Archive for Thursday, January 15, 2009

Atheists want God stricken from oath

January 15, 2009

Advertisement

— President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words “so help me God,” but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

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.

Newdow and other atheists and agnostics also want to stop the use of prayers during the inaugural celebration.

Newdow, who lost a Supreme Court battle to get the words “under God” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, has failed in similar challenges to the use of religious words and prayers at President George W. Bush’s inaugurations.

Roberts’ attorney Jeffrey P. Minear filed a document in Newdow’s lawsuit saying that Obama wants the words “so help me God” included in his oath of office.

The Justice Department and attorneys general from all 50 states have filed motions at the federal court asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and reads: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The National Archives says that George Washington added the words “so help me God” when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will hear arguments today.

Comments

absolutelyridiculous 6 years, 4 months ago

Why don't the atheist and agnostics just sue to eliminate the oath all together? Seems if they don't believe in God, they won't believe in an oath either? Silly atheist and agnostics! The majority of Americans believe in God...this is a democracy. If you don't like it, go live someplace else. You have that right. Bon Voyage!

bondmen 6 years, 4 months ago

Atheists should be careful what they wish for - since at the appropriate time, God is likely to grant their wish! Then it'll be too late to change their minds.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

Indulge me if you will, but where does it all end, Better question, WHERE DID IT ALL START. I remember my grandfather blaming the trials and tribulations of Americas problems and the problems of our youth on that "dam rock and roll" Now today we blame that "dam rap music" It used to be too much violence on TV, Now it to much violence in video games. I guess my point being we have always laid blame on something to satisfy our inner feelings that someone has to be responsible for the country to be in the shape that it is in. Good or Bad. This country was based on a certain set of principles set fourth by our four fathers to enable us to progress. But to what expense do we keep progressing. You and I know progress cant stop. but the principles need to remain in tact. Our President, our flag, our country was based under a simple aspect. "God" You have it everywhere, "in God we trust", "one nation under God", "God bless America". Now I guess the next point I need to make is who is your God. Buddha, Christ, Alla?. To each has his or her own belief, and America gave you the right to chose, And if you chose NOT to believe in any God, then so be it. Its your choice, your have the right to chose to worship or not, and in an atheist case, I guess you wouldn't. So if this Country does not force you to worship a God of its choice, don't try to make me "not" respect my God. What ever God that may be. For 233 years we have God in our pledge of allegiance, our National anthem, printed on our money and in the court rooms of America. Respect the feelings of others to praise there leaders, their Gods, as I respect your choice not to. Thank You Chris Marsh.

Angela Heili 6 years, 4 months ago

If an atheist wants to be an atheist, let him or her.If someone wants to say "so help me God", let him or her.What is the big deal? Because someone says "So help me God" the atheist is going to die or suffer some horrible fate when the words "so help me God" hit their ears? Not everyone is exactly the same, which is fine, because if we were it would be one heck of a boring place!!! lolBut seriously, I could care less if someone wants to worship Buddha, or Jesus, or the darn concrete in their driveway. They teach about all kinds of religion in schools, except for Christianity. It doesn't bother me. My children need to know what other people believe and how they think. Not sure why Hinduism and other religions are allowed in school, but Christianity isn't, but whatever. I think it's pretty childish anyway the whole, cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening!!" approach when people discuss their beliefs or want to pray or whatever. People gripe and complain about having Christianity "forced" down people's throats or whatever, but I think it's interesting that the Atheists and all those that gripe about it the most are wanting to "force" their belief, or lack of, down everyone else's throats. They want to be able to "force" the President to not be able to do something that he wants to do of his own free will. Pretty sad if you ask me. Why atheists can't just accept the fact that not everyone is going to be atheist is beyond me. And that goes for any other religious group. The saying is, "To each their own". It's not "To each what everybody else wants".

oldvet 6 years, 4 months ago

God will have the last laugh when the atheists meet Him...

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

anxiouspainintheass will be all over this shortly. God help us all (oops). I still don't understand why the one's that don't believe DO believe their time is best spent trying to hinder - muddle - nebulize - or just out and out stop everyone else from believing. Apparently people like Clint feel words like 'God' have no true intrinsic meaning or value, so if that's true, why give a shiitake mushroom? A word has no meaning to you.....how does it affect you then? Letters strung together.....fascinating.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Formulaboats: I want to draw your attention to liberty-one's post one more time, since you are absolutely wrong and it is possible that truth might change your thinking a little bit, but a lot of the god stuff that you are taking for granted as always being there was written in after the mid-part of last century, for the implicit purpose of comparison with the Godless Communists, if I recall correctly. As in, our leaders wanted new ways to give the citizens the notion that god was on our side.

Angela Heili 6 years, 4 months ago

LOL, at Reticent's comment. That's great.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Oh, and Newdow is an insecure jack@$$ who should just let it go and try and educate his kid with his own effort, rather than forcing other people to cater to him. He reminds me of Mrs. Brovloski in the South Park movie, no time to care for her children because she's off fighting causes for her children.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

Here, here on Newdow, jonas. There was a woman here in the ATL who was fighting to have Harry Potter books removed from school libraries because it 'promoted witchcraft' and could irreperably harm her children. Some months later she was charged with negligence and her ex-husband was granted custody.

