techboy Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 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. Interestingly, the lawsuit doesn't target Obama because they acknowledge this point. They're suing everybody but Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 So for the people arguing this and that about religion, and this and that about separation of state and church, ... In this thread there is exactly one person arguing this from a separation standpoint (Sebowski). Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, has said it's no big deal. (Except Navy Dave, who took the opportunity to yet again tell the world how much he hates liberals and he thinks the godless will ruin his world with immoral behavior.. big shocker there.) Now, I know when religion or the lack thereof is the topic, typically ears and eyes close up very quickly, but honestly over four pages, only one person has said definitively that they're against it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins4life234 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Interestingly, the lawsuit doesn't target Obama because they acknowledge this point. They're suing everybody but Obama. No matter who they are suing, its stupid, because they suing a comment that Washington just decided to throw on. If he washington would of said Wish me luck, instead, no one would have a problem, so because Washington decided to say God and everyone decided to follow the precedent, all I have to say is get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I did not mention the constitution once. Go catch a different fish. This one ain't biting. You didn't have to directly mention it; you referred to a term (separation of church and state) that has been conjured up out of thin air in order to completely strike the word "God" or any reference thereof from any federal government involvement. Why else would you have brought up the term unless you were inferring that it was part of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You didn't have to directly mention it; you referred to a term (separation of church and state) that has been conjured up out of thin air in order to completely strike the word "God" or any reference thereof from any federal government involvement. Damn that Jefferson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Just to be clear to the hit and run folk: IF Michael Arthur Newdow is all Atheists then: The Westboro Baptist Church is all Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 The thing is, the people who bring a suit like this really ARE pissed about religion and want to try to convince everyone of their view. I'm an atheist as most know, and you know what? I've never ever been told by my government that I HAVE to believe or there could be a problem. (I believe that as with most things watchdog groups are good and have their place. But they have to know when to bark. Otherwise they're just reactionary, and that is what these people are.) If he says the words, big deal. If they mean something to him, so be it. Those words are an accepted way of saying "I am telling the truth, and I really really REALLY intend to do what I'm saying here". I don't even BELIEVE, and I say it when I am trying to convey my sincerity to a person. It's an accepted phrase whether you choose to believe the religion or not. And as far as I'm concerned, it is a personal thing to the person saying it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 In this thread there is exactly one person arguing this from a separation standpoint (Sebowski).Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, has said it's no big deal. (Except Navy Dave, who took the opportunity to yet again tell the world how much he hates liberals and he thinks the godless will ruin his world with immoral behavior.. big shocker there.) Now, I know when religion or the lack thereof is the topic, typically ears and eyes close up very quickly, but honestly over four pages, only one person has said definitively that they're against it. ~Bang I think it should be removed, but I don't think it is a big deal either. I also agree that he should be able to say what he wants since it is his speech. Lets just say I don't care as much as a religious person would if the pledge said "one nation under no god". Talk about a riot..... I'm glad someone out there keeps bringing the topic to the table though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You didn't have to directly mention it; you referred to a term (separation of church and state) that has been conjured up out of thin air in order to completely strike the word "God" or any reference thereof from any federal government involvement.Why else would you have brought up the term unless you were inferring that it was part of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution? How about just because it is something I believe in. I don't think religion and government should have anything to do with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 So help me God if I have to read any more of this thread or what I meant I'll plotz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 So help me God if I have to read any more of this thread or what I meant I'll plotz. Thank God we agree on something.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think it should be up to the person saying the oath. If Obama wants to invoke the help of God, why should he be allowed to? If an atheist didnt want to, he shouldnt have to either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 So help me God if I have to read any more of this thread or what I meant I'll plotz. Earlier today while reading this thread and considering the tailgate and it's internet/message board nature, I started thinking about the old cliche "opinions are like *******s, everyone has one." I think of that cliche a lot when on the board. One difference, socially, is that people don't wander around openly displaying their *******s in public. Yet, in terms of fundamental worth of thought/discussion and not simply referring to what stance is taken on any issue, exposure to many people's opinions is about as useful (and pleasant) as exposure to their *******. There are other sensory analogies between the two experiences, but I will leave that alone. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 So help me God if I have to read any more of this thread or what I meant I'll plotz. What have I unleashed upon the tailgate??? :shot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 What have I unleashed upon the tailgate??? :shot: This has only gone 5 pages. You, sir, are a rank amateur at monster creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Earlier today while reading this thread and considering the tailgate and it's internet/message board nature, I started thinking about the old cliche "opinions are like *******s, everyone has one." I think of that cliche a lot when on the board. One difference, socially, is that people don't wander around openly displaying their *******s in public. Yet, in terms of fundamental worth of thought/discussion and not simply referring to what stance is taken on any issue, exposure to many people's opinions is about as useful (and pleasant) as exposure to their *******. There are other sensory analogies between the two experiences, but I will leave that alone. :cool: :rotflmao: That is classic. I am saving that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 This has only gone 5 pages. Yes, but that's only because it's still relatively on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.