• 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

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.
 
it is the same douchebag who sued of his daughter saying the pledge of allegiance when he had no parental standing, what was it Newdall or something
****ing loon
 
Every single president in the past has said it and the only one harmed was Harrison. And Experts blame it on his long speech.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Ok, "So help me God", is...how can say this? harmless. There is no point in removing it unless you just have a beef with the word "God", period. 44 other people are just fine with "so help me God", why aren't you?

oooh, I said "God" oh my goodness! Sue me!

God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God
 
Last edited:
Ok, "So help me God", is...how can say this? harmless. There is no point in removing it unless you just have a beef with the word "God", period. 44 other people are just fine with "so help me God", why aren't you?

oooh, I said "God" oh my goodness! Sue me!

I believe the crux of this issue is constitutionality, so "harm" or "a beef" would both be equally irrelevant.

Every single president in the past has said it and the only one harmed was Harrison. And Experts blame it on his long speech.

Are you sure about that? George Washington: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Also, not every president believed in a personal god, some were deists.
 
Not only should the phrase be taken out but the President shouldn't swear on the bible. They should swear on the Constitution, and by doing so the citizens of this country.

The President is elected to protect and uphold the political values, stability, and strength of this country as best they can while in the best interest of the people, not god.
 
Well, they couldn't cancel Christmas. Now, they are trying to take "so help me God" out of the inagural.

They? Who are they? Are you suggesting that all atheists are out to "cancel Christmas" or are letigious about their respect for secularism?

Did the athiests ever stop to think that the President himself might actually WANT to say those words because he is a believer?!?!?

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

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

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.

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...

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

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?
-------------------------------------------------

All of that being said, I don't think an oath can reflect "congress respecting AN establishment of religion." Nor do I believe the term is "necessary" given that other Presidents did not say it, someone in the know please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

The term "god" or "creator" does not pertain to any particular establishment.

Also, I think the point of the term is simply because if you believe in a god, and your belief is sacred, it is no different that swearing on the life of a loved one... or as another suggested, swearing on the constitution itself; Which I REALLY like.
 
Last edited:
They should swear on the Constitution, and by doing so the citizens of this country.

That would be something I would like to see for once. God doesn't run this country.
 
"Want" is no justification for violations of the first amendment (Not that I'm suggesting that an oath can constitute one.)
The first amendment says establish which in all normal usage in this context means set up a state church like the the CoE, it doesn't mean removing all references to Xtianity from the state. Only whinging athiests and judical activists try and twist it to mean anything like that.

Secularism isn't about "forcing godless beliefs on everyone" but respecting every religion by not playing favorites. Its about indifference, not skepticism.

We hear these new teachers continually boasting of their spirit of toleration. That those persons should tolerate all opinions, who think none to be of estimation, is a matter of small merit. Equal neglect is not impartial kindness. The species of benevolence which arises from contempt is no true charity.
Edmund Burke
 
Last edited:
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.

It's time for those people to shut the **** up.

They don't have to like it but they do not have the right to make the world free of it.
 
I believe the crux of this issue is constitutionality, so "harm" or "a beef" would both be equally irrelevant.
lol, I'm DYING to hear how swearing that would be unconstitutional!

His inaugural address...what?
Also, not every president believed in a personal god, some were deists.
That only matters in the minds of....no one...except you.
 
The first amendment says establish which in all normal usage in this context means set up a state church like the the CoE, it doesn't mean removing all references to Xtianity from the state. Only whinging athiests and judical activists try and twist it to mean anything like that.

:roll: I would have actually debated the first part with you rationally with constitutional law, if it weren't for your blatant and rude ad-hominem.
 
The first amendment says establish which in all normal usage in this context means set up a state church like the the CoE, it doesn't mean removing all references to Xtianity from the state. Only whinging athiests and judical activists try and twist it to mean anything like that.

God is not the backbone of America, the Constitution is. The fact you are quoting the constitution says just that.
 
It's time for those people to shut the **** up.

They don't have to like it but they do not have the right to make the world free of it.

Actually citizens of this country DO have the right to make their state secular, and PATRIOTS of this country defend their constitution, and their right to not shut the **** up.

:moon:
 
lol, I'm DYING to hear how swearing that would be unconstitutional!

I didn't say that it was, in fact I quite clearly stated "Not that I'm suggesting that an oath can constitute one" and "I don't think an oath can reflect "congress respecting AN establishment of religion" in post #8

His inaugural address...what?

That only matters in the minds of....no one...except you.

Wow, what a compelling counter argument you present on this debate forum... :roll: Its clear you also are not interested in a rational debate.

I'm glad you have such high regards for the beliefs of your deist founding fathers. I thought the beliefs of the person making the oath was YOUR point... :2wave:
 
Last edited:
:roll: I would have actually debated the first part with you rationally with constitutional law, if it weren't for your blatant and rude ad-hominem.

I would have debated with you if you hadn't used the term ad-hominem. This is a politics board, we are discussing society and men not natural sciences, that certainly means people can and sometimes should be attacked at times.

You athiests do love to whinge don't you.
 
That would be something I would like to see for once. God doesn't run this country.


True but it is hard to tell what Liberals hate more-God or the Constitution
 
God is not the backbone of America, the Constitution is. The fact you are quoting the constitution says just that.

I must say that is hilarious coming from a liberal, most treat the constitution as mere guidelines to remade at their whim.

Your post ignores the issue over the fact the term establish means setting up a state church.
 
Last edited:
I would have debated with you...

Somehow I heard "No! You're a stupid head."

First of all, I said "ad-hominem" AFTER your post, so you cannot chronologically use it as an excuse for rude behavior.

I would have debated with you if you hadn't used the term ad-hominem. This is a politics board, we are discussing society and men not natural sciences, that certainly means people can and sometimes should be attacked at times.

WRONG, this is a DEBATE forum ON politics, and in debate the logical fallacies of your opponents argument are EXACTLY what one should say. If you regard people pointing out fallacies as improper in a debate, you don't understand what it means to argue that something is true.

You athiests do love to whinge don't you.

If you regard respect for the constitution as whining, you're only repeatedly proving how wasted rationality and appeals to patriotism are on you.
 
Last edited:
The first amendment says establish which in all normal usage in this context means set up a state church like the the CoE, it doesn't mean removing all references to Xtianity from the state.

Your post ignores the issue over the fact the term establish means setting up a state church.

No it says ESTABLISHMENT, please go read your constitution before you go around insulting people.

Ask yourself why the founders did not want congress to pass laws respecting any establishment of religion.
 
I must say that is hilarious coming to a liberal, most treat the constitution as mere guidelines to remade at their whim.

Your post ignores the issue over the fact the term establish means setting up a state church.

My post mean exactly as it is, in America the Constitution is the backbone, not God. We are secular as a government.

If the Christian God were the backbone, we would have in our consitution to not allow any other worship of a God(s) other than the Christian God.

This is not the case. God does not rule America.
 
WRONG, this is a DEBATE forum ON politics, and in debate the logical fallacies of your opponents argument are EXACTLY what one should say. If you regard people pointing out fallacies as improper in a debate, you don't understand what it means to argue that something is true.
Ad hominem is not a logical fallacy unless one is using it in the place of arguments. If it is used alongside them it is just a colourful additions like icing or spices. Again we aren't discussing astronomy but politics and society, one can certainly attack the viewpoints of others as long as he has more to offer.


If you regard respect for the constitution as whining, you're only repeatedly proving how wasted rationality and appeals to patriotism are on you.
What respect? You are trying to twist words.
 
Back
Top Bottom