Atheists want God taken out of Obama inaugeration

[Raziaar]

*SNIP*

Exactly!

 

[Solaris]

^This

The new president of the "land of the free". Oh the irony if the atheists succeed.

My position is this.

Religion should play no role and have no mention in state ceremonies.

Obama will be the president of all Americans. America is the only country in the world to have a constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. By making the ceremony religious it would be endorsing the religion as official to some extent and excluding Americans who did not endorse that religion.

It's divisive, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

 

[cleverendeavouR]

The separation of church and state has to do with the state staying out of the churches affairs, and the country NOT declaring a national religion. If he wants to pray, let him do it. If he wants to say "So help me God", who cares. It's not changing your life any.

 

[Krynn72]

It also has to do with the church staying out of the nation's affair. While I cant say this is a worthy fight on the part of the people suing over this, I do believe that no government official, especially the president, should bring his religious commentary into official business of the government.

 

[cleverendeavouR]

It's not like he's telling you what to do.

 

[Krynn72]

No, but its also not exactly a pro-separation of church and state message either.

 

[Qonfused]

itt molehills, mountains, etc

 

[Eejit]

if obama want's, let him do it, but "so help me god" should not be an enforced rule.

It isn't.

So unless you want to restrict freedom of speech of all politicians so they can't ever mention religion it's ridiculous to try and go to this kind of length under the banner of "seperation of church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It isn't establishing religion to mention ones religion, preventing a person from doing so abridges freedom of speech.

People say things you don't want them to, live with it.

 

[Escaep]

It isn't.

So unless you want to restrict freedom of speech of all politicians so they can't ever mention religion it's ridiculous to try and go to this kind of length under the banner of "seperation of church and state".



It isn't establishing religion to mention ones religion, preventing a person from doing so abridges freedom of speech.

People say things you don't want them to, live with it.

This.

I think many people here are thinking too much about this. All I am guessing for is that Obama is asking God for protection and the strength to carry out the presidency. What I think some people here are interpreting that as is:

"Hey Biden, pull out the Bible and look up what it says about how people should be taxed."

"But Mr. President, the Bible doesn't say anything about taxes."

"Oh, well, guess I can't do anything about it then."

 

[Tagaziel]

This is quite probably the stupidest move in the American atheist movement EVER.

 

[Krynn72]

There is no such thing as an American atheist movement.

But yeah, its dumb.

 

[Pesmerga]

America is the only country in the world to have a constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.

No, wrong. There is nothing in the constitution that says such. Go look.

 

[CptStern]

yes the first amendment to the constitution clearly says:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

the interpretation to this open for discussion. this is why this attorney is taking legal action. otherwise he has no case. he's hoping to challenge the current interpretation of this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ..by saying "jesus" or allah or flying spaghetti monster he could argue that the politician in question is "establishing religion in government". What a person says is covered by free speech so I dont think think he has much of a case here unless he was able to prove that the inaugragation "establishes religion" in any way no matter how minute. again lawsuits like this is more for testing the waters than a serious attempt to change Obama's speech

 

[jet_porkins]

The separation of church and state has to do with the state staying out of the churches affairs, and the country NOT declaring a national religion. If he wants to pray, let him do it. If he wants to say "So help me God", who cares. It's not changing your life any.

Seconded.

 

[CptStern]

The separation of church and state has to do with the state staying out of the churches affairs, and the country NOT declaring a national religion. If he wants to pray, let him do it. If he wants to say "So help me God", who cares. It's not changing your life any.

no offense but this is completely meaningless in the context of this case. The attorney obviously feels he has enough of a case to present it to a judge. So "letting him do it" or "if he wants" is completely besides the point. it never fails to amaze me how many people fail to get the argument in a discussion and just argue whatever it is they want to argue. I chock it up to not reading the article provided. it seems some people cant get past the title

 

[cleverendeavouR]

You're taking the second amendment out of context though.

Not only that, you're taking away an American tradition. Whether you want to deny it or not we're a Christian nation built on Christian values. We're also a nation built on freedom and to say another person can't say the word God is just ridiculous. Why don't we tell everyone that they can't say? We can become just like China and kill people over it.

This guy has been suing people before for silly things, I'm sure this isn't going to go far.

 

[Pesmerga]

The tradition to say "So help me God" while being sworn into office isn't law, it's an expression of the first amendment. So CptStern has no case.

 

[CptStern]

You're taking the second amendment out of context though.

no I'm not. the second amendment is the right to bear arms, the first is the guarentee against government establishment of religion

Not only that, you're taking away an American tradition. Whether you want to deny it or not we're a Christian nation built on Christian values.

most law is based around judeo-christian values and traditions, your point is moot

We're also a nation built on freedom and to say another person can't say the word God is just ridiculous.

again you dont understand the issue at all if that's your conclusion. yes people have a right to say what they want (within reason, not all speech is protected) however that isnt at issue here

Why don't we tell everyone that they can't say? We can become just like China and kill people over it.

alarmist reaction is alarmist. that's not what they're saying here. please for your own sake read the material provided

This guy has been suing people before for silly things, I'm sure this isn't going to go far.

relevancy?

The tradition to say "So help me God" while being sworn into office isn't law, it's an expression of the first amendment. So CptStern has no case.

what case? I havent made a case for the atheists I just explained what motivated them. really you see what you want to see pesmerga

 

[cleverendeavouR]

Sorry I did mean the first amendment.

Secondly the acticle is about an atheist taking legal action to get the words "so help me God" out of Obama's speech. I'm not sure exactly what I'm missing here since I did read the article and the rest of this thread.

 

[Pesmerga]

what case? I havent made a case for the atheists I just explained what motivated them. really you see what you want to see pesmerga

You said the government could stand to be more secular- I'm not entirely sure which parts of the constitution are directly religious. Laws being religiously based? Popular vote. People being religious? That's their choice.

Whenever you say "the government" I have this itching feeling you think of the entire thing as a singular cohesive machine- it's composed of a group of people who are by majority white, rich, and well educated people. The majority of said people are Catholic or otherwise of Christian denominations. When you say you want the government to be less religious, you are asking for people to be less religious.

which is perfectly fine, but that is a topic of education and the reinforcement of critical thought. This attorney doesn't have any grounds for his case, and anybody who thinks forcing people to use less religious vocabulary will somehow change their own beliefs is ****ing retarded.

 

[CptStern]

Secondly the acticle is about an atheist taking legal action to get the words "so help me God" out of Obama's speech. I'm not sure exactly what I'm missing here since I did read the article and the rest of this thread.

free speech is protected meaning he couldnt sue, so obviously it's not a case of freedom of speech

 

[CptStern]

You said the government could stand to be more secular-

yes but that doesnt mean I support this particular case

I'm not entirely sure which parts of the constitution are directly religious. Laws being religiously based? Popular vote. People being religious? That's their choice.

Whenever you say "the government" I have this itching feeling you think of the entire thing as a singular cohesive machine- it's composed of a group of people who are by majority white, rich, and well educated people. The majority of said people are Catholic or otherwise of Christian denominations. When you say you want the government to be less religious, you are asking for people to be less religious.

no, I'd rather the government was less influenced by religion ..just look at states that ban same sex marriage; it's for religious reasons. or legislation to curtail stem cell research or laws that attempt to ban abortion: all motivated by religion. No one would argue that abortion is banned in certain states due to hard scientific facts

which is perfectly fine, but that is a topic of education and the reinforcement of critical thought. This attorney doesn't have any grounds for his case, and anybody who thinks forcing people to use less religious vocabulary will somehow change their own beliefs is ****ing retarded.

he's not forcing anyone. what he wants is to change the inaugural oath ..it's up to him to prove that the oath is "establishing" a particular religious ideology. If it goes to trial then anyone saying "he shouldnt" has no case whatsoever because obviously a judge sees there's enough merit in the case to be heard in front of a court

 

[Neutrino]

You're taking the second amendment out of context though.

How exactly?

