What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
966 Comments
- astorygirl, on 01/15/2009, -14/+355I don't think it should be illegal but it certainly shouldn't be required.
- Battlecry, on 01/16/2009, -16/+329I think we Atheists need to pick our battles. Not letting the President say "so help me god" if he wants to is just plain silly. It makes us look bad.
- magneteye, on 01/15/2009, -137/+444What ever happened to separation of church and state? God shouldn't be intertwined within our government system, period.
- bigterguy, on 01/15/2009, -27/+291Chief Justice Roberts should read the oath as it is written in the Constitution. If Obama wants to add "So help me God" (as Geo Washington is said to have done) that is his right. But it should not be part of the official ceremony.
- rightbrainnow, on 01/16/2009, -15/+240If he believes in god, then let him say it.
- SilverBlade2k, on 01/15/2009, -103/+324Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
If Obama wants to say "so help me God." at the end, he has every right to do so. Atheists should really just ignore this part, instead of trying to force the issue. Or, how about this simple tactic? DON'T WATCH IT! - lilamae, on 01/15/2009, -23/+207Oh, this could get interesting.
- emazur, on 01/15/2009, -84/+257I see nothing wrong with removing it from the oath - anyone who does not believe in god should not have to pay lip service. If the oath said "So help me, Allah", I would not expect a Christian to fake it.
By putting the word "god" into the oath, it drives a wedge between different groups of people. The religious would argue likely accuse (or suggest) the atheist of being immoral for refusing to say 'so help me god', and the atheist would immediately go on the defensive both for the accusation and for the fact that the 'land of the free and home of the brave' is trying to get him to say something he does not believe in. Removal of 'so help me god' removes this wedge and allows for peace and tolerance. If you say in America there should be an exception b/c there are is a much larger group of Christians than atheists, then you are arguing for the rule of the majority over the minority, and that's not what liberty is about. America is Republic - rule of law, not mob rule, and that's how it should continue to be. The individual pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. And all that jazz - SpectreFire, on 01/16/2009, -31/+184People forcing their own values and beliefs on others?
Why does this sound so familiar?
Religion isn't the bad guy here, crazy people who take ANY beliefs to the extreme are the *****. - azureskies88, on 01/16/2009, -15/+159While I agree with you, separation of church and state refers to the separation of government from the influence of religious institutions - and vice versa - and is therefore not an issue here, per se.
- Biscuitz, on 01/16/2009, -23/+166Sigh.
As an Athiest, I'm just embarrassed quite frankly.
Why can't we all just stick to ourselves and leave our views out of everyone else's face?
A fundamentalist Athiest is just as bad as a Fundamentalist Religious person.
Just because I do not believe in a god, or heaven or hell, doesn't mean I can't have respect for those that do.
Example:If my grandmother asked me to sit in with her at church, I would go, because I love her, and I know how much it means to her.
If a prayer is being said, I will put my head down in respect to those that are praying.
It's not that hard. What does having something about god on something you use, hurting?
If you don't believe in it, then what the hell do you care so much for?
I never understood that... - beaunewcomb, on 01/16/2009, -10/+138Barack Obama is still a person with his own beliefs. If he wants God to help him make the right decisions in office, so be it. This is so much different than separation of church and state.
When you look at it as a personal faith standpoint, this atheist wants to wage war on president-elect Obama's belief system, just because he personally doesn't believe in the same thing. - thedsack, on 01/16/2009, -7/+92It should be taken out... but if you choose to say it you can.
Also, if you choose to say "So help me teapot" it should be allowed.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqy32SFW-w - tdmeth, on 01/16/2009, -2/+84First, there is no law that requires the President-Elect to use the phrase "so help me God" when he takes the oath of office (see Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution). That is a custom. If Obama chooses to say it, it's up to him.
Second, Separation of church and state is, believe it or not, NOT part of the constitution. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning, that they cannot force him to say "so help me God" when he takes the oath, nor can they prohibit him from doing so. They can't force someone to pray while performing government duties, nor can they prevent them from doing so. But stripping out all religious expression from all government places/practices is not required by the first amendment. In fact, to strip it all out could actually violate it (the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part.)
And that is how it is a non issue. azureskies88 was not contradicting himself. - azureskies88, on 01/16/2009, -11/+83So, what drug are you on?
- neel360, on 01/16/2009, -4/+73"So help me God" is not in the actual oath. It's just something that has been said at the end because George Washington originally said it. This lawsuit seeks to STOP Obama from being able to tack it on to the other end, like every other president in history has.
- azureskies88, on 01/16/2009, -14/+82Fiction is separate from the state and is protected under the First Amendment.
- zachhamer, on 01/16/2009, -9/+73I agree. Obama is a Christian and he wants to express this in his oath. What's the big deal?
- shurikenfreak, on 01/16/2009, -3/+66I agree, they are ignoring the fact that the president-elect wants to do it rather than is being forced to do it.
- Logicexe, on 01/16/2009, -1/+62This isn't Church/State separation issue. If Obama wants to say it he should be free to say it. Injecting it into the actual oath that makes it mandatory for all future presidents to say it would make it a church/state problem.
- keithwired, on 01/16/2009, -1/+56Agreed, it should not be a requirement and had Obama said nothing it shouldn't be included by default, but if Obama requests it as part of his beliefes then I have no problem with that.
- cyclopssmiley, on 01/16/2009, -8/+58As an atheist I don't really care, I mean just change it based on religion?
(not like we are going to have a non christian president for a while anyway) - Coven, on 01/16/2009, -9/+56Not enough of them
- schwerve, on 01/16/2009, -6/+53FYI, "so help me god" is NOT in the oath of office, just a tradition started by washington, having "so help me god" in the official oath of office would be unconstitutional as it would violate the "no religious test" clause.
