• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Wessexman said:
Actually it was treated the same as your definition. You are being untruthful here.
Click to expand...

No, you can't read definitions. I am not lying when I say that a NUMBER and a LETTER mean DEFINITION or EXAMPLE when reading one.

Wessexman said:
You are being disingenuousl now.
Click to expand...

Please show me the word "church" in the 1st amendment.

Wessexman said:
Yes I have, your own defintion did. Not to mention the other definitions and the article.
I call an apple and apple. You don't understand English and you are being disingenuous to score cheap points. Why should I debate with those who are disingenuous?

I think we are done.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Oh wow, since you can't read definitions you question their credibility? :rofl

I don't think you know what disingenuous means. I'd ask you to define it... but we all know how good you are w/ definitions.

If you're done then :2wave: if you aren't then show me the word "church" in the 1st amendment.
 
Last edited:
by all means, pretend like you didn't commit two foolish chronological mistakes.
Click to expand...
Wtf are you talking about?

Your online dictionary said the word establishment was first used in the 15th century, it did not say your definition was. Like the way the term gay was first used then but the usage to mean homosexual was not. Again you lie.
 
Wessexman said:
Wtf are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You justified rude comments with my post that said "ad-hominem" when said post came AFTER said insults.

Wessexman said:
Your online dictionary said the word establishment was first used in the 15th century, it did not say your definition was. Like the way the term gay was first used then but the usage to mean homosexual was not. Again you lie.
Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand what the "date" means in a definition either, else you would not call my explanation of it a lie.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
No, you can't read definitions. I am not lying when I say that a NUMBER and a LETTER mean DEFINITION or EXAMPLE when reading one.
Click to expand...
Your definition was the same.

1: something established: as a: a settled arrangement ; especially : a code of laws b: established church c: a permanent civil or military organization d: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e: a public or private institution


Please show me the word "church" in the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
It says establishment, in religious as your dictionary shows this means a state church. You are disingenuous because you ignore this.


Oh wow, since you can't read definitions you question their credibility? :rofl

I don't think you know what disingenuous means. I'd ask you to define it... but we all know how good you are w/ definitions.

If you're done then :2wave: if you aren't then show me the word "church" in the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Why do you have to be untruthful? Does it make you feel smart?
 
Lachean said:
You justified rude comments with my post that said "ad-hominem" when said post came AFTER said insults.
Click to expand...
I don't think I did.

Obviously you do not understand what the "date" means in a definition either, else you would not call my explanation of it a lie.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the term gay meant homosexual back in the 14th century?
 
Wessexman said:
Your definition was the same.

1: something established: as a: a settled arrangement ; especially : a code of laws b: established church c: a permanent civil or military organization d: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e: a public or private institution

It says establishment, in religious as your dictionary shows this means a state church. You are disingenuous because you ignore this.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to reiterate the distinction between definitions and examples. If you can't tell a number from a letter, I'm done trying to educate you.

Wessexman said:
Why do you have to be untruthful? Does it make you feel smart?
Click to expand...

What have I "lied" about? You're refuting the ****ing structure of definitions now. I explain what webster mean by "date" or "1" or "a." and you call this explanation a lie because you don't understand definitions, either that or you need me to be wrong in order for your tripe to make what little sense you have.

But yes, citing what "date" means in a definition does make me feel smarter than you, when you deny it. However, if I know it to be true, or even if I were wrong and believed it to be true, that wouldn't be a LIE.

STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, consult a 1st grade english teacher IMMEDIATELY.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Your ignore the fact both our definitions had a letter next to them. This is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I never said a private institution was the definition of "establishment" I cited it AS AN EXAMPLE, to prove that there are establishments that are NOT established churches; which debunks your claim that "Establishment means an established church"

Again you fail to see the distinction between examples and definitions. And you have yet to admit that there are establishments that are not established churches, and then made the BASELESS assertion that "Establishment means an established church in religious terms." Source for that claim?
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
I never said a private institution was the definition of "establishment" I cited it AS AN EXAMPLE, to prove that there are establishments that are NOT established churches.

Again you fail to see the distinction between examples and definitions.
Click to expand...
Wtf? All you are doing is shifting the argument to one of examples rather than definitions. A religious establishment is still an established church in formal English and as shown it certainly was in the 18th century. So I'm really not sure what your disingenuousness gets you.
 
Wessexman said:
Wtf? All you are doing is shifting the argument to one of examples rather than definitions.
Click to expand...

