Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

[sneakypenguin]

If your a religious man, good for you, go pray on your own time, dont bring your own belief into politics that affects alot of people that dont believe in what you do.

Which is different from an atheist who brings their beliefs into politics and affects a lot of people that don't believe the way they do?

thats the way its supposed to be, religion and politics are 2 different things, and they should not mix, why?, because every single religion is based on rules and guidelines that were created for society thousands of years ago, there's no reason that todays society should live by rules that arent even valid today.

Religion and politics shouldn't mix? They where quite prominent in our founding if I read right and that worked out pretty well.

Massive quote wall

Spoiler

Alexander Hamilton "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
Patrick Henry
?It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.? [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
Thomas Jefferson:


?Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.?
James Madison
? We?ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.?

?We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We?ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity?to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.? [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
George Washington
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.?

?What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.? [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words ?So help me God!? to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

 

[thiosk]

It's a Christian nation, like it or not.

not anymore! 6 days til sharia law!!!

jk

 

[Fronken]

If your a religious man, good for you, go pray on your own time, dont bring your own belief into politics that affects alot of people that dont believe in what you do.

Which is different from an atheist who brings their beliefs into politics and affects a lot of people that don't believe the way they do?

thats the way its supposed to be, religion and politics are 2 different things, and they should not mix, why?, because every single religion is based on rules and guidelines that were created for society thousands of years ago, there's no reason that todays society should live by rules that arent even valid today.

Dont get me wrong, i have alot of respect for religious people, my best friend for example is a christian, but that doesnt change the fact that religion has no place in politics, politics is supposed to be about the people, not about god.

Scientology was INVENTED what, 50 some odd years ago?

In every religion, save a few rare exceptions, there exists a unanimous moral philosophy, like the hard, wise core of peace. It says, do not kill, do not rape or steal or lie, be honest and true to the fullest extent of your human ability. Take joy in life, and work through your sorrows. Beyond that they might differ.

What we as people need to realize is that our religions, though their faces may be vastly different, their stories conflicting and their messages veiled, share a common set of values that has existed before even the sun-worshipers howled at dawn and mourned at dusk.

When i say religion i dont mean Scientology, seeing as thats just a scam, i mean the major religions, and yeah, they have taught people alot in the past, like your saying, dont kill, dont rape etc.. but we already have them in our law books and have had them there for hundreds of years, and just because a non religious person takes office that wont change, its international law pretty much, and i know what your thinking, then why cant a religious person take office?, Well, because they might end up as fucked up as George W. Bush Junior and start "holy wars", and by that i mean, Invading Iraq with the best defence as to why being: God told me to.

We do not need more wars based on religion, there have been Countless of them, which is absurd seeing as religion can NOT be proven to be correct, its a belief, yet it still manages to be the reason for countless wars and millions of people being killed.

Call me a hippie if you want to, but i hate war, i see no real reason for it nowadays, WWII, that was a neccessary war, that needed to be faught to stop the nazis and the japanese, but nowadays, there is only 1 super power that is a threat to the entire world, that being America, which are self-proclaimed protectors of the earth meaning they are the only ones they deem safe to have nuclear weapons.

So to cut my rant short: Religion has NO place in modern politics, it will only end up starting wars, which has been proven all throughout the ages of mankind, for example, take Sweden, we're a multi-cultured country with alot of freedoms, meaning we are pretty much like america in that sense (but alot smaller), biggest difference though is that our government is not based on the bible which makes us alot more peaceful when it comes to war and such, we'd rather settle arguments and disputes with words and peace-treaties instead of invading the country and blowing their civilians to kingdom-come.

 

[Knonsense]

1st Amendment say that Congress cannot pass any laws to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of them.

Therefore, I would say that this is not an issue regarding the Separation of Church and State as written in the constitution.

As written, the First Amendment doesn't even apply against the states. Remember, it says *Congress* and Congress only.

So if you're going to go with that strict a reading of the Constitution, you also have to allow states to shut down the press and make people adopt one religion.

Actually a strict reading of the constitution would extend those restrictions to the states via the 14th amendment.

And besides which, a loose interpretation of the the constitution gives the government license to do whatever it wants.

 

[The Grue]

The Grue thinks that presidents should swear in by whatever they believe, and thinks that those atheists are being bigots. Note that the Grue is in fact atheist.

 

[Alex_P]

As written, the First Amendment doesn't even apply against the states. Remember, it says *Congress* and Congress only.

So if you're going to go with that strict a reading of the Constitution, you also have to allow states to shut down the press and make people adopt one religion.

Remember the Fourteenth Amendment, however.

Now, yes, the courts basically destroyed the "privileges and immunities" clause, but then they stretched the "due process" clause to more-or-less replace its role.