- temujin2012, on 01/16/2009, -33/+80Dumb...It's tradition, stop freaking about it.
If you believe in God, take it to mean your belief of what God is, otherwise, ignore it. Quit being whiners. - PhantomZmoove, on 01/16/2009, -2/+48You think the bible belt would allow someone like that to get voted in?
- kinerry, on 01/16/2009, -10/+56judge not lest ye be judged thyself
looks like you're going to hell if it exists (highly unlikely) - Ruger11mcrdpi, on 01/16/2009, -6/+51Here's the deal. It should not be MANDATORY, however, if someone chooses to say it it should not be "NOT ALLOWED". If he wants to say it, good for him, if not, then that should be fine too. It should be up to the individual person. In the military when you take your enlistment oath, it is up to the individual to choose if he or she wants to put God name in the oath.
- telepwn, on 01/16/2009, -6/+51it's Obama's speech, Obama's oath... if he wants to say "so help me, God" then that's his right
get over it - Stomper622, on 01/16/2009, -4/+45You sound too sane to be on Digg.
- rubbish86, on 01/16/2009, -0/+39should not have to?
President-elect Barack Obama WANTS to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," - painting, on 01/16/2009, -7/+46how very christian of you.
- Craftkiller, on 01/16/2009, -5/+44Personally I am an atheist... but come on guys! If he wants to declare his faith, let him... The point is, its not required and doesn't in any way form official government ties with a religion.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -1/+39But this is Obama's oath to the people of the United States, not the other way around, he can end it as he pleases.
- MacEnvy, on 01/16/2009, -6/+44I agree, we should remove it form the Pledge and our money, too. Good point.
- phrstbrn, on 01/16/2009, -2/+40Let me just say before hand that I'm an athiest.
Separation between Church and state means they can't have influence from a single "Church" (the Catholic Church, for instance), refering to a certain secular religion.
There is nothing preventing the government to include "religious beliefs" as long as they aren't biased towards any particular religion or sect.
Simply allowing him to say "so God help me" isn't biased towards any particular particular sect or excluding anybody, since it doesn't exclude any particular sect (although you may want to argue that it's biased towards Monotheistic religions, but you're just picking straws).
Since non-Theists don't believe a "god" exists, who cares? You're upset that the president wants to make sure the "made up fairy tale" will look over him? Will you be mad if he asks if Santa Clause wishes him luck, since you don't believe in him?
This is just people whining about nothing. Nobody is making anybody do anything, and if it really offends you that much, just turn your TV off and don't watch. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. - TheSabre, on 01/16/2009, -0/+36thedsack, that's exactly how it is now. No one has to say it. Obama is choosing to end his oath with "so help me God", but it is completely optional. In fact, you can replace "swear" with "affirm" in the oath too, as some people feel "swear" is too religious.
Ruling for Newdow would prohibit Obama from exercising HIS freedom of religion, as it is his choice whether or not he wants to say the end according to his beliefs. - Minters, on 01/16/2009, -0/+35Seperation of Church and State? What about free speech? Im a devout Atheist, but I also believe in a persons right to believe and say whatever they like. Ideally, no politician would ever bring their religion into their politics (which luckily, doesnt happen so much in the UK. At least not publically), but whilst religion is still widespread, just let him say the damned phrase. He was voted in with everyone knowing full well he was Catholic (or Muslim, depending on whose ***** you believed during the election) so let him say the phrase!
- doremon313, on 01/16/2009, -2/+37I don't believe in god but I think other people should have the right to say what they want even if he is your president.
- Worldchrisis, on 01/16/2009, -1/+34I'm an atheist, I don't have a problem with it. Barack Obama is a Christian man, so it's perfectly acceptable. If an openly atheist president is ever elected(I don't know what Thomas Jefferson said when he was inaugurated), then they shouldn't say "so help me God", but until then this is a pointless issue.
- SEN5241, on 01/16/2009, -6/+39".... so help me FSM."
- friarbayliff, on 01/16/2009, -4/+34This is a non-issue. Many of our presidents have added something extra (like: 'so help me god' or 'thus I swear'). The first 'swear' is also interchangeable. It's a matter of personal preference. Stop whining.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -3/+33Maybe you'll be judged by Allah.
- Ajjah, on 01/16/2009, -8/+37What if Ba'al is the one true god? I'd imagine that he'd treat Mr. Newdow far better than he would treat you.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -1/+29I'm all for separation of church and state, but the mere mention of God in an oath, a pledge, on a statue, etc., isn't really violating anyone's religious freedom... it perhaps would be different if Obama was an atheist and was REQUIRED to take an oath mentioning God or something like this, but it's simply not the case, and nobody's right to religious freedom is actually being violated. It's purely a ceremonial thing and has no real bearing on the laws of the land. Thus, it is a non-issue; it's just a group of people being hypersensitive about everything.
- danconia, on 01/16/2009, -4/+32Addicted to blind faith
- rkyle, on 01/16/2009, -15/+43I'm an atheist, and actually, no, I don't want it removed.
This fight is ridiculous. - atgmac, on 01/16/2009, -0/+28Exactly. These atheists are giving other atheists (like myself) a bad name. There is no reason why their beliefs should get precedence over other people's beliefs.
Last time I checked, the US had freedom of speech. Obama is free to say whatever the hell he wants. - vofuse, on 01/16/2009, -1/+28If Obama decides to say "so help me Xenu" instead, then we're really screwed.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -1/+27If it's his choice, I have no problem with it. Disallowing him to say it would mean we need to ban presidents or political figures from saying "God bless America" or anything like that. I'm an atheist and not an Obama supporter, but this atheists trying to take a stand where none needs to be taken.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 987 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is