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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981

weather or not you believe in god should have no relevance as to the completion of the president's duties.


Then why do you care if they remove it?


Its kind of hypocritical isnt it?




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I think one of the reasons i don't like the "so help me god " bit is because what if obama is a secret atheist. This oath would mean nothing to him.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
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.



No, I'm asking you nothing of the sort. What I asked was what if you subsituted a different name...your response shows that you are indeed advocating an exclusive, pre-eminent position for Christianity, which is why non-Christians think it's illegal and should not be allowed. If Obama, in the name of religious inclusiveness, swore upon a Torah or anything else non-Christian he'd be immediately and relentlessly attacked by the Christian community, if not assassinated by some Christian nutjob.

If you make the argument that majority rules, why aren't you practicing a Native American belief? Surely there were far more believers in that than in Christianity when the Christians arrived...oh, sorry, I forgot that they violently overthrew the nations they found and persecuted any nonbelievers.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Does it really matter he is famous and on TV. So there will be christians posting on another thread about how obama is the anti-christ. And if athiests believe in nothing then what could they swear upon to validate their oath?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I see how this could be an issue with some people. Separation between church and state means that religion should have no place in the government. But it does have a place in the lives of some of the people in government.

One nation under god shouldn't be in schools because all the children are raised differently, and some don't believe in a god (or a christian god, which the generic term usually applies) or are part of another faith. Government funded schools have no place in the religious part of a child's life.

But I don't think that stands for the presidential oath. It's a man taking an oath, a promise, to uphold his office. He's making the promise to the people and to himself. If he chooses to use the idea of a god to place greater personal importance on his oath, then more power to him. The oath should, however, be tailored to the person taking the oath. If it's an atheist who doesn't want god mentioned, fine. If they want the oath altered to reflect whatever personal faith they have, that's fine to.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
you know how gays can detect other gays? Well atheists can detect other atheists in a similar way.. and Obama is an atheist if I ever saw one. Look.. the guy has to play the damn game of being 'xtian' otherwise he'd never get anywhere politically. it's sad but oh well.. at least we finally have an atheist in power, I just feel bad for Barry having to keep up the charade and having to play the game to appease all the lunatics there.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I suppose if you're not going to make me say or swear by "God" I'm ok with it staying, I'm an atheist as well but I don't much mind what you swear by. You could say Fergie for all I care. The man belives in God, let him; by Obama saying God isn't going to make me pick up a copy of the bible and praise Jesus, nor is it going to make me fall to the ground rolling in agony. It's not causing anyone harm, it is however a very touchy subject and I'm interested in hearing more...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Maybe you're right and if it isn't a Christian nutjob flying off the handle about the Torah or name substitution, it'll be somebody pretending to be one, so as to advance your agenda.

I think I figured it out, its Obama's call...its his inauguration.

The Gays are thrashing him for the anti-gay preacher, the Muslims are ripping him for America's Middle East policy, they'll be selling commemerative Obama effigies in Tehran and Damacus starting next week. I suppose the Atheists might as well jump on board. Hey, that's the beginning of a really tactless joke...the punchline would be that they all get along and had a really good time..

I was just thinking...Hussein is the name of a major figure in the Islamic world, people over there celebrate his birthday or martyrdom, I am not sure. I think he's like Muhammed's Grandson or something. Maybe you can speak to some people and get Obama's middle name stricken from the inauguration, as it promotes religion and Hussein is a REAL person


But Atheists are to clever to fight that battle. So just pick on God instead. You guys are twisted.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by huckfinn]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


Not twisted, just different...don't really have an agenda, though; I'm just a bit of a purist on the Constitution, having risked my life repeatedly for it. People can believe in whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned, they simply can't inject it so directly into the public and governance sphere. After all, wouldn't it be just as effective to add "so help me God" mentally? To speak it aloud is to publicly affirm the importance of one religion over all others, providing a chilling effect upon minority viewpoints.

Let me point out that intent matters not in the slightest here, the degree of intent is merely an amplifier of the basic effect. It is that basic effect that others, not just atheists, find objectionable.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by huckfinn
 


Not twisted, just different...don't really have an agenda, though; I'm just a bit of a purist on the Constitution, having risked my life repeatedly for it. People can believe in whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned, they simply can't inject it so directly into the public and governance sphere.


Thank you for putting it in your own words so well. Constitutional purist, I like that.

especially since in our United States Constitution, Article 2 Section 1 it says this:




"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."


No mention of the word God.

Still waiting for someone to show me a copy of the US Constitution which has God anywhere in the oath.


Also, here is what a true authority on this matter, James Madison, had to say about it:




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).


I will finish this with a statement made by one of the few sane people left..


Originally posted by apacheman
I'm just a bit of a purist on the Constitution


We all should be....



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 



Well, I am glad that my name wasn't chosen from the Bible. Atheists would claim that a violation of Church and State occurs every time I conduct official state business.

Lets say the Godless get their way: If my name were Jesus, would that prevent me from having a drivers license or social security card or would it just prevent me from saying or having my name spoken aloud in public space?

Would parents who choose to name their child a name found in the Bible, invite trouble from Child and Family Services?

Does this general feeling apply to all names mentioned in the Bible, like John or Mark or Matthew or Mary or does it apply only to the names God and Jesus?

I know you're claiming that you just want the oath to revert to a word for word recitation according to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything about a Parade either, should that be cancelled as well? It could save a lot of money?

Where exactly does the Athiest agenda end?

