Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural

[Larry]

My own opinion:

1) Doesn't bother me a bit. I could care less.

2) Unlike, say, the "under God" in the Pledge, I'm not aware of those words ever being inserted by Congress, for the purpose or promoting a religion. (Don't really know where they did come from, but that's another matter.) No objection, here.

3) OTOH, I'll admit that I have some trouble figuring out the difference between that phrase and, say, a cross in a city's seal. In both cases, it's a religious reference in a government place. A government endorsement, if you will.

Unless there's some other reason it's there.

For example, I see no problem with the inauguration having religious speakers. Because as far as I'm aware, every one of them was invited by the President. And IMO, one of the "fringe benefits" that comes with being President is that you get to pick who you loan your Presidential microphone to.

If the President wants to have Joe Gibbs open his inauguration, then well, it's his nickel.

[Larry]

I welcome intelligent debate.

If you did, you'd be stating your position, instead of trying to come up with excuses for why you don't have to.

[Larry]

But while we are on the subject, you can probably infer from my question alone where I sit on the subject, as I can with you.

Of course I can. Because about 14,000 other people have tried the same bogus argument that you're too ashamed of to even own up to.

They were full of it, then, too.

Which is why you're hiding from their position. It's why they hid from the same position, before you.

What does it say about a man's position, that he's ashamed to state it?

G'night.

[Portis26MVP]

My own opinion:

1) Doesn't bother me a bit. I could care less.

2) Unlike, say, the "under God" in the Pledge, I'm not aware of those words ever being inserted by Congress, for the purpose or promoting a religion. (Don't really know where they did come from, but that's another matter.) No objection, here.

3) OTOH, I'll admit that I have some trouble figuring out the difference between that phrase and, say, a cross in a city's seal. In both cases, it's a religious reference in a government place. A government endorsement, if you will.

Unless there's some other reason it's there.

For example, I see no problem with the inauguration having religious speakers. Because as far as I'm aware, every one of them was invited by the President. And IMO, one of the "fringe benefits" that comes with being President is that you get to pick who you loan your Presidential microphone to.

If the President wants to have Joe Gibbs open his inauguration, then well, it's his nickel.

Now that wasn't hard was it???

You and I are on the same page; we agree for the most part.

My reasoning for asking the question in the first place because Sebowski asked about the "term" "separation of church and state".

My question is: What "term"? It is only a term that was conjured up by a small minority that want to push their beliefs (or lack thereof) on the vast majority of the American public.

The Constitution states that there shall be no establishment of religion and no infringement upon anyone who wants to practice their religion in the public square. It does not protect one FROM religion.

Regarding your example of a city with a cross in their city symbol (Las Cruces, New Mexico, I presume), I don't think that this constituional protection would exist considering that it is a local government; I might be wrong.

If that were to be the case, then the name Los Angeles would be unconstitutional.

Maybe Dr Nadow can sue that city next!!!

I am glad we came to a common ground here, and welcome further debate with you.

[Bacon]

My own opinion:

1) Doesn't bother me a bit. I could care less.

2) Unlike, say, the "under God" in the Pledge, I'm not aware of those words ever being inserted by Congress, for the purpose or promoting a religion. (Don't really know where they did come from, but that's another matter.) No objection, here.

3) OTOH, I'll admit that I have some trouble figuring out the difference between that phrase and, say, a cross in a city's seal. In both cases, it's a religious reference in a government place. A government endorsement, if you will.

Unless there's some other reason it's there.

For example, I see no problem with the inauguration having religious speakers. Because as far as I'm aware, every one of them was invited by the President. And IMO, one of the "fringe benefits" that comes with being President is that you get to pick who you loan your Presidential microphone to.

If the President wants to have Joe Gibbs open his inauguration, then well, it's his nickel.

Ultimately, this debate raises three important questions:

1. Is Jefferson's idea of "separation of church and state" applicable to this situation?

2. How can the state be seen as supporting (re: sponsoring) one religion over another in this situation?

3. Assuming that the answer to #1 is "yes", does the phrase in question pose enough potential harm to the nation as a whole to warrant an action of some kind against said phrase?

#2 is the most open to debate. Is the state sponsoring a religion by allowing "so help me God" to be spoken in the oath? It's a tough call, because "God" is an awfully vague name. "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "God of the Bible", etc. are not spoken, just God, which is about as broad as you can get without removing it entirely. It's also a part of our history and culture. Just the same, folks are offended by it, which is a fair and understandable stance.

