It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:16 PM
Suspension of rights to a fair trial, spying on citizens, illegal wars, torturing...the list goes on and on of things that our presidents/government gets away that is unconstitutional.

I have shown you the oath. Will you at least acknowledge the word God shows up no where in it? So using the word God in the oath is unconstitutional.

I referenced James Madison's assessment of the First Amendment. He states that first amendment guarantees that no man shall be compelled to worship God. By using this statement, it is indeed compelling youths/gullible/easily influenced people to worship God. I will steal a line from your post, WE MUST REALIZE THAT SMALL ACTIONS HAVE LARGE CONSEQUENCES. Once again, you keep making my points for me.. thank you. This action is unconstitutional according to James Madison's interpretation of the First Amendment, his interpretation of the First Amendment is one WORTH NOTING.

Now, if you go back to my very first post on this thread before you "bit" and called me on this.... I SAID I UNDERSTAND ASKING FOR ANYTHING OUR CONSTITUTION STATES IS OUT THE WINDOW THESE DAYS. They do what they want. It doesn't matter what is in the US Constitution. But, for someone that personally DOES give a rats butt what is in the constitution, I HAVE SHOWN CLEARLY what is in there... and I have shown how using God, even as a personal choice, in the Oath goes against the First Amendment according to one of the greatest authorities possible on the US Constitution.

I did not use my own interpretations or my own constitution, I didn't twist anyone's words, I didn't make # up, I gave you sources and everything. What else do you want from me?

Thank you and have a good day.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by ImaNutter]

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:21 PM
As an atheist I personally don't care. In fact it would be good if Obama says it to keep the Jesus Fiends in this country quiet. However, I don't care because it's his choice and it only effects him if he decides to use the phrase or not.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
Okay you've shown your facts and according to what you've posted, the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. Even if its absense means that it was never supposed to be included, I am still not convinced that people will be COMPELLED to worship the Christian God as a result of the Phrase being included in the Inauguration. I am also not convinced that the use of the word is support for a specific Religion as opposed to others. Honestly, the word God is somewhat generic and usually means what the person who says it or hears it wants it to mean. For all I know when Obama says God, he means Satan or Sausages or Mankind or Nothing.

Giving me YOUR perception of Barack Obama as a super-powerful man who's words are capable of converting people from their chosen faith is not enough.

Therefore, I don't consider it to be a violation of the separation of Church and State. Maybe you'll get lucky and Obama will simply decide not to use will ultimately be up to him and the Chief Justice. Its His inauguration, perhaps the Atheists should have donated more money to his campaign.

I don't personally believe that the President is powerful. Especially after what I've witnessed over the last 8 years. Certainly not powerful enough to make me go to a Church or shake my faith. I have never voted in my life at any level of Government and I didn't vote in this election even if its historic.

I am certain that Atheists will still be Atheists and You will be whatever you are after the Inauguration.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:53 PM
Congratulations Huck Finn.

You win.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:55 PM
i think it should be up to the president elect. after all it is his oath is it not? if he wants to say "god" let him. doesnt mean he is saying that athiests have to believe, cause i can tell you right now barak obama or anyone else saying "God" isnt going to sway me one way or the other.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:26 PM

Originally posted by huckfinn
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.

I'm not sure I follow. What does his name have to do with it?

My name is John, a very common religious name, and I'm an Atheist.

Are you in some way implying he should have grown up thinking "hey, my names Michael, guess I'll just have to put up with being religious" ?

That post just didn't make any sense.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by johnsky]

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:15 PM

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

Nope, wouldn't bother me at all. It would be his choice and wouldn't hurt me or anyone else in the least. He could say "so help me flying spaghetti monster" and while I might wonder about his sanity, I wouldn't be offended, bothered or hurt by it.

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.

You really shouldn't assume things, not only is it bad form it doesn't really do much good when you are completely wrong. I don't have a god seeing as how I don't hold any religious beliefs at all, so I'm not counting on him to utter the name of anything but whichever god he calls God. And I'm only counting on him to do that because by all accounts he intends to.

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, place of "God" and watch what happens.

Sounds like fun. Still won't bother me in the least though. While there are plenty of people who seem to like to cry over which god is mentioned and which book is used, it doesn't really effect me so it doesn't bother me.

That is why non-Christians are uncomfortable with it

I'm a non-Christian and I'm not uncomfortable with him using the phrase, so it's not all non-Christians.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by johnsky

It's insanity...One of the names of God appears in the name of an Atheist. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, but this Atheist's name contains the name of the very God he doesn't believe in. Is he not acting to ban his own name from use in Public space? Are you kidding? I once concluded that the Atheist belief logically arrives at the notion that we don't really exist. This guy proves that Atheism is the path to nothingness or nonbeing.

The Complaintant's name is Michael Newdow...Micha-EL, EL is but one of the names that God is called by in the Bible. It means Who is like God. As an aside, I once figured that the actual name of God is THE and thats why we say theOLOGY as the study of THE; thus any attempt to remove him from our language would result in nonsense and gibberish. Consequently, that's one the many reasons I know God exists and have no respect for Atheism. Our language doesn't even function properly without his name. Adopting atheistic society being analogous to removing TH from the language. Even EL means the in the masculine.

I suppose you also don't know the definition of the word Irony.

My point is that this lawsuit is about names. God, El, John all names that appear in the Bible. This person happens to find one of the many names offensive. If one name that appears in the Bible is inappropriate to be heard spoken aloud in public space, why not outlaw the name John or Mary or Joseph all names that appear in the Bible. An Atheist should find the name Mary particulary offensive, as she is considered to be the mother of God; if you get rid of her the problem of God would never occur and we wouldn't have to do any of this.

All are Biblical lets outlaw not only their English version, but also how they are said in Spanish, Juan, and German, Hans and in the feminine, Jane. If you don't get it, its because you don't want to realize the insanity of picking out one name of many and deciding to ban it.

It's not about being religious. Its a name.

You won't be happy until we all just get numbers to identify ourselves.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by huckfinn]

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:18 AM
I don't get it. It's like people can't really have thier rights unless they can take away someone elses.

In an ideal society (IMO) a conversation between a believer and non-believer would go something like this:

Christian: I believe in god.

Athiest: I don't.

Christian: A'ight

Athiest: Sweet!

(exchange high-fives)

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Jenna

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

Nope, wouldn't bother me at all. It would be his choice and wouldn't hurt me or anyone else in the least.

You, maybe not, but 'anyone else'? How do you know what everyone else would think about it? I used to be a Christian, and I know for a fact that if he said "So help me, Allah" there would be a HUGE uproar in the Christian community.
Christians (the majority of Americans) want their leader to be Christian and nothing else. Why is it that every person who holds a major office calls themselves Christians even though they fall in the category of those with a higher education which are far more likely to be atheist than your common citizen? The numbers don't add up

I'd be willing to bet 1,000 nickles that Obama is not religious in any sense... He just knows that he has to pretend to be to get your vote.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by Jenna

No offense, Jenna, but I was replying to huckfinn, so you need to take what I said within that context. However, you are correct in that I should have said some or perhaps most nonChristians.

While I'm touched by your faith that it wouldn't matter to you (true) and it wouldn't effect you (false), have you considered how the right-wing Christian extremists would react? No matter how much you think you live in an inviolable bubble of rights protected by the mutual respect your fellow citizens have thereof, the truth is that swearing the oath on anything but a Bible and to God would result in locally varying consequences that would effect all of us one way or the other.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by TruthParadox
You, maybe not, but 'anyone else'? How do you know what everyone else would think about it?

I said no one else would be hurt by it, and they wouldn't, not that they wouldn't mind. There is a difference between the two. Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean you are hurt by it.

I used to be a Christian, and I know for a fact that if he said "So help me, Allah" there would be a HUGE uproar in the Christian community.

Yeah, probably. But that would be their problem for being so closed minded that they can't handle a president believing in a different flavor of religion than the one they personally prefer. Can't make everyone happy all the time.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Actually the last post of yours I replied to was directed to me though the post of mine that you responded to wasn't directed at you, so really there isn't anything I took out of context.

It wouldn't matter to me, nor do his religious beliefs affect me. I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate on that one. How exactly is it that you think what he believes will personally affect me?

As for the religious extremists, they are all pretty much the same regardless which flavor extremist they are. So I would imagine that the Christian versions would react about the same as any other version. And as I said to TruthParadox in my other post, can't make everyone happy all the time.

I suffer from no delusions that everyone else is as tolerant as I am, as evidenced by this very thread. The sad fact is it doesn't matter which god he prays to, which religious book he uses, or even if he didn't do either. There will always be someone who is angry over something that is his personal choice. I don't agree with the man on much, if anything, but this is his personal choice and it isn't actually hurting anyone. To try and claim that you, or anyone else, is personally being harmed by his choice in gods or his choice to say "so help me God" is quite frankly laughable.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Jenna

Well of course no one is really 'hurt' by it, but I don't think that religion should be a part of our government. I don't really care if he says this in his speech because for one, I know that he's only doing it to appease the mob...
I'm just wanting people to look at the other side of it - if he used any other god in his speech. And if he did that, it surely wouldn't be a small amount of people upset, it would be a majority of Christians. I have a feeling that some would even try whatever they could to get him impeached...

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by TruthParadox

That's the thing. It's not part of our government. No law is establishing a religion, no one is being compelled to worship the same god as Obama. This lawsuit has nothing to do with religion being in government and everything to do with a few people whining because Obama is choosing to say "so help me God", put his hand on a Bible, and have a preacher say a prayer. It's all his personal choice and there are some trying to act like his personal choice for how he wants to be sworn in to the presidency is somehow establishing a religion when it's not.