Answer: When nothing exists. It is the path to nothing.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 



According to your version of the oath, the empty space where the Chief Justice inserts the Presidents name is not there. Does that mean the founders intended for noone's name to be inserted.

Should any mention of the person taking the oath be omitted as well?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Don't those atheists know that there are FAR more important thing to gripe about than whether god is mentioned somewhere? This is just stupid.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


Pardon me? Where did that come from? I know a lot of people who go by the name of Jesus who work in government, doesn't bother me in the least. Of course they usually pronounce it "Hay-zoos", but that doesn't make a difference.

Let me point out that you really don't have a basis to infer that I'm an atheist or a theist, since I haven't said.

The parades and such I've no problem with: they're window dressing unless they are turned into visible symbols of a particular faith or credo, at which point I'll object.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


I guess I got you mixed up with someone else. Those were hypotheticals.

Now I looked through list of Inaugural Parade Participants and most looked okay, but I ran into one that may be a problem.

The Boy Scouts of America will be in the Parade. They are Theists and anti-gay, shouldn't they be booted from the parade? Their presence can only be considered an affront to the beliefs of many brave people.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


Hmmm....that's a tough one because the boys and girls themselves are not responsible for the political agendas of the adults who run them. It's tough because I hate to hurt kids in ways they don't understand for reasons that are more properly the domain of adults.

But I would have to say no, they shouldn't be allowed, because as an organization, the Scouts espouse anti-Constitutional beliefs that deny the basic premise of equal protection and equal rights. What they espouse. i.e., discrimination based on gender, orientation and belief, is contrary to the law of the land, not to mention the Constitution. Letting them march is tacit governmental approval of anti-American beliefs based upon a particular faith, and that's wrong.

I'm not saying it's fair to the kids, but greater issues should not be sacrificed for hurt feelings.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


You're welcome, and thanks.

You've made some excellent points, but unfortunately they were based on logic and fact and so are suspect in some quarters.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I've frankly come to the conclusion that God and Jesus, regardless of how they're advertised on our money, in the Pledge and in the various Oaths of Office, have essentially become irrelevant.

I'd say, from my personal experiences, varied media sources (both corporate and independent) and the Internet (is that considered a "media source"?), that roughly 90% (if not more) of American Christians are Christian in name only, using Jesus as a convenient excuse for why homosexuals can't get married, abortion "should be" illegal and everyone who isn't Christian is Baaaaaaaaaad--all while, in their daily lives, ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus (Peace, Harmony, Forgiveness, Sacrifice, Selflessness, Generosity, Service, Compassion, Non-Violence, and, to some degree, Minding Your Own Damn Business).

Look at the very Ministers who claim to speak for Him--people like Pat Robertson (Richer than Sin), who, while preaching His word from one side of his mouth, uses the other side to express a message of monstrous hatred and both hands to collect vast sums of personal wealth from the weak-willed congregation.

Yes, Jesus serves as a great rallying point for that vast majority that calls itself Christian and yet cries foul when people say "Happy Holidays" as if it's a deliberate form of discrimination (can you discriminate against a majority?) despite the fact several other religions (many of whom came before Jesus was even a gleam in God's eye) also hold that time of year sacred (even though Jesus was born, most likely, around May, if He ever existed at all) and the greeting "Happy Holidays" is simply the most polite form to use among those you do not personally know, as it makes no assumptions as to the faith (or lack thereof) of the person one is addressing.

Jesus is also the "Ace in the Hole" for millions of people rely on for their ticket to the Afterlife, assuming that they can live as they please and treat others like dirt and they'll get away with it as long as they renounce their sins in time before they breathe their last.

But sadly, few are even able, in their daily lives, to comprehend the most simple and important teaching Jesus (or his PR people, in any case) provided us:

Love thy neighbor as thyself. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

I would invite any who doubt my condemnation to peruse forums such as Something Awful, where ongoing threads abound about the horrors people who work retail and customer service are subjected to on a daily basis by their fellow "human" beings. Ask yourself who Jesus would subject to water-boarding. Better yet, pray to Him and ask His opinion of a society that puts His Father's name on its money, and worships said money as a proxy to God. Does Jesus approve of Greed? What does He think of Consumerism? Does He really give a damn about Homosexuality?

No, I conclude that Christians, by and large, as an institutionalized group, are all talk and no walk.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by ImaNutter
 



According to your version of the oath, the empty space where the Chief Justice inserts the Presidents name is not there. Does that mean the founders intended for noone's name to be inserted.

Should any mention of the person taking the oath be omitted as well?



You are an idiot. No more nice, no more logic... you're flat out stupid. I would call you ignorant but you have been presented with factual information and choose to ignore it, so you've earned your stupidity.

This has turned into a game, to see how long it takes before it sinks in..

Okay, here we go again. JAMES MADISON said this...


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).


Saying ones name has nothing to do with the first amendment and separation of church and state. Using the word God in the most important oath in the United States of America does go against the separation of church and state, as indicated by James Madison (who's opinion on this matter I will always hold higher than any talking screen name on ATS)



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I don't see how Obama choosing to say "so help me God" is going to compel you or anyone else to worship the Christian God.

Oh yeah, cause it won't.

No one is going to be compelled to worship anything by Obama's choice to use that phrase, put his hand on the Bible, or have a preacher say a prayer. No law is being made establishing a religion. This is all one person's choice and some people are acting like they are going to be forced to do something they don't want to do if the president says "so help me God." I'm not a believer either, but honestly this whole thing is just ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join