Comments on: Atheists Suing Over Inauguration Will Get Their Day in Court http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/ by Hemant Mehta Mon, 28 May 2012 04:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Chris http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-262918 Chris Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:32:19 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-262918 I truly hope atheists push it harder, because you'll may find that people who know God will push back. Let me put it this way, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, those aren't in the constitution, those are amendments. The constitution could be amended to eliminate the separation of church and state. Also, what's a MUSLIM inauguration? Muslims believe in GOD. This was not a Christian inauguration this was an American inauguration. Only the most foolish people, and rebellious teenagers, don't believe in some kind of higher power. We call that God. Do you also not believe amoebas exist? I truly hope atheists push it harder, because you’ll may find that people who know God will push back. Let me put it this way, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, those aren’t in the constitution, those are amendments.

The constitution could be amended to eliminate the separation of church and state.

Also, what’s a MUSLIM inauguration? Muslims believe in GOD. This was not a Christian inauguration this was an American inauguration. Only the most foolish people, and rebellious teenagers, don’t believe in some kind of higher power. We call that God. Do you also not believe amoebas exist?

]]> By: Rod http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-262296 Rod Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:37:31 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-262296 In my opinion, this is a nonissue. How can someone saying so help me God in an oath cause one to sue in court? This is just this guy Newdow being "thorn-like" and not substantive. The guy taking the oath is saying it, not an atheist. I suppose when an atheist becomes president, I'll watch the inauguration and when that one leaves that part out, I'll watch the former president shake his hand and listen to the speech and watch the parade. In my opinion, this is a nonissue. How can someone saying so help me God in an oath cause one to sue in court? This is just this guy Newdow being “thorn-like” and not substantive. The guy taking the oath is saying it, not an atheist. I suppose when an atheist becomes president, I’ll watch the inauguration and when that one leaves that part out, I’ll watch the former president shake his hand and listen to the speech and watch the parade.

]]> By: Siamang http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-261170 Siamang Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:47:34 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-261170 <blockquote>And yet, don’t despair that faith-based verbage has so neatly interwoven itself into the fabric of America’s public forums, in our Constituion, in our Courts, on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our schools, at our Presidential Inagurations…because the key is these mentions of Faith and GOD are NEUTRAL, and that neutral references by government or it’s members is not Unconstitutional.</blockquote> If it's neutral, why not take it out? I mean, are you one of those people who say "hey, what's the big deal, why get upset over such a little thing..." until you say well, then take it out, or replace the word "God" with the name of some other deity. Then there's a huge freak-out and it immediately becomes clear that it *wasn't* such a little deal after all. Like when those Christians freaked out and had to be restrained when a Hindu holy man gave like the one non-Christian invocation before congress in the last 200 years. I'll also ask: Is it REALLY neutral to ask someone to swear before God? I mean, the oath of office is pretty explicit in the Constitution. While we're both staring at it, please show me where in the oath of office the words "... so help me, God" appear. They don't. Now if you asked me which is more "neutral", it would be to use the text the founders explicitly prescribed, and not add little bits here and there. If "so help me God" is neutral, then is "so help me, though there be no God"?

And yet, don’t despair that faith-based verbage has so neatly interwoven itself into the fabric of America’s public forums, in our Constituion, in our Courts, on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our schools, at our Presidential Inagurations…because the key is these mentions of Faith and GOD are NEUTRAL, and that neutral references by government or it’s members is not Unconstitutional.

If it’s neutral, why not take it out?

I mean, are you one of those people who say “hey, what’s the big deal, why get upset over such a little thing…” until you say well, then take it out, or replace the word “God” with the name of some other deity. Then there’s a huge freak-out and it immediately becomes clear that it *wasn’t* such a little deal after all.

Like when those Christians freaked out and had to be restrained when a Hindu holy man gave like the one non-Christian invocation before congress in the last 200 years.

I’ll also ask: Is it REALLY neutral to ask someone to swear before God?

I mean, the oath of office is pretty explicit in the Constitution. While we’re both staring at it, please show me where in the oath of office the words “… so help me, God” appear.

They don’t. Now if you asked me which is more “neutral”, it would be to use the text the founders explicitly prescribed, and not add little bits here and there.

If “so help me God” is neutral, then is “so help me, though there be no God”?

