• 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

jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

So long as the justice prompting his oath doesn't say it, as if it were mandatory, I am in complete agreement with you.

The point of secularists isn't to hide the fact that he is religious, but to not force him to be if he weren't.
 
This is pretty much a non-issue. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment or separation of church and state. Though I do like the idea of the President swearing on the Constitution instead of the Bible (I wonder how many politicians actually believe in a god? I know many claim a form of Christianity, but they don't seem to act it).

Also, the broad over sweeping statements against the atheist community; such as blaming the whole for the actions of this dude, is inaccurate.
 
As if "so help me god" was a guarantee of upholding the Constitution. I think it should be optional for the President.
 
Lachean said:
So long as the justice prompting his oath doesn't say it, as if it were mandatory, I am in complete agreement with you.

The point of secularists isn't to hide the fact that he is religious, but to not force him to be if he weren't.
Click to expand...

Actually, the interview I saw with the guy pressing the suit sounded more like he thought that if the president says "so help me God", that atheists are somehow marginalized.

**** that retard. As long as he isn't being forced to say it he should just STFU.
 
americanwoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is anyone actually MAKING anyone say it against their will?
 
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...

"The phrase is to be replaced with ,So help me moHAMed".We ain`t just dealin with aitheists anymore folks.This dud is born and raised muslim...the pres elect,not the ahole who filed the the etitlement law suit(well perhaps we are dealing with the same in the plaintif,ie. kind,loveing,hate America,christian hateing,freedom loveing muslim)."All Christians and jews are also being asked to refrain from attending the inaugural cerimonies,and life itself on the planet.Thank You".
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
"The phrase is to be replaced with ,So help me moHAMed".We ain`t just dealin with aitheists anymore folks.This dud is born and raised muslim...the pres elect,not the ahole who filed the the etitlement law suit(well perhaps we are dealing with the same in the plaintif,ie. kind,loveing,hate America,christian hateing,freedom loveing muslim)."All Christians and jews are also being asked to refrain from attending the inaugural cerimonies,and life itself on the planet.Thank You".
Click to expand...
oh lordy :doh
 
Rodney said:
"The phrase is to be replaced with ,So help me moHAMed".We ain`t just dealin with aitheists anymore folks.This dud is born and raised muslim...the pres elect,not the ahole who filed the the etitlement law suit(well perhaps we are dealing with the same in the plaintif,ie. kind,loveing,hate America,christian hateing,freedom loveing muslim)."All Christians and jews are also being asked to refrain from attending the inaugural cerimonies,and life itself on the planet.Thank You".
Click to expand...

Epic. I hope this guys sticks around... :2wave:
 
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...

The headline of the article is misleading. There is no 'so help me God' in the inauguration. It doesn't exist, officially. Many of the Presidents being sworn in have added that phrase at the end of the proper affirmation the President must repeat. But, legally, it doesn't exist:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's it. There's no swearing to God involved. God is not important in this ceremony, per the Constitution anyway.

If the President elect wants to add this in and make some kind of personal statement, though, that's his choice to make, imo. But I could do without the preachers. This is a civil matter.

(Somebody may have already said this-I didn't read the whole thread)
 
What an idiotic lawsuit. The government has many official recognitions of God, such as on our money. They chose perhaps the one instance where the phrase is unofficial and traditional, rather than codified in law. That turns the lawsuit from "the government cannot promote God" to "no government official can personally recognize God in public," which is just stupid.

Most of the efforts to remove official references to God are started by people with way too much time and way too little to actually worry about, but they at least have the advantage that their opposition has no legal leg to stand on. This one runs afoul of the Constitution on two counts. It's almost (that almost is important, though) enough to make me wonder if some religious group isn't behind this.
 
Rodney said:
"The phrase is to be replaced with ,So help me moHAMed".We ain`t just dealin with aitheists anymore folks.This dud is born and raised muslim...the pres elect,not the ahole who filed the the etitlement law suit(well perhaps we are dealing with the same in the plaintif,ie. kind,loveing,hate America,christian hateing,freedom loveing muslim)."All Christians and jews are also being asked to refrain from attending the inaugural cerimonies,and life itself on the planet.Thank You".
Click to expand...

Get a life. He was not born Muslim and he was not raised Muslim. In his four years in Indonesia, he spend three years in a Catholic school and one year in a secular government school governed by the ideology of the pancasila. Part of this is recognition of the validity of all FIVE official religions of Indonesia.
 
tryreading said:
The headline of the article is misleading. There is no 'so help me God' in the inauguration. It doesn't exist, officially. Many of the Presidents being sworn in have added that phrase at the end of the proper affirmation the President must repeat. But, legally, it doesn't exist:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's it. There's no swearing to God involved. God is not important in this ceremony, per the Constitution anyway.