Leslie Swearingen 6 years, 4 months ago

When people testify in court do they still put their hand on a Bible and say, "so help me God?"Which reminds me, no one has said anything about the fact that Obama is going to be using the Bible that Lincoln used. Terrified by the word God, comfortable with the Bible, um.I could not care less if someone is an atheist, it is no skin off my nose.Would I be out of line if I asked that faith, any faith, not be referred to as BS?

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

JONUS AND LIBERTY--- I must say that my DATES were very incorrect as to when and where the placement of GOD was given in history. It was more of a point that this country was founded with God in mind, and if you READ my comment, it would be a GOD of your choice. Read the words, this is to say to all that I don't want you to take away things that have be handed down from earlier generations. So I concur to the incorrect date given as to the wording of God in our history. But I'm not going to let someone tell me what i can or cannot hear. If you don't like the words that are said then don't listen, If you don't like the words that are written, then don't read them. all religions have the right to practice what they believe in. Ill never push a religion on someone so don't try to take it away from someone. We have rituals that are looked upon as a time of happiness, a time to rejoice. Just for instance, When you get a marriage license, you don't have to have anyone say a thing, Just have a judge look at it ask if the things are correct , and if you both consent and BING your married. But we have ceremonies, and people rejoice in them. But for those who don't, they don't have to have one, That is there choice. But you don't see them trying to ban marriage vows do you? Leave God out of the equation if you don't believe.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

The only person who has a right to comment on the oath is the person who must take it. None of the spectators or people at home will have to take it, so it seems really silly that Mr. Nedow feels that this is an example of religion crammed down people's throats. BTW, I do not see evidence supporting the existance of a God, but the difference between Mr. Nedow and myself and my friends is that we realize that this isn't really important. People will always say the word "God" or (insert diety here), and not every instance needs to be harped upon by hair-splitting militants.On the flip, though, it's funny to see people come out and make snyde comments about atheists and how they'll feel silly when they have to meet God. Those who make comments like this are so obviously insecure in their faith that it is humorous Who are you trying to convince with your scary story? You won't convince an atheist, so the only person left is yourself.

verity 6 years, 4 months ago

Matthew 5:33-37 (King James Version of the Bible) "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."I find it very strange that people swear an oath on the Bible when the Bible tells them not to swear an oath.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

formulaboats: I read your whole post, and if I had felt the need to correct anything else in it, then I would have done so. You're welcome to find somewhere in my posts on this thread that I have suggested you should not be able to exercise your free choice of religion. But its fairly obvious that the references to God in your examples are not of an undefined and ubiquitous notion of divinity, but rather specific mentions of the Christian God, put in to establish ourselves after the fact as a Christian nation. The founders themselves had varied opinions on the subject of religion, but there are two really important points. First, that they felt the need, even as religious people, to make our constitution secular, and put in an amendment that forbids the establishment of a state religion. (while, of course, allowing the free exercise of personal religions)

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"Jaywalker, you think “god” is just a word?"No, I don't, Clint. You do. And what's mind boggling is people like yourself shouting from the rooftops about an "idea" that has as much symbolism and significance to themselves as "the" does."It's an idea, a way of life, and a piece of really bad logic…"Here's the issue right here -- that's YOUR opinion. Why must everyone cower to your opinion? You choose not to believe, bully for you. Noone's forcing it down your throat, why must we gag on your non-belief?"The harm isn't that people believe in “god” as it is that our country is secular, an oath referencing “god” is essentially meaningless"Again, an oath referencing God is meaningless to you. You're not the one taking the oath. As logic illustrated, take your oath on your own belief system, if you have one. But the President swearing an oath on the Bible is important to an overwhelming majority. And it's important to him. So what do you care?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

I'll take my oath as "in rationalism we trust!" while placing my hand on a copy of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.barfMaybe "in the Valar we trust." while placing my hand on a copy of the Silmarillion.

verity 6 years, 4 months ago

I haven't seen any answer as to why someone would support an oath taken on the Bible when the Bible clearly says not to take an oath on anything (which one would assume includes itself). Since the Bible says it, one would also assume that God doesn't approve of oaths.

Phil Minkin 6 years, 4 months ago

If there were a proposal to add "So help me God" to the oath, that would be a problem. But as far as I'm concerned(being a card carrying ACLU member), if any new president chooses to say that or "Holy crap, I'm the President" that his choice.