-- Alex

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

First off, I want to offer Quicksilver's Choice, an upgrade of Pascal's Gamble:

Take the benefit to yourself and the world be believing in God, add the value of Heaven as opposed to Hell multiplied be the odds of there being a God; then subtract the value of the time you spend believing in God. If this comes up positive, believe. Otherwise, don't.

It's basically Pascal's Gamble without assuming that the value of Heaven over Hell is infinite, and thus as long as God is possible (That is, not proven to not exist), you should believe in God.



But, concerning the issue at hand, there is nothing in the Constitution to force or prevent Obama from saying whatever he wants to, so long as he says the words the Constitution does require.

And it's not like monotheism and atheism have to work at cross purposes. I was at a talk by Irshad Manji, a major Muslim Writer described as "bin-Ladin's worst nightmare", about a month ago, and she greeted the audience with (as best I remember it):

"Hello, Shalom, Salam, (one or two other greetings), and, for the Atheists out there, How the Hell are you doing?"

Got a great laugh from the audience, and made it clear to us all that while she was a Muslim, she didn't care about what we were.

 

[Baldr4500]

Is he being forced to say the phrase "so help me God"? If he is, well, he has the right to refuse, and substitute whatever being he believes in or none if he so wishes. If he isn't, but wishes to say it anyways, then he has the has the right to.

I have to agree with this if he's not being forced to say it then its ok.

 

[Marv21]

The church of the flying spegetti monster!

 

[Knonsense]

Remember the Fourteenth Amendment, however.

Now, yes, the courts basically destroyed the "privileges and immunities" clause, but then they stretched the "due process" clause to more-or-less replace its role.

Heh--I think you just happened to miss that I was only talking about what follows under a *strict* reading of the Constitution. That's my point--you can't stick with a "strict" reading of the Constitution and then just start throwing around ideas like Incorporation that are found nowhere in the Constitution.

1st Amendment say that Congress cannot pass any laws to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of them.

Therefore, I would say that this is not an issue regarding the Separation of Church and State as written in the constitution.

As written, the First Amendment doesn't even apply against the states. Remember, it says *Congress* and Congress only.

So if you're going to go with that strict a reading of the Constitution, you also have to allow states to shut down the press and make people adopt one religion.

Actually a strict reading of the constitution would extend those restrictions to the states via the 14th amendment.

No, that's exactly the opposite of what a strict reading would do.

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

A strict reading only syncs up the 5th and the 14th, not the 1st through 10th and the 14th. The only other relevant part is the Privileges and Immunities clause, and that's not even in the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how the fact that the Privileges and Immunities clause being in the 14th amendment and not in the bill of rights is relevant. It's still constitutional law.

 

[Limos]

Oh, why can't they see that being bitchy like this makes people hate them. Like the PeTA effect.

Mind if I steal the term, "PeTA effect," that sounds like a great way to describe whinny protesters who only become less popular by protesting.

The Religious Right falls prey to the PeTA effect far more than Atheist could, even if they tried as hard as they could. What with the sheer number of Anti-gay or Anti-abortion rallies.

 

[Copter400]

so what leave it it has the right to be there so atheists need to work on being more grouped like the christians and there church(and other groups)atheists need to work to gether more

Work together? Group together? To what end, pray? I thought that one of the major definitions of being atheist was that you didn't congregate for a religious matter or purpose.

 

[Alex_P]

People still believe Pascal's wager?

What's next? People think creationism's just as valid a "theory" as evolution?

Well, there's always that Big Bang stuff. You know, the one where someone starts with their very poor understanding of Big Bang theory, turns that into the justification for the belief in the existence of some supernatural being, and then takes a giant leap of faith (I don't think "faith" is the right word, though -- I feel like I'm dissing faith when I call this "faith") and relabels that ill-defined hypothetical supernatural being as Christian God with absolutely no justification. From "Hmm, modern humans still don't know every single detail about their whole universe" to "God exists and he's just like the one in this book!" in 30 seconds.

Or sometimes people do it with quantum mechanics instead. Especially fuckin' New-Agers who don't even have a basic grasp of classical mechanics.

Oh, and let's not forget the God of I-don't-understand-cognitive-science. That seems to be really popular, too.

People seem to just love embarrassing themselves.

-- Alex

 

[Knonsense]

I don't see how the fact that the Privileges and Immunities clause being in the 14th amendment and not in the bill of rights is relevant. It's still constitutional law.

What is still Constitutional law, exactly? I don't understand what you're trying to say here--please don't use pronouns like 'it' and say something is still Constitutional law, when everything we're talking about is Constitutional law.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause is still Constitutional law. I mentioned this because you seemed to discard the Privileges and Immunities Clause for some reason.

Our fantasy world where judicial review is nonexistent aside, is there any substantial precedent for applying the Separation of Church and State to anything other than a law? Even with a loose interpretation of the constitution, I think it would still be an abnormal leap to apply Separation of Church and State to this situation without precedent.

Also, I formally apologize for my terrible grammar.