptable to be gay then Atheist in USA. It is a VERY unpopular stand. Many hide behind some form of made-up belief system so they can show that they "at least believe into something".

Presence of Atheism is much bigger here then official statistics show.

American Christians know this, therefore so much resistance against it, they believe that Atheists are gonna use their own weapon against them: MAJORITY.

And, they will do ANYTHING to stop it......



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:21 PM
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?


I think the "why" is because Christian groups try to use the word (if it is in a government document, oath, etc.) to claim that our countries policies should follow modern Christian moral beliefs.

I personally am not an Atheist, but I too get offended when Christians try to use the word "god" sprinkled here and there in government documents to justify imposing their morals on everyone else. Some of our founding fathers were Deists, NOT Christians, and they did not intend it as an endorsement for every radical Christian group that might follow.

(Hence the very clear instruction about a separation of church and state.)

To me, it is a shame that any religious group would attempt to hijack the government so regularly that this issue even has to come up. I would prefer "God" be left in. I like the tradition of it. (And, I myself am not godless so their is selfish appeal as well) However, if it is continually used as a divisive tool or as justification for imposing Church upon state then I think we are better off without it.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by bignick
Why is this site getting filled by religious nutters day by day ?


Didn't your momma teach you not to look a gift horse in the mouth??


Who/what exactly is the 'gift' here ?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


No, in my world the President would not swear upon a bible but rather sign a legally binding unbreakable contract that they WOULD (no questions asked) be prosecuted and jailed for life without the possibility of parole if they acted to undermine the Constitution of the US in any way. Among other things.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Sounds reasonable as this God doesn't actually exist anyway so it’s nonsense to be using the word. What you disagree well prove that your God exist, I'd love to see that as no one has to date. Never!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bignick
 





The word 'god' should be erased from everything that has to do with the state.

Well, then there is a big problem. Our declaration of Independence includes GOD twice in the first two sentences:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


You cannot separate God and our nation. It was FOUNDED by our founding fathers with God specifically in mind.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bignick

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by bignick
Why is this site getting filled by religious nutters day by day ?


Didn't your momma teach you not to look a gift horse in the mouth??


Who/what exactly is the 'gift' here ?


mmm well, I've been around this place long enough to know this is probably a trick question--lol--but I'll bite:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Nature's God, apparently. Is he or she related to the Christian God? Cousins perhaps?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I just think th big athiest goal here is a world without religion, thus removing the freedom of religion from the constitution. And if the country was founded on the concepts of christianity wouldn't the freedom of religion be freedom to practice christianity instead? When it comes to freedom i fear the athiest more than the christian. Athiest love to throw around all the problems in the bible to try to get people to be an athiest but it does not matter if god or jesus is real or not. I do not think jesus is real but the bible does have some good moral standards that people could live happy lives by living by. It all comes down to faith. Its like playing a game of poker where nobody sees the cards people put faith in there hand but there is no way of proving anything. But the athiests really need to put some work in on their public relation front. The only time they get any press is when they bash religion publicly or are trying to stop someone from using the word God. Why dont the athiests start their own charity, peace core or anything good? All they do is cry about the christians do everything in their power to enrage people that have a religion then turn around and blog or make some dumb youtube video about how much problems religion creates. Its kind of like me punching you in the face and then talking to everyone about how ignorant violence is.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The great thing about the word God...

It's interpretable and personal.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

It's rather obvious that atheism, and especially orthodox atheism, is a primitive religion that one would expect to emerge some two thousand years ago. The proponents of orthodox atheism are mental dwarfs who spread discontent to advertise their sorrowful existence. There is no harmful consequence in ". . . so help me God." It's just a phrase as "Oh, my God!" but it's spoken by the President, an authority in the eyes of orthodox atheists who can't shake off the simian genetic inheritance that affects their reasoning. Atheism should remain within boundaries of a private opinion, so does religious belief.

I would like to hear Obama to utter the word "God" just to make sure that he didn't sign a contract with the devil -- the other entity capable of fixing the sheer social and economic mess -- who, unlike God, takes his dues later.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join