KansasVoter 6 years, 4 months ago

I hope that I live to see the day when the human race realizes that it's silly to worship superstitions that are thousands of years old, but I know that I won't.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

I hope I live to see the day when the human race realizes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but I know that I won't.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"Are you really going to try and sit here and claim that people in this country are not force-fed the Judaeo-Christian line from birth?"I knew someone would flip that around, duplenty, and I would counter that noone is forcing you to gag on their belief. This is the President taking an oath. It effects/affects you in no way whatsoever, unless you choose to take 'offense' to it. And if someone is 'force fed' religion of any sort, invariably it's by their parents wishing to raise their children under their belief system. Describe to me how you've been forced to swallow religion of any sort outside of your family?Clint, I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with most of your last post. You're free to question such things, no doubt about it. You're free to be skeptical, to not believe, to question, to whatever. I would ask, though, why you feel it necessary to question believers. I don't like NASCAR, don't understand how anyone can, but what the hell do I care; I don't watch and I don't go.Belief is based on faith. Logically there is no tangible proof of God's existence, there is no scientific method, it can't be graphed on paper. But why must I or anyone else be required or requested to "prove" God's existence to you or any other non-believer? And I don't believe that our leaders "have" to swear an oath to God, that's just the way it is and the way virtually all of them want it, as far as I know. We just broke through with a black man achieving the highest office, I think it's probably a looong time off before an atheist does the same. But again, it has no effect on you whatsoever. Or on Newdow or any other atheist. So why begrudge others there right to exercise their faith?I can appreciate your opinion as well, but I'm not asking for you to justify yours. Why must I or Obama or anyone else justify their faith to you or any other atheist? If you were forced to attend church, pray in school, kneel at sunset in penitence.... then okay, it would need to be justifified. Otherwise.............

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

What ever is happening with man and religion does not matter. God is still God. Science, men, or ideas cannot stop God from being.

rhd99 6 years, 4 months ago

Hey, I have an idea! How bout Newdow, the dork, use his "leap of faith" & take his hatred of religion & go jump in a lake! Take a hike, Newdow!

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

GOGOPLATA--- What God?, there are so many beliefs. Who is to say which one is right or wrong, to me there is no wrong, Its what YOU believe in, Its what makes you happy inside. To say one religion is the ONLY one is PUSHING religion on someone. Believe in your God with all your heart and that will be the God the president ellect will be praising

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

This shows that the religious, especially christians, need to be constantly reminded of their god's greatness, and they need everyone to constantly be forced to witness it.This is because of a deep lack of faith that most christians have about their religion. They need constant public reminders and reinforcements. Simply believing is not enough for them. Pathetic, really.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

There is only one God. God created the heaven and the earth. God provided his Son give us a chance to have a relationship with him. God will go about his business. The lack of faith of the whole world could not change that.

rhd99 6 years, 4 months ago

Newdork, & his order of pariahs are like a disease. What a sad day if he wins. This outcast needs to be fumigated. He is the reason our country is divided. Freedom of speech is one thing, but he cannot & will not silence the majority. Nobody has the right to silence the majority. If what I said before is offensive, I'm sorry, but Newdork is the reason our country is falling apart. It's time the majority speak up & silence this disease in our society.

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

Clint,Can you PROVE God does not exist?

rhd99 6 years, 4 months ago

Thank you opukanae. Amen to that! G-bye everyone! Have a nice frigid day.

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

I guess anyone with faith will soon have to start bringing lawsuits ourselves.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

gogoplata--------You see, you are pushing a religion on someone else. That is the reason we have such a harsh look upon religion. Im glad you have such a deep belief. But its yours, Not ours. And yes there are many who believe as you do. But there are many who dont, who are you to judge, who are you to say "mine is the only way" I myself dont look down upon your beliefs. But i do understand this is your OPINION. and please be wise enough to understand that. "It is an opinion", I respect it, so please respect others.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

anxiousatheist----Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea or person. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of "trust", "belief", or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general.

boltzmann 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the problem, as I see it is not Obama using the words in the oath. By freedom of speech he is free to add what he wants to it, as long as it doesn't change the original meaning. However, I do think that the Chief Justice, as the official representative of the Constitution here, should leave it off of his reading of the oath in the course of administering it - because it is not actually in the Constitution. Actually, I think that this is what the lawsuit it about - although you couldn't tell it from the incomplete article - because it does not name Obama in the suit. From the CNN site..."Newdow told CNN that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs.'If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him,' Newdow said. 'I think it's unwise.'"

Angela Heili 6 years, 4 months ago

Here is the problem I see with Christianity, or any "religion" really. Everyone is so hell-bent, pardon the pun, on trying to "save" the human race, that they neglect to support, or nurture, or help grow the people they have "saved". Thusly, those "saved" people, eventually fall away and they are left trying to figure out what the point of being saved in the first place was.Being raised in the church, we have been to many churches, to ultimately leave, because there really wasn't much of a point in going. We went, took the kids, etc. and then everyone went home doing the same "sinful" things they did Monday through Saturday. The hypocrisy is horrible in churches. Just horrible. And yet Christians want everyone to be a part of a church. Why?To fulfill the "command" given by Christ. To go into all nations and preach the Word of God. Why? Not because they want to or even care about the other person's well being. It's for the same reason that people become Christian in the first place. The fear that if they don't, they will go to hell. The fear of suffering and burning in a "lake of fire" for eternity. I was the same way. And I am so tired of being afraid of this and that an the other thing when it comes to Christianity. We attended a church for many, many years, and when we had things come up and were not able to attend for a while, hardly anyone really cared. Answers to prayers? Um, not so much. Still waiting on those. Really important life changing prayers, downright begging were never answered. Why? "It is God's will". That is the answer that always comes from people.Christianity is really nothing to be feared or banned or anything else. No more than the belief in Santa Clause, or the Tooth Fairy. Eventually people grow up and realize that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. In my experience anyway. And this is coming from someone who has been a Christian for 20+ years.Am I still a Christian? lol I don't know. Even in the Christian religion they can't decide if you can lose your faith or not! They can't tell you why prayers go unanswered, even prayers helping you understand your faith. I'm still waiting for that big "neon sign" that I need to get me back on the road to really believing again. I've been waiting for years now.There's my take on Christianity.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm not pushing a religion. I am just stating a fact.I could care less about the oath to God being in the swearing in. The oath is meaningless if the oath taker is not going to honor the oath he is taking.