It is no "shift" to point out that what you are claiming is a definition is in fact an example.

Wessexman said:
A religious establishment is still an established church in formal English and as shown it certainly was in the 18th century. So I'm really not sure what your disingenuousness gets you.
Click to expand...

The church on my block, a religious establishment, is a "established church" (a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority)? :rofl :2wave:

Please cite your source for the rules of formal English that makes this statement so.

EDIT: Anyways, I shoulda went to bed a long time ago. Thanks for the waste of time... do write the Webster people and let them know that they're wrong about definitions.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
The church on my block, a religious establishment, is a "established church" (a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority)?

:rofl :2wave:
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Learn English mate.

And you have yet to admit that there are establishments that are not established churches, and then made the BASELESS assertion that "Establishment means an established church in religious terms." Source for that claim?
Click to expand...

Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion

That's it despite your lies and twisting(Its an example, no a definition, no a Zebra :roll:) I've amply proved my case. I'm done.:2wave:

Another Jacobin vanquished.:blastem:
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
You are incorrect. Learn English mate.
Click to expand...

Please, write the people @ Webster and let them know that you know better. And post their response for me!

The rules for definitions are not "my lies." Its one thing to say that I am wrong about them, its another to claim that I truly believe differently, but lie that these are the rules. Especially when you can LOOK THEM UP.

I'll add "lie" to my list of words I know you don't understand. Its not a lie if I believe it.

Wessexman said:
Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion
Click to expand...

You have a lot to learn about citing a valid source for your claims. By all means, give us more "free preview" articles from universities who's law review ranking is #19.

Its interesting to note that your claim contradicts the very statements made by the FOUNDER of said Law School; Thomas Jefferson.

Wessexman said:
That's it despite your lies and twisting(Its an example, no a definition no a Zebra :roll:) I've amply proved my case. I'm done.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, denying the very structure of definitions and utterly ignoring your foolish blunders is certainly a "proved case" in my book. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Its interesting to note that your claim contradicts the very statements made by the FOUNDER of said Law School; Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...
You mean the Founder who was out of the country. :lol:
Yes, denying the very structure of definitions and utterly ignoring your foolish blunders is certainly a "proved case" in my book.
Click to expand...
Glad you agree.

Another Jacobin vanquished.:devil:
 
Last edited:
*Looks at screen.

After much researching, it turns out that, saying "so help me God" is, well, not a requirement in the slightest.

So, if someone doesn't say it on inaugeration, I'm not offended. It doesn't matter.

What I have also come to the conclusion to is that it is also not unconstitutional either. Being the president, he should seek help wherever he can get it and ruling it unconstitutional would infringe on the president's right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

So, I don't mind if the president says "So help me God". What does offend me, is this atheist in the news that wants to make it unconstitutional.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
*Looks at screen.

After much researching, it turns out that, saying "so help me God" is, well, not a requirement in the slightest.

So, if someone doesn't say it on inaugeration, I'm not offended. It doesn't matter.

What I have also come to the conclusion to is that it is also not unconstitutional either. Being the president, he should seek help wherever he can get it and ruling it unconstitutional would infringe on the president's right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

So, I don't mind if the president says "So help me God". What does offend me, is this atheist in the news that wants to make it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You know what, I'll agree with this.

The President can say whatever he wants. If he wants to ask God, the FSM, of his 3rd grade math teacher for help that is his prerogative.

Personally though I would prefer a more ritualistic and symbolic statement focusing on the Presidents dedication to the citizens he is meant to serve.
 
Last edited:
I don't so much care how it's said, just that it's said. It is the President giving his word, under whatever wording suits his belief system, that he is going to do his best to help the country. I mean, I'm not religious so I would prefer him to be swearing on the Constitution, but giving his word for all to see and hear is good enough for me.

Though, as we've learned many times in history, the word of a leader doesn't mean much.
 
ludahai said:
article here

Well, they couldn't cancel Christmas. Now, they are trying to take "so help me God" out of the inagural. Did the athiests ever stop to think that the President himself might actually WANT to say those words because he is a believer?!?!?

The athiests never quit, do they. They will stop at nothing to force their Godless beliefs on everyone else. If you don't believe, that is your right. However, most Americans DO as does the President.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in god. I don't think I should have to say "under god" when I pledge allegiance to this country. The words were not in there in the first place.

