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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 



Hey, back off...According to you and your Movement there exists in this country extensive mingling between Church and State.

If I do nothing at all but make light of this topic and mock you and people like you, nothing will change. You are the one who has to prove something, not me.

I want you to prove to the Supreme Court that Barack Obama saying, "so help me God" in the inauguration COMPELS Americans to go to church or worship God.

Definition of Compel:

1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly.
2. to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.

If you are using ATS as a practice field to develop your political, social, cultural and economic philosophy, then you better realize that the onus is on you and yours not me or people like me.

I can ignore you and your movement and my life will remain the same. None of these things bother me and I almost never go to Church and don't have any plans to do so.


I don't think the American people suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

If I get up off this couch, Garth Brooks will die.







[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


"I want you to prove to the Supreme Court that Barack Obama saying, "so help me God" in the inauguration COMPELS Americans to go to church or worship God."

Are you even reading his posts?

He has been quite extensive and has already provided us with an abundance of substantiation, sources, quotes and citations for his side of the argument. Whereas you just argue and disagree....

It has gotten to the point that your points are becoming nonsensical as you are rebutting points he hasn't even made and ignoring what he has written to ask questions you would know the answers to if only you had bothered to read his posts.

I recommend you re-read his posts and especially your own.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


He has presented facts that support his argument...that's basic. Now its time for him to show us, to prove, that Barack Obama's reciting the pharse "so help me God" Compels Americans to go to Church and worship God.

I think it is you who are not understanding.

The Godless want it removed because they claim that the phrase spoken in the context of a State event Compels people who are non-religious to become religious. The Godless say that this is a promotion of God by the State and that the State is thus a tool of the Church. Violating the separation of the two that was laid out by the founders.

To have it removed you will have to show that a non-religious person will become a verifiably bible thumping believer as a direct result of Barack Obama uttering the phrase during his Inauguration.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


"Now its time for him to show us, to prove, that Barack Obama's reciting the pharse "so help me God" Compels Americans to go to Church and worship God."

I don't believe you are being genuine.

Please post the quote of him saying what YOU claim he says.

*If you are being honest you will be able to quote him saying that "Barack Obama's reciting the phrase "so help me God" Compels Americans to go to Church and worship God. "


[edit on 16-1-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
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).

To whomever I am responding posted the above summary opinion of the 1st Amendment to support his position. Last I checked, issues like the one being debated on this thread are often settled using case law and past opinions.

He should demonstrate to us all that the utterance "So help me God" will compel a person to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

PS. Implied within that summary opinion, Madison accepted the existence of God as a given. I don't think an Atheist would want to use that piece to support their beliefs. But its your choice.

Also, an explicit quote is not possible. He implicity suggests that Obama's use of the phrase, "So Help me God", "will compel a person to worship God in a manner contrary to their conscience" or that its use within the Inauguration will be understood to be the "establishment of a religion" or the "legal observation of a religion."

It's almost as the Godless believe that the use of the word God on public property makes the property into a Church. Which means that if a person goes to city hall and happens to be carrying a Bible in their backpack or purse, its like smuggling contraband into a prison or being a drug mule.

This is a slippery road the Godless have paved. The more I think about it, I think Atheism is a plot to criminalize faith and knowledge of God.




[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


You are ignoring my question - I will repeat it:

Please post the quote of ImaNutter saying what YOU have been claiming he said.

*If you are being honest you will be able to quote him saying that "Barack Obama's reciting the phrase "so help me God" Compels Americans to go to Church and worship God. "

If you ignore this second request, I will file a complaint about your lying about another member's statements - which amounts to posting information you know to be false.


[edit on 16-1-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Don't threaten me, send a complaint. Have the Moderator come in a view my statements. You will not be satisfied with the outcome.

And another thing, I've amused myself with you long enough. I'll be putting you on Ignore, and wait for the member to whom my responses were directed.

Thank you for not interfering.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

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?


Well it's simple, it seem to me that tradition is slowly dying in America, by that I mean that we have become such a dynamic society that everything now seems "disposable" We find around turn, someone or some group trying to change something or another. Sometimes change is good IMO, but to try to change something that most presidents have uttered as part of their oath's since George Washington, to me seems a bit like trying to force beliefs ( or in this case a lack thereof) noe step at a time.I'll add too that I believe this one should be left up to the president elect to decide weather or not to include it.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn

To have it removed you will have to show that a non-religious person will become a verifiably bible thumping believer as a direct result of Barack Obama uttering the phrase during his Inauguration.



Thats some pretty sketchy logic there.

I do not think the word needs to be removed, as it is clearly NOT a specific nod to the Christian God, but rather to the idea of some transcendent non human force. Even calling it "Nature's God," open the door for its applying to atheists as it could be interpreted as "Natural Law" as easily as any anthropomorphized deity.