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

Debate is fine because I believe that everyone has the right to make his/her own choices. Christians are not attempting to force feed our beliefs so why are non-believers so fixed on taking them away?

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

gogoplata----------it is MY opinion and many others, that it is NOT fact, it is your OPINION!!. There is fact that creatures roamed the earth millions of years ago. We have proof, we have evidence. All there is pertaining to your "fact" is books. If I write a book today about wigits, and the way they ruled the world, will it be a fact 500 years from now?

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, have your taken the time to read the subject of this blog, Atheists are suing to restrict Obama from uttering the words "So Help Me God". Why do I have to prove what I believe in. Prior being blown up in Iraq I thought like you, however I found God. I do not have to prove, all I have to do is believe. What happens if all of those who believe in a GOD are wrong, what have we lost? But what if we are right? What have you lost?

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

Clint,How many channels do you have on your TV/radio, I suggest turning them. People come to the missions. Do we not have the right express our opinions just as you have the right to express yours on us?

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

It is a fact that God has always been and will forever be God. The opinions of many including yourself will never be able to change that.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

Question: "Describe to me how you've been forced to swallow religion of any sort outside of your family?”duplenty: "I think I've touched on this already:“How many atheist, agnostic, or polytheistic presidents, congressmen (or women) or senators has this country seen?”How in the world does that answer my question in any fashion or form? How does answering a question with an unrelated question 'touch on it'? And I have no idea, though I'd bet it's a few, how many reps we've had that are atheists or whatever. The fact these people believe or don't believe has no impact on you. None. How has any state representative or President forced you to swallow religion?"Similarly, would you mind an homage to Satan on the courthouse, on your money, or before the high school hoops game?"Sorry, but to a believer comparing 'homage' to the personification of evil is not 'similar'. "but to claim that the fingerprints of Christianity are not all over every single aspect of American (or in this case, 'Merican) culture, then I do think thou doth protest too much"First, I did not claim anything about Christianity. Second, I wathn't protethting anything. Now, Heaven forbid (pun intended) that the fingerprints of Christianity are apparent in this country's culture. But the fact remains, once you are out from under your parents direct influence, the only way religion effects you adversely is if you wanna take 'offense' to it. I ask again, how does it alter any part of your life?"and until and unless some public figure says “so help me Zoroaster” to a chorus of ho-hums, then I can't see where you have much of an argument."I don't know what that's supposed to mean, nor how it would justify an argument, if I actually had an argument going here, which I don't. I've merely been asking why atheists like Newdow feel compelled to act against those that believe.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

wow am i going to regret this post. anxiousatheist---, your right, there are way too many undertones accross america that lead you into the christian belief. BUT!!!!, if you dont belive, dont listen. Turn the station, They are OPINIONS. But as I stated along time ago. Those beliefs and the way they have been handed down generation to generation have been a cornerstone in our society. Believe in what YOU want to. and if your God is a rock, then so be it. If you believe a rock is your God then when the president ellect is sworn in, in yours eyes he will be sweareing to a rock. And if you have no beliefs, then he will be swearing to nothing. Just words to you.

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

Then don't worry about me. I worry about you because I am a Christian, and care about the well being of others.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

gogoplata, PLEASE give me the fact, tangible evidence that your God or your belief is or was real. not a book, ANYONE can write a book. A real life peice of evidence that can prove your claim........................and here is the kicker. I myself believe in a higher power. But that is my own personal belief and I would never push it upon anyone. And you see right now you have no idea what higher power I am speaking of, Could it be Christianity, hmmmm

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

I know, it has been proven to me. I do not believe just to believe, my statement was just that a statement. What is truth in your eyes? What do you believe in?

