It’s not morally wrong, it’s a cultural thing. If you want to extrapolate some crazy straw man from it be my guest, you can pretend I respond.
I think that one should not get so upset about such mundane matters. If you want to that’s up to you.
I’d get rid of the entire pledge because it was a bunch of nationalist nonsense that crept into our culture after WWII. As far as money, I wouldn’t mind removing the ‘In God We Trust’ because it’s offensive to atheists and also because it’s blasphemous to Christians who actually know anything about their own religion. Mostly I am for letting sleeping dogs lie on these matters.
I’m not a big fan of Obama’s, but I’ll give him more credit than that. I mean, do you think that his Christianity is valid, or don’t you? If it is, then he does truly believe it, and any political hay he might make out of it is irrelevant. I don’t think he’s the kind of guy who is going to compromise who he is for something like that & I hope I’m not wrong in that character assessment.
I guess here in New York I am not confronted with that sort of thing. I’ve seen people with religious icons on their desks, but generally it doesn’t ever get shoved in my face.
Exactly. Sarafeena’s no doubt right about what adding the phrase ought to mean - and probably does mean to Obama himself. But imagine Obama deciding (in the interest of unity, since he’s going to be President of all the people, not just the religious ones, and he’s so into this whole ‘unity’ business) that he’s going to keep his religious beliefs private and not say “So help me God” as part of his oath. He’d catch hell for this. Or imagine the uproar if Obama the “Sekrit Muslim!” were to substitute the phrase “I so swear in the name of Allah” (because as a good Muslim he feels invoking the Holy Name of Allah in his personal oathtaking binds him more than a purely secular oath would and make it clearer just how seriously he takes it). Does anyone doubt there’d be an uproar?
Like it or not, this has taken on the dimensions of a religious test, because only some religious expressions are permitted. That’s the reason Justice Roberts ought to leave the phrase out. Let the person being sworn in add whatever religious words he or she feels appropriate; the Chief Justice, acting in an official government role, ought to limit himself to uttering only the actual oath of office (which does not include any religious phraseology).
Yes, I think that’s a paranoid delusion. Even the pious aren’t that pious in my experience. They feel every bit as besieged by atheist culture as atheists feel besieged by their culture.
Um, yes? You quoted me saying that I think his Christianity is valid.
However, just because a President uses “So help me God” does NOT mean that he really believes. At this point, it’s just expected, and any President who doesn’t say it will be just handing his opponents some ammunition… so the phrase has absolutely no meaning.
If it’s important to the person saying the oath, then he can say it silently to himself. He doesn’t have to say it out loud- surely God knows what the guy’s really trying to say, right? Why does he have to say it and thereby force every subsequent oath-taker to say it as well?
And that, I think, is what bothers me about these “traditional” insertions of religion. It doesn’t mean anything anymore. “Under God”, “So help me God”, “In God We Trust”… they’ve just become institutionalized, and they’re just another way for believers to weed out people who don’t believe the way they do. Is faith so weak that it needs constant reaffirmation?
They’re aren’t as many of you, it’s called Democracy. When you outnumber the Christians I am sure you will take the time out of your busy day to look down on the minority regressive religious believers and show them every bit the contempt they’ve shown you.
The problem is if/when the CJotSCotUS adds them, or any other words, to the Oath.
CJs of the SCotUS aren’t given the power to add things to the Oath, even if the Oath taker wants them to be.
The Constitution is clear as to the wording of the Oath of Office for the PotUS. I don’t see how you can alter the Oath without amending the Constitution.
CMC fnord!
I really don’t feel like sifting through the undoubtedly huge number of hits this would bring up on Google sooo, does anyone have a cite that Newdow wants to limit anyone but Roberts?.. 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. …He AFAICT hasn’t sought an injunction against Obama, and again AFAICT Newdow’s problem isn’t with the words being said at all, it’s with the CJ saying them as if they were a part of the Article II - Section 1 Oath.
It’s not the difference, it’s the major point of commonality.
But just in case you haven’t noticed religiousity has declined in the last 50 years, not increased. So from that perspective, their culture is taking a lot more hits while yours is winning a lot more victories.
If they feel that, then they’re idiots with a persecution complex. There is no atheist culture.
Do you perhaps mean secular culture, as in culture that doesn’t actually have anything to do with a specific religion and is thus inclusive to all manner of folk? Yes, I can see how one might feel beseiged by that. :dubious:
Hypocrisy is everywhere. Does anybody really believe that every president or vice-president has believed in God? Does anybody really believe that somebody running for president would have a snowballs chance on getting elected if they said they are an Atheist? Or how about members of the house and senate. Do you really believe that the overwhelming majority are religious?
Like it or not this is a Christian nation and a large majority do in fact believe in God. Learn to pick your battles wisely. This seems like a losing battle to me and aren’t there maybe just a few things more important that needs to be addressed before atheist start going around pissing off a bunch of Christians?
I will bet my house that the majority of Democrats in office wish that the Atheists would STFU about this issue.
It shouldn’t matter how many of them and us there are. This is a religious test for public office, pure and fucking simple. Just because it isn’t codified doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Ah, but just the other day I headed over to the Atheist Hall, after stopping in at my favorite atheist bookstore to pick up some atheist tracts to give to some strangers. At the Athiest Hall, the meeting went on longer than usual, due to a few more religions that had been added to the list of 568 that we had to recite in our litany of religions we don’t believe in. Then there was the discussion of whether or not we should affirm that we don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster either. (whew, that brought out some heated words, let me tell you!) After that was done, and we pledged ourselves to nobody in particular, we went home.
Secular culture refers to all people regardless of religion, so no, I am referring to atheist culture. The idea that there is no atheist culture is nonsense and not something I will entertain as a serious argument.
How are they beseiged by our failure to believe? The term athiest culture is kinda like gay agenda. They need to erect a feild of strawmen and call them the barbarian hordes who are here to persecute us for our beliefs and destroy our way of life. Doesent matter if they are right, only that the church has called it wrong.