[Portis26MVP]

#2 is the most open to debate. Is the state sponsoring a religion by allowing "so help me God" to be spoken in the oath? It's a tough call, because "God" is an awfully vague name. "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "God of the Bible", etc. are not spoken, just God, which is about as broad as you can get without removing it entirely. It's also a part of our history and culture. Just the same, folks are offended by it, which is a fair and understandable stance.

Great post...

The word God alone does not alone constitute an establishment of religion. Furthermore, if one looks back to why the English settlers came over here in the first place was because of a tyrannical approach by King George III and the Church of England (a definite state sponsored religion). They wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church and state" was to simply to protect one's religion being held into higher account than someone else's (say Catholic over Jew, etc.).

[Bacon]

Great post...

The word God alone does not alone constitute an establishment of religion. Furthermore, if one looks back to why the English settlers came over here in the first place was because of a tyrannical approach by King George III and the Church of England (a definite state sponsored religion). They wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church and state" was to simply to protect one's religion being held into higher account than someone else's (say Catholic over Jew, etc.).

The curious thing about this case, is that the religion being protected is indeed a lack thereof. I've heard atheism referred to as a religion unto itself, which I think is a load of garbage (although I have conversed with a few incredibly zealous atheists that were adamant in their Misotheism that seemed religious in that area). However, on a practical level, they have a point. Should believers be placed on a higher pedestal than unbelievers in the eyes of the state? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, especially in this case when the phrase in question is, in my opinion, rather innocuous, but it's still a question worth asking.

Now, what are the pros and cons of keeping the phrase or removing it from the oath?

In my opinion, the only fair compromise would be to allow the president-elect to make the choice. They're being sworn in, and whatever image of America they want to project will inevitably be projected to the rest of the world through their actions anyway. Why not personalize it a bit? If they're a man of faith, those four words will add emphasis to the oath. If they're an atheist, they would look like a hypocrite saying them. Plus, it could make for an amusing moment when a supposedly born-again president-elect refuses to say "so help me God" and shows his true colors in front of the nation at large.

[Bang]

I guess this is one of those "vocal minority" and they arent the real athiests who just want to "live and let live"....

Yeah, because a handful of people speak for all of us.

So while we're on the subject of painting with broad strokes, are all you religious types finally going to stop molesting young children this year?

And don't even tell me that it's only just a few perverts, because you yourself clearly believe that a few people represent everyone.

So enough with the young boys, k?

Meanwhile..

This is what I don't really get. If you believe in God, than those particular words have meaning and are nice. If you don't believe in God... they're harmless. Why would people fight and sue to rid themselves of some quaint harmless expression. It makes me think the atheists protest to much.

i love your remarks burgold....that pretty much sums up how it is.

make up your mind. I mean really, is what Burgold said so different than "most of us want to live and let live"?

Clue: Most of us think what Burgold said is the way it should be, too. And because a dozen or two people sign a damn lawsuit petition, it doesn't mean we all think it's a good idea.

~Bang

[redskins4life234]

The so help me god does not need to be said. The process never said it has to be said. George Washington said it, and through it set a precedent. Its nothing a President has to say, but just are cause everyone has said it since Washington has. So I dont see how legal action could be taken. The President is just using his freedom to speech to add on an extra comment that is said by will and does not need to be said.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The Tyrany of the Easily Offended.

What a freakin joke.

[techboy]

(I'd also suggest that simply quoting, in entirety, someone else's post, without a single comment of your own whatsoever, will only delay the inevitable.)

He actually did comment in each of his posts. He just totally botched the quote feature, so that his comment is buried inside the text he's quoting. You didn't miss much, he just called you stupid, though in slightly more indirect terms.

[Sebowski]

Aaaaaaand, it continues to hold true. :applause:

*

Moving on, if someone can explain to me how that phrase constitutes Congress establishing a state religion, I'll gladly jump onboard.

It isn't about establishing anything. It is about keeping religion out of government.

[techboy]

It isn't about establishing anything. It is about keeping religion out of government.

That's a pretty high standard.

[Sebowski]

You are right in your post, and I wholeheartedly agree, but when one asks the question I did, nobody is ever willing to give a straight answer, because they can't defend it. It does not exist.

I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place unless a previous post hadn't cited it beforehand.

I did not mention the constitution once. Go catch a different fish. This one ain't biting.

[BigMike619]

Yeah, because a handful of people speak for all of us.

So while we're on the subject of painting with broad strokes, are all you religious types finally going to stop molesting young children this year?

And don't even tell me that it's only just a few perverts, because you yourself clearly believe that a few people represent everyone.

So enough with the young boys, k?

Meanwhile..

make up your mind. I mean really, is what Burgold said so different than "most of us want to live and let live"?

Clue: Most of us think what Burgold said is the way it should be, too. And because a dozen or two people sign a damn lawsuit petition, it doesn't mean we all think it's a good idea.

~Bang

im glad you got wind of my comments bang because i meant them strictly for you. you are always trying to tell me how athiests just want to live and let live but every time there is an article it seems like its the athiests who are trying to dictate what is said and what isnt.

i also dont really care if you understand what i meant to burgold or not. you like to sit up on your perch and try to point out the faults of others while not accepting that you may have some of your own. what burgold was saying (or how i took it) was that athiests should just leave it alone because it has nothing to do with them. it has to do with obama and he has said he was a christian many times so some athiest coming out and trying to get it removed just shows what an ******* he is.

you sure did get butt hurt about what i said though...but you are still trying to stick to your guns and act like i am saying that all athiests are like this when i didnt say it once. i just quoted you and you ran with it.

[Bang]

im glad you got wind of my comments bang because i meant them strictly for you.

No kidding. Quoting me practically directly from a two week old thread> I would have never guessed.

you are always trying to tell me how athiests just want to live and let live but every time there is an article it seems like its the athiests who are trying to dictate what is said and what isnt. also dont really care if you understand what i meant to burgold or not.

Yes, BigMike, as hard as it is to understand, a handful of rabble does not speak for the majority of us.

As for what Burgold said, he pretty much said that people should live and let live, and as an atheist, I'll tell you that is how the overwhelming majority of us think. Just ask any atheist you know. Go for it. I am sure one or two may say "well, it shouldn't be in there", but I would bet my bottom dollar that not one of them will go out with a bullhorn and try to change any of it. No petitions, no lawsuit. Id bet again that if you ask ten atheists, you'll get ten versions of "I don't think it's that big of a deal" for your answer.

Remember a few months you told me directly that because I don't believe in God, my opinion on religion is not valid? Well ditto for you on the non-belief aspect. You see a few loudmouths on TV, and you assume, you're convinced that the majority are spoken for by them.

As I said then, if that is how you view it, then by your own narrow viewpoint, you are directly represented by sexual deviant priests, Rev. Wright, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Fred Phelps. I can't see how a few loonies don't speak for all of you,, can you?

you like to sit up on your perch and try to point out the faults of others while not accepting that you may have some of your own.

Tell you what, You find MY name on any of these petitions, and I'll bake you a big fat birthday cake.

If in fact you find more than a handful of names on any of these things, again, big fat birthday cake.

But you won't. You'll find the usual suspects, the same rabble rousers who do this stuff year in and year out. You know, kind of like those lawyers who pretend to speak for all Native Americans and try to get our football team to change its name. Stupid Indians. We should have wiped them out while we had the chance. I mean they obviously ALL hate us,, even though every poll ever taken says overwhelmingly that they don't find the name "Redskins" offensive.. but hey,, there's 7 lawyers who do, so they most certainly speak for everyone, right?

We've had thread after thread on that subject, and you see how it goes every time. Lawsuit does not = majority opinion.

what burgold was saying (or how i took it) was that athiests should just leave it alone because it has nothing to do with them.

Well, far be it from me to point out that it does concern us, becausec like it or not, its our country too. But, as I've said ad-nauseum, most of us simply don't see it as a big deal, and just want to live our lives.

it has to do with obama and he has said he was a christian many times so some athiest coming out and trying to get it removed just shows what an ******* he is.

Right, I suppose you missed the part of the article that states he has tried this lawsuit in the previous TWO elections?

You know, before Obama was Obama?

Here's the deal, fact on the table.

Someone drops a lawsuit on just about every single 'church and state' issue there is, no matter how ridiculous. Without fail. Someone tries to change the status quo every Christmas, someone tries to change the pledge every school year.