As for whether or not a lot of Christians would be upset if he chose to say "so help me Allah/Zeus/etc", yeah they probably would. But again, that's their problem for being so closed minded.

I figure eventually someone will want to impeach him for something, just give it time. People wanted Clinton impeached for cheating on his wife, they wanted Bush impeached for numerous reasons, just give it time and they'll think of something to impeach Obama for.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:30 AM
When I first heard the news stories about this particular iteration of the debate, my first thought was, "What if I wanted atheism banned from public display?"

It, too, is a system of belief. Maybe people don't like that way of thinking forced on them as "so help me, God" is being 'forced' into the ears of those listening to the oath.

No, I don't think that's right at all, but it's just as ridiculous. As Christians or those of faith, could we fight to put God in all government speeches? Maybe several years ago, instead of removing the Ten Commandments from that Alabama courthouse, we should have fought to "Jesus-up" all other government buildings.

Why can't we do what is right for us? If we do elect an atheist president, I will not hold him or her to ask for God's help when being sworn in, so long as atheists don't expect the opposite of us.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:23 PM

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.

I can't say as I really care about whether 'so help me god' is or isn't in the speech, mainly because I am Canadian and it really doesn't effect me one way or another. However what I do take exception to is the text in bold above. It's a dangerous stance to take when you say "if it's not broke don't fix it" namely because it can apply to a great many things, not just the trivial. For example slavery was practiced for a great many years before finally being outlawed. Where would the states (and by extension the rest of the world) be if it wasn't? It was a system that persecuted a minority while favoring a majority. And yet someone chose to fix that 'unbroken' system and made a better one, by no means is the current system perfect but is still better than the previous one.

I will admit that whether 'so help me god' is included or not is a silly thing to argue about, and most likely the person(s) pushing for the words to be omitted is likely just seeking their 15 minutes of fame. However in this day in age where one can't say Policeman or Fireman, without fear of someone taking offense based on political correctness. It seems likely that the Atheists and Agnostics involved with this suit will likely win and this will just another thing that gets lost in the pages of history.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:08 PM
I'm an atheist but i think this is very trivial. I don't mind saying "God" in the pledge of allegiance, or praying (more like just bowing my head) at church when I go to one with people who are religious.

Everyone needs to be more open minded, it's not as if the inaugural oath is attempting to convert...

Also if we remove this then it would be fair grounds to remove, god from the pledge of allegiance or "In god we trust" from our currency, etc etc. and that will just take up time and money.

Seriously this is stupid, just shut up and watch the inauguration its only like what, 45min?

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:17 AM
First of all, PULL OUT YOUR CONSTITUTION AND SHOW ME WHERE this "so help me G--" crap is in the official Oath of Office. It is not there. Therefore, it should not be administered as part of the Oath, because the Constitution clearly spells out how it's supposed to be done.

This is not an "atheist vs. christian" issue, it is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. Can you read ???

President Obama can have a private ceremony at his church before or after the Inauguration if he wants to...that's fine with me. But isn't it HYPOCRITICAL to have an incoming President place his hand upon a religious text in order to swear (swearing is supposed to be a sin) to uphold and defend the Constitution ? I think it is !

I have a better idea. Let's have the President either hold a copy of, or place his hand upon, The Constitution Of The United States Of America....after all, that's what he's taking the Oath for in the first place !!!

When one places their hand upon a religious text (Bible, Koran, etc.) they are representing religion, not the Constitution. So this Inauguration would be bogus in every respect, because of the conflict of interest presented.

Let's get off the religion kick, folks, and get back to The Constitution. Do your church thing at church. But live your life/lives in such a way as to quietly represent that which you SAY you believe. Oh yeah, and while you're at it, kindly remember Matthew 6: 5-6 would you please !

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by TruthParadox

well.. Jenna is right in this. and i think no president should leave out his religious part. the one that is sacred for him.


"An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a promise or a statement of fact calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath."

without god involved the oath is not an oath anymore. it is just a promise, and we all know what is the value of that by a politician. it should be there. just in case (if someone not sure that god exists).

and YES. "so help him god". is like a form of a self-curse, at least when it comes to politicians.

but a big problem comes with the name. they should say: "so help me Satan" or Lucifer, or, Cthulhu,... not to leave out Dagon (((blessed be))).

they all are under the direct jurisdiction of the demigods.
God does not judge... so they are protected, especially when they call upon direct intervention. you never get "direct" from God.

he just "works in mysterious ways"

don't be scared Obama won't be interrupted. at least not by God.

so the final conclusion:

god is referenced by the oath, because without it won't be an oath.
- simple, case closed

as for the atheists, i have not found one witch is intelligent enough to prove me that there is no God.
"God is without time" - so he can manipulate time as he sees fit.
we could be created yesterday, and we won't know it. as for dinos, if one can manipulate time certainly can create a past too.

what is the purpose of creating some bones under ground?
what is your purpose?

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in