Not only that, you're taking away an American tradition. Whether you want to deny it or not we're a Christian nation built on Christian values.

A practice being a tradition is not, in and of itself, justification for it's continuation. Slavery was once an american tradition. If you really want to look at it, cultural traditions have been one of the major obstacles standing in the way of social progress for centuries, in this country and others. This is why it usually takes the death of a generation to see significant social change.

I'm not saying tradition is bad per se. It's a social tool that humans have used since tribal times to help stabilize cultures and enforce social rules. But blindly following tradition at a national level just for the sake of it being tradition is silly.

The idea that "we're a Christian nation built on Christian values" is held by a lot of people, but honestly the statement is incredibly vague and misleading. Christians do not, and never have had, a monopoly on morality. The social and moral structure behind the rules and law of our government are not fundamentally or exclusively christian in nature. Yes, many resemble religious morals, but that has more to do with the fact that most religions have tried to adopt morality is their own invention, when in fact the basic social structure of morality and cultural laws have existed longer than all the modern day religions. (I'm sure I'll get lots of flak for that one, heh)

We're also a nation built on freedom and to say another person can't say the word God is just ridiculous. Why don't we tell everyone that they can't say? We can become just like China and kill people over it.

This guy has been suing people before for silly things, I'm sure this isn't going to go far.

I think you missed the point. This is not an issue of freedom of speech. It's an issue of a government (embodied by a person) using a reference to a god in an oath to a public office.

Again, I'll reiterate that yes, it's a silly thing to oppose at face value. Yes, by itself it is quite insignificant. But that's not the point. The issue is the existence of religion in government on a larger scale. Where one chooses to address that issue, whether it be a small reference or a large influence, is mostly irrelavent.

 

[Eejit]

It isn't part of the oath though. It's something that by tradition some presidents say after taking the oath actual. It's a post-script they can choose to say or not. Therefore if the president chooses to say it it's a case of freedom of speech.

Stern saying it isn't a question of freedom of speech simply because it's going to be heard by a judge is silly, it's being heard by a judge who will then rule whether it's a case of freedom of speech or seperation of church and state, and the conclusion is foregone.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

God, does it really matter? Here in Britain we have a state church, and yet there is a severe lack of caring.

 

[Pesmerga]

God

hay nao

 

[Krynn72]

I'm not sure exactly what I'm missing here since I did read the article and the rest of this thread.

You're not missing anything, you're just misinterpreting the issue. Its not about freedom of speach. If Obama wants to talk about god and his religion on his own time, nobody is going to stop him. The issue here however is that hes saying it during his inauguration into the presidency, and apparently some people believe that it is working against the idea of separation of church and state, which would be unconstitutional. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it really.

EDIT: @ Eejit, thats a fine line to walk. A case could very easily be made that "concluding" the oath with those words, makes those words part of the oath. If he were to make a speech afterwards or something, and say it then, it would then be a much more clearly defined issue of freedom of speech.

 

[CptStern]

It isn't part of the oath though. It's something that by tradition some presidents say after taking the oath actual. It's a post-script they can choose to say or not. Therefore if the president chooses to say it it's a case of freedom of speech.

Stern saying it isn't a question of freedom of speech simply because it's going to be heard by a judge is silly,

that's not at all what I'm saying ..if it goes to court obviously there's enough evidence to bring it to court in the first place. that's what preliminary proceedings are for. I didnt say the case had merit simply because it was to be heard by a judge.


Anyways it's been decided for us:

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton turned down a request from a group of atheists and agnostics to force Chief Justice John Roberts not to add those words to the 35-word inaugural oath outlined in the Constitution.

Walton also complained about the lateness of the filing, saying that there was not enough time to get the case litigated and appealed before next week?s inauguration. He didn?t throw the case out, however, instead only refusing to order changes for the inauguration.

he refused on the grounds that it wouldnt have enough time to be heard. Did he have much of a case? I really couldnt care less. all I've been doing is explaining his stance, dont mistake that for agreeing with it




@ Kyrnn: yes you put it far simpler/understandable that I ever could, thanks

 

[PvtRyan]

Hey guys, I have a molehill here, wanna make a mountain of it?