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

It's an oath. And while it's supposed to be all serious, we all know from experience that people in power rarely keep the promises they make. The oath is pomp and circumstance, nothing more. So on that note, if Obama wants to say, "So help me god," he's more than free to do so. My tax dollars aren't funding his oath. When an atheist is elected to lead this nation (hahahahaha - so not holding my breath) then I'll be happy to hear her leave god out of her promise to uphold the Constitution. It makes me smile when people choose to do the right thing not because "the bible tells me so" or fear of eternal damnation, but because it's the right thing. I think, and I hope, Obama as a critically thinking and obviously extremely intelligent and capable human being will work to do the right thing (uphold the Constitution). If for his own salvation he wants to implore god's help in doing so, so be it. Now when he starts sending out the seasonal cards - there's where I have an issue with the mention of god or Jesus. Bush repeatedly sent out heavily Christian cards with my tax dollars. I hope Obama won't make the same mistake.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

anxiousatheist------- wow, Religion, isnt athiesm(spelling) a form of belief? The way you feel about something? I dont agree or disagree with you. It is your opinion your belief and your right to feel that way. Answer me this. Does it really bother you that the president ellect will have the word God spoken when he sworn in?Its just a word to you and many others. And to others it means more, or less. As for me, Im just a dumb country boy from texas. Not much on book smarts, but I think I have a grasp on how people tick

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

anxiousatheist, I've heard this stuff before. formulaboats2002, there is evidence, if you need tangible evidence about God you will have to look for it yourself. Why don't you ask God to show you the truth? The ressurection of Jesus Christ would be a good place to start.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

Epistemology, I believe latin for theory of knowledgeDubiousness, again I belive this means doubt.Just a dumb Texan

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

You are right, "comming to knowledge" is difficult, that is why I work at it everyday. Isn't it Great to be able to express ourselves freely. How would it feel to have spent all this time expressing yourself only to have someone delete what you believe before it was posted to this blog. Who knows what the future holds, the sun may not rise tomorrow.

opukanae 6 years, 4 months ago

It is a lack of belief that You believe in so it is a belief. Someone has to believe in it or it would not have come to pass.

6 years, 4 months ago

"isnt athiesm(spelling) a form of belief?"No, it's not, too many people think they know what a atheism is but don't. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismreligionideology/Atheism_is_Not_a_Religion_Ideology_Belief_System_Philosophy.htmhttp://www.atheism101.com/Atheism/DefineAtheist.aspI'm an atheist and really don't care if he says it or not. Yesterday NPR had a spot on this and said that they were not sure George Washington said "so help me god" or not, but think he did. No proof either way.

formulaboats2002 6 years, 4 months ago

Clint, you have a good day, It was a pleasure going over all this with you. Funning thing is, no matter what you or I say. Things will never change. I guess we shall agree to disagree. good day to all

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

I've Heard it and listened. I don't think athiests are stupid, so I listen.

Left_handed 6 years, 4 months ago

The strident atheists like Newdow are pushing their religion (atheism) down everyone's throats. They will only be happy when only atheistic speech is allowed in the public square. That doesn't line up with the first amendment freedoms of religion and speech, however.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

God has spoken to me through his Word, and The Holy Spirit, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That my sins had separated me from God and that he loves me so much that he provided his Son Jesus to pay for my sins so that I could have new life in Christ. To be honest, I don't understand all the reasons that God allows evil to go on in this world.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Well anxiousatheist, at least we agree on the first part of that statement.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

If people are against striking "under God" from the pledge, then I guess it should stay. Lets just add the word "no" in between.

lawthing 6 years, 4 months ago

Give God an Oath and then go against it and find out what the "Wrath of God" can happen to you!

Freestater456 6 years, 4 months ago

He is the president he can say it if he wants if you are against it and you voted for him well maybe you made the wrong choice and if you didn't vote for him well deal with it! It is FOUR FREAKIN WORDS!!! Toughen up buttercup

cw 6 years, 4 months ago

I've been touched by his noodly appendage!

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

I support some form of Wizard Cultist added to both our currency and our Pledge of Allegiance.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

Funny... "so help me God." is actually part of the oath of enlistment for the military. Kinda awkward when your dog tags read (or will read) "No Religious Preference"

RobertMarble 6 years, 4 months ago

wow, hussein is already pi**ing off the nutcase libs who support him....

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Curous, Robert, but do you actually expect to get taken seriously with what you post? Most of the others, I've figured out whether they're genuine fruitcakes or whether they exaggerate everything that they post for effect, but I guess I haven't read enough of yours to tell yet.

JBrosh 6 years, 4 months ago

Where do I begin? First, I think we need a little history lesson. The framers of the Constitution believed strongly in the separation from church and state. What this means is there shouldn't be an installment of religious figures in the government. The United States policy will never be subject to the opinion of the papacy or any other religious body, it will never discriminate agains't religions and will strive to sponsor an environment which fosters religious expression regardless the religion. They DID NOT believe that the government should be run only by men without a belief in God. They offered absolutely ZERO protections in the constitution which allowed for only athiestic men to hold office, in short, separation of church and state was limited to the codified policy of the U.S. Athiestic people claiming that an oath that appeals to God is an infringment on their rights is woefully uninformed thats plain to see, but its also the same type of right infringment they claim to be guarding against. Why cannot a person who believes in God who is about to take an oath to defend and follow the constitution invoke God in order to do so? Do we not want such an oath to be as morally and ethically binding as we possibly can? If there were an athiest who was ellected to public office I would stand for their right to make the oath they wished, but freedom of religion also gives Mr. Obama the right to make the oath he sees fit. Its inappropriate for someone to try and change an oath they aren't asked to give to reflect their rights ignoring the beliefs/rights of the person actually taking the oath. There are so many logical holes in that argument it wouldn't be good even as a coffee filter. Focus on real problems next time, this is pretty weak.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Marion, you should turn your oxegen down, you're clearly hyperventillating.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Maybe I will play the "devil's advocate" today.....

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

For those of you who think Obama has the freedom of speech to say whatever he wants in his oath of office, do you think he can make an oath that would contradict his oath to uphold the Constitution?Example: Oath…I also vow to exterminate groups with whom I don’t politically agree. I promise to not allow women the right to vote. I swear I will stay in office for my entire life. I covenant to ignore the rule of law whenever I think it is necessary. I pledge to create a state religion and hereby outlaw all other religions.The phrase, “so help me God,” carries the implicit covenant that it is God and not the Constitution which is the ultimate authority. While he may believe such is true, the social contract our nation create, the U.S. Constitution, states it is the ultimate authority. Just like the phrase so help me Buddha, would carry the implication that Buddha is the supreme arbiter, and this country’s laws will be enforced with that end in view. Or, “so help me Jeremiah Wright” would carry the same implication as above. If you argue that the phrase “so help me God” are just words and have no meaning, then you are naïve. If you agree the phrase does have a meaning, the question is what meaning does the phrase have, and does the meaning contradict the U.S. Constitution, as the above examples provide?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"No, Jonas; merely lauging my a** off!"That's kind of the point, as you hadn't made even a lucid (much less clever) point that had anything to do with anyone's argument except for perhaps Newdow himself who suddenly became the avatar for "liberals." But okay, if you insist that you were just howling with laughter at your own lack of wit, then I'll accept that.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

No one wants to counter my argument at 9:12 a.m. today? I guess I have convinced everyone Obama doesn't have the right to say the phrase "so help me God" after his oath....

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”That pretty simply explains why the oath does not include the words, AND why he should still be able to say them. According to our Constitution, it would be improper for the government to require the president to swear an oath to God as part of his inauguration. It would be equally improper to prevent him from doing so.[I apologize if someone else already said this - I got about 1/3 of the way through the comments and got tired of reading the same old cr*pola.]

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

anxiousatheist....The President is not Constitutinally prohibited from offending people. So any argument that Obama shouldn't use the phrase "so help me God" after taking the oath of office because he might offend people is moot. The only way to prohibit Obama's free speech rights is to show it is Unconstitutional in some way, not that it is offensive.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

AA...."Taking an oath has nothing to do with free speech, this is your confusion."Then I guess we should discuss whether a phrase such as "so help me God" said immediately after taking the oath of office is de facto part of the oath, or whether it is a separate statement simply said after taking the oath. If it is a separate statement then arguably he has the freedom to speak his mind. If it is de facto part of the oath then it is a more likely a matter of what is Constitutionally permissable. Anyone want to opine?

boltzmann 6 years, 4 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…Then I guess we should discuss whether a phrase such as “so help me God” said immediately after taking the oath of office is de facto part of the oath, or whether it is a separate statement simply said after taking the oath.If it is a separate statement then arguably he has the freedom to speak his mind. If it is de facto part of the oath then it is a more likely a matter of what is Constitutionally permissable.Anyone want to opine?"The issue in the lawsuit is not if Obama adds the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath. Obama isn't named in the lawsuit and the plaintiffs agree that it is within his free speech rights as an individual to do so. (You couldn't tell this from this ill conceived article, but if you look at other coverage it is clear). The issue in the lawsuit is whether the Chief Justice can include the phrase when administering the oath - the logic being that the Chief Justice is the official representative of the Constitution in this ceremony and should stick to the text in the Constitution.The issue of Obama saying the words is a straw man and red herring in this argument.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"So, let's get rid of any reference to anybody's deity as to not offend the millions that don't worship the same one, plain and simple."'to not offend'............'offend'.... That has to be the most overused, misused, full of holy horse pucks word that is tossed around by anyone and everyone with some sort of agenda. How many of us have ever actually been 'offended'? I ask that, of course, with a shocked gasp and hand to my chest. What a crock.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

boltzmann...Thank you for you illumination. I didn't realize the Chief Justice used this phrase when administering the oath. Now there is a much better argument against including those words. So now the questions are;(1) Is the executive oath of office as outlined in the U.S. Constitution the exclusive method allowed?(2) If it is the exclusive method (or even if not) does adding a phrase after administering the oath violate the Constitution?(3) If adding a phrase does not violate the Constitution, would any and all phrases be allowed, or only phrases which don't contradict what is Constitutionally required?