Besides, even allowing part of your reasoning above, since the word in dispute is "compelled," all you would have to show is that someone felt compelled to believe, not that they genuinely did become a believer in your scenario.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981

We find around turn, someone or some group trying to change something or another. Sometimes change is good IMO, but to try to change something that most presidents have uttered as part of their oath's since George Washington, to me seems a bit like trying to force beliefs ( or in this case a lack thereof) noe step at a time.I'll add too that I believe this one should be left up to the president elect to decide weather or not to include it.


So I expect that with that as your motivation you will also start a campaign to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


I'm not even atheist you tool. I have no movement. You make things up, you make passive aggressive statements about Atheists. You're a religion racist. That is funny.

To think that man has the question to the existence of "God" is naive. To think they had the answer 2000+ years ago is naive. There is no proof (besides someone saying you just gotta have faith) of a higher power's existence. We learn more every day. Who knows what we will learn tomorrow? This is my religious position and I would appreciate if you quit making things up.

The only reason I stepped foot in this thread is because I thought most of you were being ignorant about atheists and the situation, and I proved to you why someone who cares what is in the US constitution would have an issue.

Because its not in there. No matter what you do or say the rest of your life as a religious dude, the word God doesn't show up in the oath in Article 2 section 1.

You are awful at debate. I see logic and reason is lost on you. I'm not even the only one saying it. Take a hint.

to the above poster:

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Besides, even allowing part of your reasoning above, since the word in dispute is "compelled," all you would have to show is that someone felt compelled to believe, not that they genuinely did become a believer in your scenario.


Thank you. I think it is not far stretched that the "most powerful man in the world" (most of us know this isnt true but anyway) is influential. Say a little 13 year old is watching, or naive grown up like Huckfinn, they hear Obama, their new hero, say "so help me God." They're like yeahhh.. I wanna be like that guy! Tah dah... it compelled them to worship a God. Anyone remember George Bush not wanting to admit he smoked dope before because he was scared kids would try it? President's ARE INDEED compelling people to parts of the population...

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
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.



So you wouldn't mind if he substituted a Koran and uttered "So help me, Allah?"

After all, it would be up to him, according to you. I think that you say that only because you can count on him to utter the name of YOUR god, but would be very uncomfortable with anything else. Again I propose an experiment: after the inaugaural, when everyone's seen and heard it, edit the video so that it looks like a Koran, a Torah, the Upanishads, etc., and insert the word Allah, Jahweh, or well, with that, just pick your favorite, there's lots, one for every taste: Kali, Ganesha, Hanuman...in place of "God" and watch what happens.

It is always difficult for a member of a majority to understand the chilling effect their tastes have on the minority: have you ever been the only rock/rap/punk/classical guy in a country&western type bar and played YOUR music on THEIR jukebox? If you haven't just go try it, it's not illegal, but the results could be hazardous to your health depending upon the day and time.

That is why non-Christians are uncomfortable with it; there is a long history of religious-based persecution in this country: Jews , Mormons, and Catholics excluded from housing, jobs, and opportunity. And don't get me started on what "good Christians" did to Native American who refused Christianity. There's the rub: Christianity is an aggressive, prosletyzing belief system with zero tolerance of competing systems when left to their own devices. Frankly, on some levels, it's scary anf threatening.

So help me, Usen...

[edit on 16-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   




to the above poster, before I go:

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Besides, even allowing part of your reasoning above, since the word in dispute is "compelled," all you would have to show is that someone felt compelled to believe, not that they genuinely did become a believer in your scenario.


Thank you. I think it is not far stretched that the "most powerful man in the world" (most of us know this isnt true but anyway) is influential. Say a little 13 year old is watching, or naive grown up like Huckfinn, they hear Obama, their new hero, say "so help me God." They're like yeahhh.. I wanna be like that guy! Tah dah... it compelled them to worship a God. Anyone remember George Bush not wanting to admit he smoked dope before because he was scared kids would try it? President's ARE INDEED compelling people to parts of the population...

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]


Excellent point about the effects of presidential statements, but I'm afraid now they will dispute the meaning of compel, so to forstall that argument here's the definition we're using (if I may be so bold as to speak for you, ImaNutter, correct me if I err):

2. to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure

Mirriam-Webster dictionary definition.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
^^ That's spot on. Basically it means to influence.

Some are more easily influenced than others. Some might just hear the messiah Obama ask God for help so they are INFLUENCED to worship this God character, because we all know this is a nation of followers/trend followers (the majority).

I don't give a poop about personal statements saying it won't influence them. That's great, you're not an easily manipulated sheeple. Bravo to you, I'm proud of you. I'm talking about the sheeple that this country mostly consists of.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
According to the OP, 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.

I hope he plans on going to a federal court with a better case than you guys have presented on this thread because Federal judges, unlike yourselves, have the tendency of evaluating the full consequences of the decisions they make. If the judge rules in favor of Mr. Newdow, the mention of any name that appears in the Bible should be off limits on State property, including the names of the plaintiff and the defendant.