If the President elect wants to add this in and make some kind of personal statement, though, that's his choice to make, imo. But I could do without the preachers. This is a civil matter.

(Somebody may have already said this-I didn't read the whole thread)
Click to expand...

You're right, but I am not the one bringing the lawsuit. If the president being sworn in wants to say "so help me God" or not, as far as I am concerned, it is up to him. I just don't want this godless NUT to force his atheist agenda on everyone else.
 
ludahai said:
You're right, but I am not the one bringing the lawsuit. If the president being sworn in wants to say "so help me God" or not, as far as I am concerned, it is up to him. I just don't want this godless NUT to force his atheist agenda on everyone else.
Click to expand...

I wasn't blaming you, just making a point.

As far as Newdow, though, I see his point. This is a ceremony to inaugurate the US President, and it should not be a religious rite. It is a civil, legal event.
 
I'm not going to join in the "what the constitution says about god" bickering. I will say that I believe that public facilities like courtrooms and schools and yes, government, should remain neutral when it comes to religion. That means no "under god" in the plege of alligiance, no "in god we trust" on our coins... both thanks to an evangelical majority in congress in the 1950's during the McCarthy era... and no "so help me god" swearing on bibles or korans or torahs.

Government=religiously neutral. Calling ourselves "a christian nation" is NOT religiously neutral.
 
DiAnna said:
I'm not going to join in the "what the constitution says about god" bickering. I will say that I believe that public facilities like courtrooms and schools and yes, government, should remain neutral when it comes to religion. That means no "under god" in the plege of alligiance, no "in god we trust" on our coins... both thanks to an evangelical majority in congress in the 1950's during the McCarthy era... and no "so help me god" swearing on bibles or korans or torahs.

Government=religiously neutral. Calling ourselves "a christian nation" is NOT religiously neutral.
Click to expand...
"Being neutral" only encompasses the law. Not the individuals within the government itself. It would be kind of...bad...if anyone would want to take the president's right to free speech and freedom of religion away, no?

If the president wants to say "so help me God", if ANYONE wants to say "so help me God" on public property, by God he can, no?
 
George Washington introduced it into the oath, and all have followed suit. Are you going to dishonor this tradition?
 
American said:
George Washington introduced it into the oath, and all have followed suit. Are you going to dishonor this tradition?
Click to expand...
You know, I always did have that question. If those words are only traditional and therefore, voluntary, how is the government NOT being neutral by not writing any law on it?

ponder that, atheists.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
"Being neutral" only encompasses the law. Not the individuals within the government itself. It would be kind of...bad...if anyone would want to take the president's right to free speech and freedom of religion away, no?

If the president wants to say "so help me God", if ANYONE wants to say "so help me God" on public property, by God he can, no?
Click to expand...

Sure. But I'm entitled to the opinion that by using a bible to swear in all government officials, having that phrase stated by one of the supremes to be repeated by all government officials, having houses of congress opened with prayers, having odes to god stuffed into our pledge and put onto our money (quite recently) goes against the separation of church and state by incorporating a specific religion, Christianity, into our government.

As to whether anyone has the right to say "so help me god" on public property, yes, they have that right. But does the government have the right to force every government official to say it by reciting a specific, governmentally-prepared swearing in statement? I don't think so. Just my opinion.

It's also my opinion that judges and teachers don't have the right to preach their religion from the bench or in the classroom, or state that this is a "christian" nation. It's not. It's filled with people of all religions, and when government actively favors one above the others, it flies in the face of what I personally believe the founding fathers meant when it established a secular nation, with individuals free to pursue their religious convictions without interference.
 
DiAnna said:
Sure. But I'm entitled to the opinion that by using a bible to swear in all government officials, having that phrase stated by one of the supremes to be repeated by all government officials, having houses of congress opened with prayers, having odes to god stuffed into our pledge and put onto our money (quite recently) goes against the separation of church and state by incorporating a specific religion, Christianity, into our government.
Click to expand...
Course, you have every right to be wrong.
As to whether anyone has the right to say "so help me god" on public property, yes, they have that right. But does the government have the right to force every government official to say it by reciting a specific, governmentally-prepared swearing in statement? I don't think so. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course not, Thats why the government doesn't force their officials at all. Why do you think its a tradition first started by President Garfield.

It is a tradition and only a tradition. If you really think helicopters and fighter jets are going to sweep over the president and every other official because they didn't say "so help me God", then...well...someone needs reeducation
It's also my opinion that judges and teachers don't have the right to preach their religion from the bench or in the classroom, or state that this is a "christian" nation. It's not.
It's filled with people of all religions, and when government actively favors one above the others, it flies in the face of what I personally believe the founding fathers meant when it established a secular nation, with individuals free to pursue their religious convictions without interference.
Click to expand...
Well, good thing our government doesn't do that then, huh? :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom