We read:
"The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up an atheist challenge to the use of the phrase, 'so help me God,' at the conclusion of the presidential oath of office during a president-elect’s inauguration.
The lawsuit initially asked a federal judge to block Chief Justice John Roberts from reciting 'so help me God' while administering the oath in January 2009 to President-elect Obama. It also sought an order preventing two members of the clergy from conducting an invocation and benediction during the 2009 inauguration.
A federal judge threw the suit out, ruling that the atheists lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the litigation."
Source
The atheist guy behind these lawsuits seems a bit of a sad-sack.
Just the usual Leftist hunger to be noticed, I guess.
27 comments:
"Just the usual Leftist hunger to be noticed, I guess."
And with all of the blogs that you pen, do you have 'just the usual Rightist atheist hunger to be noticed'?
You're free to ignore Jon's blogs if you like. In fact, please do.
A lawsuit, by definition, cannot be ignored.
I was talking to Jon, not you Luke. Butt out.
Jon does look a bit dejected in that photo. But he should know that even the SCOTUS can't ignore reality and common sense every time.
theocracy? sure parrot. try thinking for yourself.
2:43PM Try thinking at all!
The guy looks like Sean Penn's brother.
Acts like it too.
Dearest Anonymous 1:47 AM & 3:01 AM..
I'm not jon either but speaking of "butts"......kiss mine!
My, we have a high level of intelectual discussion here.
Anon11:56:
It is spelled "intellectual" with two L's.
LOL
11:56 sums it up
Jon, I agree with you. I find it LOL that 11:56 wants an intellectual conversation, but cannot even spell intellectual correctly. 11:56 sums it up perfectly. Jon, we have a genius here!
Ok boys and girls, back to the matter at hand...
Does it really matter? President Obama (peace be upon him) couldn't get it right, and certainly doesn't uphold it.
I keep seeing this person post that 'The US is a theocracy!'. How about we examine that? The grand majority of US citizens believe in something higher than themselves. Those elected into office pledge in the name of that higher power. If you aren't a party of that interaction, either the person elected or the person administering the oath, why should you care? The only reason is that the atheists goal is to use groups like the ACLU to shut down all mention of certain religions. And in this so-called "theocracy" a child graduating high school and giving a speech can thank anyone in history except Jesus for helping him. A school can't hold a graduation ceremony in a church, even if it is a great and inexpensive venue, because some atheist might not like it. We can't have a cross over a grave, even if the dead person would want it, because some atheist might drive by it and be offended. No part of the Constitution confers a right to never be offended. So, give this 'US is a theocracy' lie a rest!
2:41 You've just demonstrated how religiosity permeates the US. When US Presidential candidates are interviewed on TV, none dares admit to being non-religious. "God" is all over the currency and the Pledge of Allegience, etc. etc. etc. Yet the USA is supposed to be a secular republic for all citizens, whether or not religiously-minded.
It matters not what the majority at any time may believe (if that can ever be properly established), it matters what is in the Constitution, and there is no mention of 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'Allah' etc. in the US Constitution. 'Creator' is a vague term and can mean anything. 'Year of our Lord' was a convention of the 18th century to precede a date, and has no more significance that someone today saying "Oh MY God!".
@Anon 3:56 said, 'Year of our Lord' was a convention of the 18th century to precede a date, and has no more significance that someone today saying "Oh MY God!".
Nice try. And just why do you think "Year of our Lord" was a convention? Because the prevailing religion accepted by the governments and general populous of Western Europe was predominately Christianity. It was obviously not the exclusive religion, but in Western Europe, it is undeniable that it was predominate. When the United States was founded, Judeo-Christian values, ethics, and scripture were part of the resources used to form its government. To deny that is to deny historic fact.
This nothing more than Political Correctness imposed by the Liberal agenda trying to eradicate Christianity from the map.
If the Presidential oath was changed to "So help me Allah", the Liberals would just sit back and smile.
"This nothing more than Political Correctness imposed by the Liberal agenda trying to eradicate Christianity from the map.'
Straight from the conservative handbook.
Sig. If you want to live in the 18th century, you're too late, we've moved on to the 21st one, where there might be cultural references to the Christian historical background but that's all it should be.
I wasn't aware that the "Establishment clause" had been used to establish atheism as the country's official religion. Eradicating mention of religion, or supressing people from expressing 'religiosity isn't freedom of religion. It's simlar to the freedom of religion the Chinese enjoy!
Freedom of religion doesn't mean never mentioning religion. It actually means that you and the government allow people to practice their religion. It doesn't mean eradicating all mention of religion either. It also means that the government doesn't force you to pray or believe a certain way.
In other words people are free to practise religion, or not, and it's nothing to do with the government. So why would the government incorporate official references to religion of any sort, especially specific religions like Christianity, when the population of the US also includes people of many or no religion.
Again, because freedom of religion does not mean prohibiting the mention or practice of religion. You get elected and dont want to do that part of the oath, we won't force you. But just because you dont like it when someone else does want to, that same freedom of religion doesnt give you the right to prohibit it.
The prohibition would only be within government, as religion should be irrelevant there, as it is a secular government for all citizens of the republic regardless of religion or non-religion. To have even trappings of religion within government would suggest endorsement of religion or even the establishment of a state religion. The Constitution says the government allows freedom of religion for the people not for its own activities.
So, you are thinking that having the word 'God' in an oath is suggestive of the establishment of a state religion? That this means any resemblance to the state forcing you to believe a certain way or taking you to jail if you don't attend a state-sponsored church? I have no response to such non-logic. Wow, what have we come to?
The atheism religion is the only one that seems to forbid any mention of religion. Using your own logic, blocking religious expressing is more that suggestive of establishing atheism as the state religion.
Why the hell do you want religion in government - is it just because you happen to be religious? How selfish. Don't you think government should represent all citizens whether they believe in a god or gods or not?
I'll ask your question a different way: Why the hell do you want all mention of religion banned - is it just because you happen to not be religious? How selfish. Don't you think government should represent all citizens whether they believe in a god or gods or not?
Also, yes, I think government should represent all citizens, period. Along your logic, I do not agree with homosexuality, so should we have all mention of it banned from utterance by any government official?
Again, freedom of religion, not freedom to suppress all religion.
Religion is not the purpose or business of government or governance, so why introduce religious terms or symbols into its workings. Religion is a private and personal affair, and so long as government ensures the freedom to practise it or not, that is all government should have to do with religion.
As far as I know, government doesn't have pro-homosexual phrases or symbols in its official business, but similarly ensures the freedom of citizens to be homosexual if they are, just as it ensures the freedom of citizens to be religious or atheist if they are.
"I was talking to Jon, not you Luke. Butt out."
...how you can tell a leftist is writing....that solid sense of inclusiveness (along with their ongoing good nature)
Post a Comment