]]> By: Another Patriot http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-261151 Another Patriot Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:38:48 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-261151 As all of you must know, there is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights - 1st Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution (rather that concept emanates from interpretations of what our beloved letter-writer meant). Yet, the Constitution does embrace a separation, that Government must keep it's polluting hands off our Faith(s) and out of our Churches. It's called Freedom of Religion (Faith), and the PROTECTION against the Establishment of Religion (in other words, a Government Church or a Government Faith or a Government Deity). It means the Government must not force or coherce or demand us to worship in any particular way. This PROTECTION of freedom of faith exists for the religious AND the non-religious. As Atheists, each of you have beliefs, each of you have a faith...that is, a faith in NO GOD. So be glad, it's WE THE PEOPLE who get to decide very specifically in what or whom we have faith or don't have faith. Rejoice that you get to decide, NOT the government. Be happy government is PROHIBITED from deciding for you. And yet, don't despair that faith-based verbage has so neatly interwoven itself into the fabric of America's public forums, in our Constituion, in our Courts, on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our schools, at our Presidential Inagurations...because the key is these mentions of Faith and GOD are NEUTRAL, and that neutral references by government or it's members is not Unconstitutional. In fact, given the history of America (largely settled by colonists searching to resettle where they could freely, without compulsion, worhip according to their various faiths) such NEUTRAL faith-based references are very Constitutional...because, again, government is not forcing, cohercing, or demanding we worship a state chosen deity or faith (being an uncomfortable Atheist, while I do sympathize, doesn't count). And, finally be glad the Newdows of this world have always stepped up when they've, rightly or wrongly, perceived any shifts away from government neutrality in faith. Therefore, this Friendly Christian (who wasn't always a Bible Beater, does not cater to religion, but caters to JESUS) says: KEEP THE FAITH! As all of you must know, there is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights – 1st Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution (rather that concept emanates from interpretations of what our beloved letter-writer meant). Yet, the Constitution does embrace a separation, that Government must keep it’s polluting hands off our Faith(s) and out of our Churches. It’s called Freedom of Religion (Faith), and the PROTECTION against the Establishment of Religion (in other words, a Government Church or a Government Faith or a Government Deity). It means the Government must not force or coherce or demand us to worship in any particular way. This PROTECTION of freedom of faith exists for the religious AND the non-religious. As Atheists, each of you have beliefs, each of you have a faith…that is, a faith in NO GOD. So be glad, it’s WE THE PEOPLE who get to decide very specifically in what or whom we have faith or don’t have faith. Rejoice that you get to decide, NOT the government. Be happy government is PROHIBITED from deciding for you. And yet, don’t despair that faith-based verbage has so neatly interwoven itself into the fabric of America’s public forums, in our Constituion, in our Courts, on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our schools, at our Presidential Inagurations…because the key is these mentions of Faith and GOD are NEUTRAL, and that neutral references by government or it’s members is not Unconstitutional. In fact, given the history of America (largely settled by colonists searching to resettle where they could freely, without compulsion, worhip according to their various faiths) such NEUTRAL faith-based references are very Constitutional…because, again, government is not forcing, cohercing, or demanding we worship a state chosen deity or faith (being an uncomfortable Atheist, while I do sympathize, doesn’t count). And, finally be glad the Newdows of this world have always stepped up when they’ve, rightly or wrongly, perceived any shifts away from government neutrality in faith. Therefore, this Friendly Christian (who wasn’t always a Bible Beater, does not cater to religion, but caters to JESUS) says: KEEP THE FAITH!

]]> By: Another Patriot http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-261108 Another Patriot Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:35:38 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-261108 Hello Luther! FYI, seriously, be thankful for those Christian Crusaders (anomaly in Christian history) and their success in pushing back the advancing Muslims (though, unsuccessful in retaking Jerusalem, apparently due to Richard the Lion Hearted's flagging enthusiasm) because if the Muslims had succeeded in taking Europe, and if your ancestors hailed from Europe, more likely than not, you'd be a Muslim today, not an Atheist. Hello Luther! FYI, seriously, be thankful for those Christian Crusaders (anomaly in Christian history) and their success in pushing back the advancing Muslims (though, unsuccessful in retaking Jerusalem, apparently due to Richard the Lion Hearted’s flagging enthusiasm) because if the Muslims had succeeded in taking Europe, and if your ancestors hailed from Europe, more likely than not, you’d be a Muslim today, not an Atheist.

]]> By: Frivology » Blog Archive » Suing Over Inauguration http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-259478 Frivology » Blog Archive » Suing Over Inauguration Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:57:55 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-259478 [...] this morning Hemant posted that he’s actually getting to go to court over it. To which he asked this question: [...] [...] this morning Hemant posted that he’s actually getting to go to court over it. To which he asked this question: [...]

]]> By: Alex Fear http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-258835 Alex Fear Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:17:04 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-258835 BTW I thought of an even better secular inauguration phrase for use, how about: "So help me people of America" Still doesn't exactly sound right... perhaps the whole thing needs to be changed? BTW I thought of an even better secular inauguration phrase for use, how about:

“So help me people of America”

Still doesn’t exactly sound right… perhaps the whole thing needs to be changed?

]]> By: Alex Fear http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-258833 Alex Fear Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:14:00 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-258833 @Gulliwatch LOL! Ha I think all your wackos are homebred. On a slightly more serious tangent, first pilgrims they fled the UK to escape the King and his control over the church. Which is why they established the rule of "separation of church and state" - it was to protect the church. But do carry on, I find these discussions fascinating... :) @Gulliwatch

LOL!

Ha I think all your wackos are homebred. On a slightly more serious tangent, first pilgrims they fled the UK to escape the King and his control over the church.

Which is why they established the rule of “separation of church and state” – it was to protect the church.

But do carry on, I find these discussions fascinating… :)

]]> By: James D. Fich http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-258736 James D. Fich Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:44:38 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-258736 As far as I can tell, having the Chief Justice administer the oath is not actually a requirement of his office but a courtesy and part of the ceremony. So I'm not really sure what the basis of the case is going to be in the first place. As far as I can tell, having the Chief Justice administer the oath is not actually a requirement of his office but a courtesy and part of the ceremony. So I’m not really sure what the basis of the case is going to be in the first place.

]]> By: vjack http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/07/atheists-suing-over-inauguration-will-get-their-day-in-court/#comment-258721 vjack Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:47:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7525#comment-258721 Even if we won the case (which I seriously doubt), I'd expect Obama to add religious garbage on his own. Even if we won the case (which I seriously doubt), I’d expect Obama to add religious garbage on his own.

]]>