His case seems a bit flimsy to me to think that the phrase in question represents a violation of Federal law.

If after reading the full library of accumulated human knowledge has led Mr. Newdow to the definitive conclusion that there is no God, I have serious doubts about his intelligence.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I have a bit of a beef with the articles title; it should be : "SOME" Atheists want...



I am an Atheist... and I don't believe it should be stricken, but it also shouldn't be mandatory.
If a religious person gets into office and wants to say "so help me god" that's fine, that's what they believe in.
But it should also be made so that if an Atheist or otherwise gets into office, they have the option not to say "so help me god".

Maybe a line from battlestar would be a good supplement. "So say we all."



But now for the other point,
My original point; that it seems whenever a group of Christians pushes something we show restraint and say "A group of Christians wants..." not "Christians want..."

but it's all too common for articles written about a group of Atheists, Agnostics, or Spiritualists to read as though they ALL agree.

The whole nature of leaving the church is that we want to disagree, even with each other!
We are all free thinkers, which is what caused us to separate from the church in the first place... why on earth would we suddenly start unifying ourselves now?



So no, Atheists don't want "so help me god" revoked from the speech,
a few Atheists do.
Atheists, Agnostics, and Spiritualists will never band together and agree unanimously. That's the nature of being A-religious.

(With exception to the underlying principle that Atheists believe there isn't a god.)






[edit on 16-1-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn

To whomever I am responding posted the above summary opinion of the 1st Amendment to support his position. Last I checked, issues like the one being debated on this thread are often settled using case law and past opinions.


THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME. I am using JAMES MADISON'S PAST OPINION on the First Amendment. I hold what James Madison has to say about the first amendment in MUCH higher regards than your uneducated guesses.


Originally posted by huckfinn
He should demonstrate to us all that the utterance "So help me God" will compel a person to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.


In the opinion of some, the President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. The United States is consisted of easily manipulated sheeple (for the most part, ATSers are better than most). Some people are "Obamaniacs." Some of these sheeple worship Obama. What Obama says and does, is incredibly influential to these people. Look at fashion, look at music, look at society... one does it, the rest follows. This is American culture (for the most part). To have the most powerful man in the world using the word God, it could quite easily compel some of these sheeple to worship God or inspect it further to see what it's all about. This isn't true for everyone.


Originally posted by huckfinnPS. Implied within that summary opinion, Madison accepted the existence of God as a given. I don't think an Atheist would want to use that piece to support their beliefs. But its your choice.


I am not Atheist.


Originally posted by huckfinnAlso, an explicit quote is not possible. He implicity suggests that Obama's use of the phrase, "So Help me God", "will compel a person to worship God in a manner contrary to their conscience" or that its use within the Inauguration will be understood to be the "establishment of a religion" or the "legal observation of a religion."


My main point is the first one. I didn't say squat about establishment of religion or legal observation of a religion. I implied Obama is influential, BECAUSE HE IS.


Originally posted by huckfinnIt's almost as the Godless believe that the use of the word God on public property makes the property into a Church. Which means that if a person goes to city hall and happens to be carrying a Bible in their backpack or purse, its like smuggling contraband into a prison or being a drug mule.

This is a slippery road the Godless have paved. The more I think about it, I think Atheism is a plot to criminalize faith and knowledge of God.


Your lack of any kind of logic is astonishing. I said none of these things, I didn't infer any of these things, I don't even slightly share these beliefs. I believe in keeping God and religion (of any kind) OUT OF GOVERNMENT. I am comfortable letting people read whatever fairy tale books they want and taking it as truth, you are afforded that right by the US Constitution. The US Constitution also promises to keep God out of Government. Atheists have an argument. You have illogical, run in circles, uneducated assumptions.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME .... I AM NEITHER GODLESS NOR ATHEIST.

But I am able to use logic and reason to see a point when there is one.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Honestly though the article that led to this thread must be joke!! The guy who is doing the suing is named Michael. The name Michael means "who is like God."

Got to be a joke article. This cannot be for real.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I am mistaken. You are not an Atheist, I apologize. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to call me something I am not.

Now to logic. The things we do have consequences. Small changes now can become big changes down the road.

Michael Newdow's actions may appear to be small, but the logical sequence of events which follow his actions ultimately lead to REAL persecution. Can't you see this.

Kids have been suspended from school where the issue is either the Bible or religion in general. Nativity scenes on public property, contested. It all leads to one thing. Possessing a book such as a Bible, a criminal offense. Naming ones child a name after a character found in the Bible, a crime. Using a calender with a Seven day week, a crime.

Questioning my logic?? I don't even know how directly respond to that without boasting. But the story doesn't end with a ONE successful court case with someone like Newdow. It would be just the beginning.

For you to deny this is odd.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join