Government shouldn't be free of religion, it's not a machine, it's a composition of people who happen to be largely religious. What I don't want is government making decisions that are based on religion, or on any other kind of subjective viewpoints for that matter. I don't want an atheist government, I want a government of reason. I wouldn't mind having an astrologer as the director of NASA, as long as he does his damn job and keeps his personal viewpoints, just that: personal.

The irony of your obnoxious pushiness is amusing though.

Read this by Sam Harris:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

 

[CptStern]

Hey guys, I have a molehill here, wanna make a mountain of it?

they're testing the constitutional waters ..they also tried to remove "god" from the pledge of alligience ..this is just another salvo in their war against religion in government (as they see it, not me)

Government shouldn't be free of religion, it's not a machine, it's a composition of people who happen to be largely religious.

you think? most politicians have a background in law ..lawyers are as far removed from religion as is possible, unless they're worshiping satan which is very likely seeing as they're lawyers

What I don't want is government making decisions that are based on religion, or on any other kind of subjective viewpoints for that matter. I don't want an atheist government, I want a government of reason.

so do I however I'll admit I dont think I'd vote into office say a creationist ..I mean we have to draw the line somewhere

I wouldn't mind having an astrologer as the director of NASA, as long as he does his damn job and keeps his personal viewpoints, just that: personal.

unfortunately that doesnt always happen:

?We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming (of jesus) is at hand? - James Watts Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan

 

[nerdcorerocks]

... or laws that attempt to ban abortion: all motivated by religion. No one would argue that abortion is banned in certain states due to hard scientific facts

off topic, but...if it's not science, it doesn't automatically mean because it's religion. i would believe that there are atheists out there who would ban abortion, because it is a question of morality.

do i believe that people shouldn't kill people they don't like only because i'm a christian?...short answer is "no"

 

[CptStern]

off topic, but...if it's not science, it doesn't automatically mean because it's religion. i would believe that there are atheists out there who would ban abortion, because it is a question of morality.

christian morality. the only reason it's a moral issue is the question of at what point is a fetus a human. Christians contend that it's at the moment of conception so abortion at any point after that is murder. Science and medicine obviously doesnt see it that way.

 

[Eejit]

EDIT: @ Eejit, thats a fine line to walk. A case could very easily be made that "concluding" the oath with those words, makes those words part of the oath.

I disagree. Look at how the constitution puts it:

In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
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 oath may be sworn or affirmed. Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it has become a standard practice for modern presidents to add "so help me God" at the end of the oath.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

 

[cleverendeavouR]

off topic, but...if it's not science, it doesn't automatically mean because it's religion. i would believe that there are atheists out there who would ban abortion, because it is a question of morality.


christian morality. the only reason it's a moral issue is the question of at what point is a fetus a human. Christians contend that it's at the moment of conception so abortion at any point after that is murder. Science and medicine obviously doesnt see it that way.

That's really not true. I know plenty of people who don't believe in God and have a problem with abortion.

 

[half-ben]

I'm atheist and I don't have a problem with seeing churches or seeing holy buildings being constructed or my county being a christian nation or the queen talking about religion etc etc, as long as I am allowed to believe what i believe then I have no problem with religion

 

[CptStern]

That's really not true. I know plenty of people who don't believe in God and have a problem with abortion.

what are their reasons?

 

[Pesmerga]

Life isn't just valued by Christians, but by the overwhelming majority of humans?

 

[CptStern]

but science says it's not life so does medicine; it's just a collection of cells. so if they want to believe it is despite facts well then that says something about them now doesnt it

 

[nerdcorerocks]

obviously this is veering off into a different thread, but it's a collection of cells that will soon turn into a human. some people value the health of those collection of cells.

 

[CptStern]

obviously this is veering off into a different thread, but it's a collection of cells that will soon turn into a human. some people value the health of those collection of cells.

so they can start caring when it's human