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

Brilliant and witty, Clint. Too bad this is a web site 'cuz stickin' your tongue out would have been as effective.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says… "I agree that Justice Roberts should not include the phrase, because HIS use of the phrase implies that the United States, as a nation, is endorsing God, which is prohibited by our separation of church and state."Technically, the Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It doesn't use the term 'endorsement.' Splitting hairs, perhaps; it could be argued that government endorsement establishes that religion as a state religion, but one might also at least make the argument that a public official mentioning a God already believed in by the majority of the citizenry is not 'establishing' anything - it certainly is not turning the country into a theocracy.Also, not too clear here : Which "God" exactly is being endorsed? Because we already know that Obama is a Christian (again calling into question of whether mentioning that is 'establishing' anything), we of course assume he's talking about that one, but he isn't specifying, is he? Fine folks like anxious-a object to the mention of God based on that A$$umption, when he might indeed be praying for help from Ra, the Sun God.Maybe he's praying to the God of atheists. ;)

Godot 6 years, 4 months ago

Obama stopped his train in Baltimore this afternoon for a huge extravanganza. The preacher who gave the invocation rejoiced in the change we are about to behold, and begged God to bless "The One who will Lead.'And then the crowd was lead in the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase, "under God."Note: Nancy Pelosi did not join in prayer, she laughed and joked during it. That should make the atheists feel better.

Katara 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”That pretty simply explains why the oath does not include the words, AND why he should still be able to say them. According to our Constitution, it would be improper for the government to require the president to swear an oath to God as part of his inauguration. It would be equally improper to prevent him from doing so.[I apologize if someone else already said this - I got about 1/3 of the way through the comments and got tired of reading the same old cr*pola.]~~~~~~~~~~~It may have been said before but you summed it fairly nicely.

Corey Williams 6 years, 4 months ago

I don't know which view is more hilarious. The few atheists who want to remove the phrase, or those who got so upset about the possibility of it being removed.It's another non issue that keeps you all from being upset about the real world.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

Who cares if Obama uses "so help me God" or not! Just as long as he gets sworn in already! Have we ever had a lamer duck president than Bush II? Didn't think so.And Marion, please keep up the Hussein nonsense, since we all know you always use "Walker" when discussing Bush. I'm sure it will continue to help your cracker agenda as much as it did in November --- hahahahaha.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

witchfindergeneral (Anonymous) says… notajayhawk says…“[…] he might indeed be praying for help from Ra, the Sun God.Maybe he's praying to the God of atheists.”No, he's praying to his Imaginary Friend: the white-skinned, bearded, Christian God. However, he may as well pray to your idiotic notion of an atheistic god: the existence of both is equally improbable.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Wow, witchie, some quite impressive A$$umptions there. You, as a personal friend and confidant of Obama's, of course know the physical image the pres-elect has in his head for his deity. And you A$$ume I share that image.For that matter, you A$$ume I believe in God at all - but if you're an example of the type of thinking shared by those who deny the existence of a deity, I would be proud to not be considered in your number.

Corey Williams 6 years, 4 months ago

"And Marion, please keep up the Hussein nonsense, since we all know you always use “Walker” when discussing Bush."George Herbert (ha!) Walker "Texas Ranger" Bush

storm 6 years, 4 months ago

if a president wants to invoke some god or gods or check out horoscopes, to help him or her do a better job, it doesn't matter to me, only to him or her.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

Xtians are so insecure about their religion that they need everyone else to be reminded of it constantly and they need to shove it down others' throats. They have little faith in their religion.Why can't xtians just believe and have that be good enough? Why do they need to bully everyone else with it?

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says… "Xtians are so insecure about their religion that they need everyone else to be reminded of it constantly and they need to shove it down others' throats."Actually, nightmare, it's a small minority of atheists who are the insecure ones trying to impose their views on everyone else. We have one nutjob in California trying to tell the president of the United States he's not allowed to mention a deity that he and the majority of his constituents believe in. Why are atheists so insecure in their beliefs (or lack thereof) that they can't tolerate anyone else even mentioning their own beliefs?

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

Why are xtians so insecure in their religion that they must parade it about at every turn and make everyone in this pluralistic, secular country bow in obeisance to their god, who is supposed to be omnipotent but seems to need constant reinforcement?

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

witchfindergeneral (Anonymous) says… "My assumptions (you should really learn to spell) are safe, nota. Even if they are completely false, they carry more weight than your empty, hypothetical musings. Obama is a Christian and he no doubt imagines his God to resemble the personified image put forth by mainstream Christianity."Um - so, your A$$umptions are "safe" and carry more weight than someone else's "musings," even if "completely false?" Nice little universe you've created in your head.He "no doubt" pictures God the way you describe, witchie? Tell me, since you seem to be able to read other peoples' thoughts - does Mr. Obama really picture his God with white skin? (Do you think he envisions the Apostles as looking and acting like the Rev. Wright?)"I made no such assumptions, nota. I merely discounted the notion of a “God of atheists.” Perhaps your should learn to control your own impulsive and hypocritical “A$$umptions” before projecting your argumentative weaknesses onto me."Hmmm. In retrospect, I did make a faulty assumption - assuming witchie-boy had the intelligence to figure out that the ;) after the phrase "the God of atheists" reflected the fact that it was a joke - an oxymoron, like the oxymoron of the only person making a physical description of a deity is someone claiming not to believe in one. Sadly, oxy is just one of the many morons rampant in these message boards.*******yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says… "Why are xtians so insecure in their religion that they must parade it about at every turn and make everyone in this pluralistic, secular country bow in obeisance to their god, who is supposed to be omnipotent but seems to need constant reinforcement?"Why is it that atheists are so insecure in their beliefs (or lack thereof) that they can't tolerate someone else saying "God" (God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God)? That they're so frightened that they're wrong that they just can't allow anyone to verbalize an opinion that challenges their beliefs (or lack thereof)? That in this pluralistic country, founded by people seeking a place to practice their religion without being persecuted for it, they can't allow others to say whatever the F they want? Why is it that the tiny little insignificant fringe like Mr. Newdow cry and whine about being forced to adhere to someone else's views while they're standing in a courtroom trying to force everyone else to adhere to theirs?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Why is it that both of last two posters on both sides of the argument consider both posters and small referenced examples to be wholly representative of their larger groups in question? Simply unable to deal with more complexity than that?

Corey Williams 6 years, 4 months ago

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.Matthew 6:6

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

jonas_opines;Why ask why?I can't speak for those on the other side of the argument - as for my own, I apologize if it appeared I painted with too wide a brish, I was attempting to point out the foolishness of nightmare's characterization of "xtians" by replying with some equally broad generalizations about atheists.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk: That was how it appeared from my perspective, and having talked to you a number of times, but surely you realize that all you accomplish with that particular method is cheapening your own position, ne?

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

Xtians have the need to push their beliefs on others by demanding the inclusion of homages to their beliefs in public events.No such proselytizing is done by atheists or other non-xtian religions.Check that. This is something that xtians and muslims have in common; the need to force everyone to bow to their beliefs.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

I should note that this extends to the headline author as well as the column author as well. They both use atheists, and in one case a "group" of atheists, that share this belief, but in the content of the article there is only one, Newdow himself. The headline author doesn't even bother with "a group," and the omission implies that all atheists would hold this position. I know a number of atheists (am married to one), and all of them think this is a ridiculous waste of time and energy for something totally unimportant in the larger scale of things, even if Newdow is right.And frankly, he probably is. Certainly he was in the pledge issue, from an objective standpoint.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

The key here is public events; events sponsored by a secular government meant to represent and be inclusive of all people and all beliefs.Certainly, in private ceremonies and in churches anyone is free to say whatever they wish.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

The exclusion of references to a god or any particular belief is not the same as pushing an "atheist agenda".They are apples and oranges. Omission is not equivalent to commission.Now, if we forced everyone to renounce their belief in any god during these ceremonies, that would be a different story.I would be just as opposed to that as to what xtians force us to do now.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

I find all the references to this country being a secular nation amusing. This country has never been a secular nation. The founding fathers were unquestionably and overwhelmingly theists. Yes, they took great pains to prevent the establishment of a state religion, but that was not to deny the existence of God; the very reason they came here was to have the freedom to practice the religion of their choice without a government telling them they can't. Spin it any way you want, say that keeping any mention of God out of anything public or government sponsored is not pushing an atheist agenda - it is still the exact same government restriction of the free expression of religious beliefs that our forefathers founded this country to escape.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 4 months ago

Omitting a reference to a god in an official ceremony is not equivalent to "pushing and atheist agenda"."Pushing an atheist agenda" would be to have an official declaration during a public ceremony that there is no god and that religion is stupid.This is not the case here and has never happened. If it did, I would be as opposed to it as to xtians forcing their religion onto public ceremony.Individuals can express whatever beliefs they want in a public ceremony. For example, Obama could thank god on is own time in his remarks at the public ceremony.References to god should not be a part of the public ceremony, however.This again points to a fundamental insecurity of xtians with their religion. They must have constant reinforcement, and any attempts to stop this constant reinforcement are met with resistance.The idea of an "atheist agenda" is part of this response, a paranoid delusion to make xtians feel martyred and to give reinforcement to their shaky faith in their own religion.

fuel_for_the_fire 6 years, 4 months ago

yourworstnighmare says "Individuals can express whatever beliefs they want in a public ceremony".Exactly; glad you are finally getting it.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

witchfindergeneral (Anonymous) says… "The last time I checked, nota, your cute little “; )” was not the definitive, universal signifier for anything"Excuse me, witchie, I didn't realize I was dealing with such a newb. They're called emoticons, witchie, you might also from time to time have seen :) or :( or something more exotic like <8-D . You see, witchie, a large part of interpersonal communication is non-verbal, and in a text-only environment such as this one where such things as cadence and tone are unavailable, that's the only way someone might signify something to the effect of not to be taken literally. But I apologize for, once again, giving you much more credit than deserved.Here, let me try again, just for you:Maybe he's praying to the God of atheists. (Attention, attention, attention, witchfindergeneral and anyone else who may be equally limited in their capacity to communicate online: That was not, repeat NOT, to be taken literally, it was sarcasm!)There, better, witchie?"You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite and, as such, unworthy of my attention."Followed immediately by another post addressed to me. Um, witchie, at least you can spell hypocrite - wanna' take a moment to look up the definition?"I'm an agnostic, not an atheist."Perfect. You can argue so vehemently one side of an issue when you're not even sure where you stand. Pretty hard to argue with that, you win the prize, witchie.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.