Now, don't you think that if it was ALL OF US wanting these changes, or even the majority of us, there'd be a little more news over it?

You ever seen an Atheist march on Washington? Ever seen an Atheist protest with any numbers at all?

You know why?

Because the majority of us just want to be left alone to live our lives.

you sure did get butt hurt about what i said though...but you are still trying to stick to your guns and act like i am saying that all athiests are like this when i didnt say it once. i just quoted you and you ran with it.

Well, if you believe that the majority of atheists are not like this, then why get your panties SO crinkled when I tell you that? You quote me telling you something you now say you believe yourself, but decided to "run with it" anyway? (For ****s and grins, I'll pretend that makes some semblance of sense.)

SO to sum up, you believe the same thing I do.

I'm glad we finally agree.

~Bang

[PleaseBlitz]

Agreeing with Bang, let me just say that, as an agnostic, i find the hard-core atheists that ***** about every little thing just as annoying as the hard core religious people that ***** about every little thing.

[NavyDave]

It should be removed. I don't know what is so hard about the term "separation of church and state".

Because liberals take the term to mean something that it isn't. Now if the Government plans on Establishing a Church as was the case in Virginia centuries ago thats one thing.

Yet those who basically snivel want to incrementally eliminate God so they can blur the line of morality since its not fun to be told what is right and what is wrong.

[SUSkinsFan]

Because liberals take the term to mean something that it isn't. Now if the Government plans on Establishing a Church as was the case in Virginia centuries ago thats one thing.

wrong

Yet those who basically snivel want to incrementally eliminate God so they can blur the line of morality since its not fun to be told what is right and what is wrong.

also wrong

[NavyDave]

Can you cite the part that says "so help me God"?

:halo:

Can you site the part where it says its ok to kill babies in the womb

[NavyDave]

There is no way in He11 that Obama is not going to say it. He isn't going to lose his brutha card to please a handful of the self centered.

People should know that since he doesn't hide the fact he was brought up in the Black Church where a lot of his local voters were bringing in New Years Day.

[Larry]

Because liberals take the term to mean something that it isn't. Now if the Government plans on Establishing a Church as was the case in Virginia centuries ago thats one thing.

Yet those who basically snivel want to incrementally eliminate God so they can blur the line of morality since its not fun to be told what is right and what is wrong.

Can you site the part where it says its ok to kill babies in the womb

Has your erratic frequency of posting, lately, been due to an excessive number of keyboard failures? Haven't you found a source for spittle-resistant ones?

[ACW]

Because liberals take the term to mean something that it isn't. Now if the Government plans on Establishing a Church as was the case in Virginia centuries ago thats one thing.

Yet those who basically snivel want to incrementally eliminate God so they can blur the line of morality since its not fun to be told what is right and what is wrong.

Yes, because atheists are immoral and religion is the only source of morality. Those abortion-clinic bombers and 9/11 hijackers sure are moral :halo:

[Thiebear]

Yes, because atheists are immoral and religion is the only source of morality. Those abortion-clinic bombers and 9/11 hijackers sure are moral :halo:

I wouldnt Argue with NavyDave, the blurring of morality is the reason for removing God from money, the roof of the Scotus and this pledge.

Because we've fixed: Abortion, Murder, Rape, child abuse, and horribly mistreating old people and the mentally challenged.

Before we start accusing the 6% Atheist group out here, I'd put some of those COMMANDMENTS into play a bit and clean up your own house before pedi.. err i mean coming after us.

[redskins4life234]

I'll say this again,

It can't be removed, because no where in the Constitution does it say it has to be said.

George Washington, said it during his first inauguration, and every president after said it, therefore meaning Washington set a Precedent. Every President has said it, because they are now following a tradition that Washington set.

Saying 'so help me god' is the same thing has a President setting up a Cabinet. No where in the constitution does it say the president needs to have one. But Washington did it, thus setting a precedent.

So for the people arguing this and that about religion, and this and that about separation of state and church, when the President has said 'So help me God' no one is forcing him too, he is simply just following an unwritten tradition, set forth by George Washington. He is no required to say it, therefore no lawsuit should be able to stop that. If if a law does pass, I would argue that law is unconstitutional and takes away from the Elected President's freedom of speech.