As for this issue, since our president elect believes in god, it's a non-issue. Nevertheless, why would we have to swear to god for anything? THAT doesn't make sense to me. Take them out. Somehow, we can't be presumed to know what to do unless we swear to god. That is pathetic!
 
Orius said:
I don't so much care how it's said, just that it's said. It is the President giving his word, under whatever wording suits his belief system, that he is going to do his best to help the country. I mean, I'm not religious so I would prefer him to be swearing on the Constitution, but giving his word for all to see and hear is good enough for me.

Though, as we've learned many times in history, the word of a leader doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

Do you care what he swears to? I mean if the President held up the latest addition of Highlights and swore on that it would be ok? The bible might as well be that if a non-Christian is swearing on the bible.

Just giving a hypothetical scenario. I know Obama is Christian.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. I also think the same thing of the court system, and swearing on the Bible before taking the stand. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe in the Christian God, then your oath is basically meaningless in my eyes.

I believe the Atheist interest groups are overreacting, but their extremism exists because the opposite extreme in the religious right also exists. Whenever one extreme arises in society, something else will try to counter balance it. On the whole if people were more accepting of each other's beliefs, there wouldn't be so many backlashes happening.

It seems like the moderates are always the ones stuck between a rock and a hard place. :doh
 
Hatuey said:
I wonder where Ludahai's outrage is over every piece of religious buffoonery Christians, Muslims and Jews come up with that waste not only the time of atheists but also tax payer money.
Click to expand...

Care to cite examples? If suitable, I will criticize. However, I am fine with nativity scenes on public land, just as I am ok with Kwanzaa and Hanukka displays.
 
Lachean said:
They? Who are they? Are you suggesting that all atheists are out to "cancel Christmas" or are letigious about their respect for secularism?
Click to expand...

I was making the comment "tongue in cheek"

Correction: Not "the atheists" an atheist. Also, if this is a matter of separation of church and state what Obama wants is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What "law" is Congress making when the President says "God" in the inaguration?

"Want" is no justification for violations of the first amendment (Not that I'm suggesting that an oath can constitute one.)
Click to expand...

RIght, there is NO violation of the first amendment here.

Secularism isn't about "forcing godless beliefs on everyone" but respecting every religion by not playing favorites. Its about indifference, not skepticism. You see not everyone believes in your god, perhaps you might learn to understand why such an oath can be less meaningful than an oath to something they DO believe in...
Click to expand...

What is wrong with saying "God?" What are athiests so afraid of?

Also, what most people "believe" is irrelevant to the point of the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

What rights are being violated if the President says "God?"

And whats wrong with a "godless belief" anyway? The usage of that term with such contempt is quite sanctimonious and arrogant. You're an atheist in respect to Zeus, whats wrong with that godless belief?
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in any god, which athiests profess to believe, you are by definition "Godless."
 
ludahai said:
I was making the comment "tongue in cheek"

What "law" is Congress making when the President says "God" in the inaguration?

RIght, there is NO violation of the first amendment here.

What is wrong with saying "God?" What are athiests so afraid of?

What rights are being violated if the President says "God?"
Click to expand...

Your questions show that you have not read my opinion on the topic, please see the bottom of post #8 on page one. I clearly said that this is no violation of Church and State, but "saying god" in many other places in our government is very unconstitutional.

It isn't that secularists are afraid, its that they regard such violations as illegal.

And whats wrong with a "godless belief" anyway? The usage of that term with such contempt is quite sanctimonious and arrogant. You're an atheist in respect to Zeus, whats wrong with that godless belief?
ludahai said:
If you don't believe in any god, which athiests profess to believe, you are by definition "Godless."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So? I know this, why didn't you answer the question?
 
ludahai said:
Care to cite examples? If suitable, I will criticize. However, I am fine with nativity scenes on public land, just as I am ok with Kwanzaa and Hanukka displays.
Click to expand...

How about forcing "Intelligent Design" into Science Classrooms?
 
I think it should be up to the president whether he says "so help me God" or not. After all, it is him and only him who is emboldened or harmed by the phrase since it is a personal pledge.
 
ludahai said:
The athiests never quit, do they. They will stop at nothing to force their Godless beliefs on everyone else. If you don't believe, that is your right. However, most Americans DO as does the President.
Click to expand...


I do find it rather ironic that you say atheists are forcing their Godless belief on everyone, yet are defending forcing God beliefs on others. So it's okay to make people say "So help me God" but it's wrong to not make people say it? I say let a person make up their own mind and say what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom