Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 04:16 PM by ImaNutter
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]


reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 04:37 PM by huckfinn
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 it...it 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]


reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 06:15 PM 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. 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, Hanuman...in 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.


reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 07:02 PM by huckfinn
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 names...so 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]



reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 01:13 PM by apacheman
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.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 01:29 PM by Jenna
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.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 03:27 PM by TruthParadox
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...


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 04:11 PM by Jenna
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.



reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 02:23 PM by looneylupinsrevenge
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.


reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 04:12 AM by encoder
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.

IE

"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."
(wiki)

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"
-boo

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.
argument:
"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?
answer:
what is your purpose?
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 24 flags
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 14 hours ago, 22 flags
ATS's Gutter-rats and the 90+ intro thread
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 20 flags
My Brain = about to explode
  Member Art, Posted 6 hours ago, 16 flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 124 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 14 hours ago, 96 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 10 hours ago, 64 replies