Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath
- Thread starter Untamed Waters
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is. But a group of atheists don't want him to. I still see it as atheists forcing their beliefs upon another person, something most atheists say they hate.Phase_9 said:
I speak English, it is there.theallmightybob said:nice try but no one is forcing you to buy the dictionary, so you lose that one.Arsen said:
No one is forcing you say the word "God" either. It isn't against an atheist by having God in the inaugural oath. Just replace the word "God" with something else in your mind...
Meh, you got me there. Though I did believe that ".. so help me God" was part of the inaugural oath. Mostly I just get tired of people getting up in arms over stupid stuff that ruins things for everyone. In the town I grew up in there was a stone carved cross on a cliff facing the city. Some Homosexuals (self identified) and Atheists got pissed at it. So instead of putting up there own device they demanded it be removed. They won, I really do not understand why. So the money in the city fund for a new kids park had to be reappropriated to remove the cross. Great job those people did. That is my displeasure.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I also realize that I am doing the very thing I am complaining about.
Yeah, they seem to be pretty hypocritical. What is there was an atheist President and the Catholic Church insisted that he swear by God? They would be spitting fire and ripping people to pieces. They are hypocrites who think that if they can manage to pull the wool over enough people's eyes, they can accomplish what they are claiming those who oppose them are doing.Untamed Waters said:
Notice that the part of the suit related to the oath of office is about what Roberts tells Obama to say, not about what Obama can or can't say himself.Untamed Waters said:
... Also, come to think of it, if I was an atheist who was trying to force my beliefs upon you, I think I'd try to throw in a "there is no God" somewhere instead of just asking you not to turn a government ceremony into a spectacle about how great Jesus is (which is exactly what you're gonna hear about in the benediction).
-- Alex
Being prompted to do it certainly matters. Unlike the president, regular people don't get the luxury of sitting down with the oath administrator to hash out exactly how you want the ceremony to go. Usually you have to make do with some poorly-explained "out" clause somewhere.Nigh Invulnerable said:
What's up with that? "Oh, you don't have to believe what we believe, just pretend you do!" I don't know about you, but when I ape a ritual that other people might consider meaningful and holy, I certainly don't think that's a sign that I respect their cultural beliefs -- feels more like I'm mocking them.
And, frankly, anyone who's asking me to lie to their face like that -- and more interested in me observing the lie than following my conscience -- isn't respecting me, either. And he's transparently more interested in lip-service obedience than real, living faith.
The way to get past this is as a culture is to stop asking. You should reasonably be able to volunteer whatever the hell you want! But the government official handing you a Bible or telling you to swear on God? He definitely shouldn't be doing that.
-- Alex
However, Obama has his own mind, does he not? No one is holding a gun to his head to say "So help me God"Alex_P said:
I didn't say yes by itself: I qualified it.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
And besides, a cool thing about the constitution is that everything is legitimate until the supreme court declares it otherwise.
However, I maintain that if the government were to find an ABSOLUTELY EQUAL way to hand out money for religious vestments, such that EVERY religion was covered EQUALLY, it would be constitutional, since it neither establishes a national religion, nor prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I also mentioned before, and will state it clearly here, that I don't think that will ever happen.
As for the beliefs part: Every one of the founding fathers practiced some form of Christianity. I will give you that they definitely weren't strictly Christian, but I think you will find that many, if not most or all, open-minded Christians strengthen their beliefs by borrowing from other philosophies. I know I do.
Were they Christian in the most fundamental sense of the word: That they believed in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of Humanity? I don't know. I can't ask them. However, do I think there is evidence out there to show that they, and thus the Constitution, were influence by Christian thinking, and more so than any other religious philosophy (including Animism and Atheism)? Yes.
The founding fathers were basically Christians, but kept references to God and religion out of political texts to uphold separation of church and state. They also did not want to fall into the political trap of being Catholic and having to abide by the Pope before their own government.
Also remember that "One nation under God" was not added into the pledge until the 1950s when the Knights of Columbus petitioned to have it added.
Wiki I know - I'll find the book I got it from eventually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Personally, I think it's up to the candidate. I do believe it violates separation of church and state. Look at it this way: if you were elected to public office, you can't start your new job until you acknowledge the existence of the Christian God - doesn't matter if you Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, whatever.
Also remember that "One nation under God" was not added into the pledge until the 1950s when the Knights of Columbus petitioned to have it added.
Wiki I know - I'll find the book I got it from eventually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Personally, I think it's up to the candidate. I do believe it violates separation of church and state. Look at it this way: if you were elected to public office, you can't start your new job until you acknowledge the existence of the Christian God - doesn't matter if you Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, whatever.
The proper Atheist understands, respects and acknowledges people of other faiths. Where I do feel that saying "God" in an oath in a country founded on freedom from religion hypocritical, I don't feel that it forces any unjustified feelings such as this.Untamed Waters said:
Derived from the article, I feel that atheists are trying to impose because, well, they can. Mr. Newdow has no real reason for demanding this change. It's tradition. If Obama feels comfortable saying "under God," there shouldn't be a problem. The state isn't imposing God upon him.
He's grasping for reasons to complain, trying to push his own agenda when unprovoked. I disagree completely with Mr. Newdow's actions.
Many European countries have a national church. The biggest church is under the thumb of the state. Oftentimes that relationship has become kinda informal and handwavy, but the general trend is still there. The Church of England is a great example: the government is involved in approving the appointment of high-level clergy. Or in Finland, for example, there is a church tax that goes to the Finnish Lutheran church (I believe nowadays they allow people to opt out). Sure, there are smaller sects that aren't entangled with the government, but they can't really compete with a big sect that claims the majority of the population as members, can they?cuddly_tomato said:
In America, the government doesn't run any sect. That's one of our founding principles. But one consequence of that is that some of the sects want to run the government. Which is what all this "culture war" bullshit is all about.
-- Alex