So help me God

[Apex Vertigo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn7e1J-Kqmo&eurl=http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/

I'd like to point out that at the end of this video the guy says "it is in affect making atheism our national religion." Again, atheism is not a religion and by taking religion out of all things government does not make it a supported form belief by the government. It hurts every time I have to explain such obvious things.

Also, Fox is fair and balanced, as you can all see.

[AngusFinch]

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=96759

One at a time, please! redirect here.

[deathadda]

lol

[Shrang]

[
Also, Fox is fair and balanced, as you can all see.

I happily stopped paying any attention to almost everything Fox says a while back...

[tallefred]

o YOU SAID SO HELP ME GOD YOU'RE MAKING ATHEISM YOUR RELIGION LOLOLOL

[Ungraylessness]

Fox News; ballsy enough to tell you what you don't want to hear even when it's a blatant lie.

[Apex Vertigo]

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=96759

One at a time, please! redirect here.

2 different topics. Thanks for the wanna-be moderation anyways.

[Shrang]

I wish there was something that stopped people from drilling religion into their children. I would rather some sort of system(impossible to do of course) that gave an unbias choice from an early age on... which of course could change over time. Stupid parental brainwashing!

On another note i hate that religion handles all memorial stuff. I was at one last night.... and it started well and was quite touching but ended with half an hour of "JESUS IS UBER" sermon... and given that i didn't share religions with the family even though i have know them for half my life... i can't say i enjoyed it much... even more so because it was a freaking minister speaking and not even a family member.

[Apex Vertigo]

I wish there was something that stopped people from drilling religion into their children. I would rather some sort of system(impossible to do of course) that gave an unbias choice from an early age on... which of course could change over time. Stupid parental brainwashing!

On another note i hate that religion handles all memorial stuff. I was at one last night.... and it started well and was quite touching but ended with half an hour of "JESUS IS UBER" sermon... and given that i didn't share religions with the family even though i have know them for half my life... i can't say i enjoyed it much... even more so because it was a freaking minister speaking and not even a family member.

My grandmothers funeral was basically a half an hour of a Preacher trying to scare faith into the crowd. It was incredibly inappropriate, here you are at a persons funeral and you think that is a good time to preach your religion? I remember something he said, went along the lines of "If you aren't a believer then take a good look at her now, for it will be the last time you will ever see her."

[MinusInnocence]

My grandmothers funeral was basically a half an hour of a Preacher trying to scare faith into the crowd. It was incredibly inappropriate, here you are at a persons funeral and you think that is a good time to preach your religion? I remember something he said, went along the lines of "If you aren't a believer then take a good look at her now, for it will be the last time you will ever see her."Haha, that's awesome. I love Texas.

[Calber]

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First off, it says Congress, aren't we talking about the presidential inauguration? Also it says law, I don't think that says the president has to be sworn in on a bible, it's his preference. Which brings us to my next point, which most people seem to forget about, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Considering this is not having to do with any law made by congress, the president can be sworn in on whatever he wants, any law to the contrary would be in violation of the first amendment. We don't have a state religion, but the constitution does not make us secular. If anything it makes us an agnostic country.

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.

Now go ahead and flame me :rolleyes:

[LilyHaze]

My grandmothers funeral was basically a half an hour of a Preacher trying to scare faith into the crowd. It was incredibly inappropriate, here you are at a persons funeral and you think that is a good time to preach your religion? I remember something he said, went along the lines of "If you aren't a believer then take a good look at her now, for it will be the last time you will ever see her."

My grandmother's funeral was exactly the same way actually, it was rather...disgusting. Her memory wasn't honored at all, just exploited.

My relatives in Texas seemed to enjoy it for all I noticed though.

[tallefred]

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.

If you honestly believe that you are a moron. Seriously. Sure there are a lot of angry atheists but in my experience it's the religious person who will start the "so why don't you believe in god" every time.

[Apex Vertigo]

Haha, that's awesome. I love Texas.

I hope you are being sarcastic, because Texas fucking sucks.

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First off, it says Congress, aren't we talking about the presidential inauguration? Also it says law, I don't think that says the president has to be sworn in on a bible, it's his preference. Which brings us to my next point, which most people seem to forget about, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Considering this is not having to do with any law made by congress, the president can be sworn in on whatever he wants, any law to the contrary would be in violation of the first amendment. We don't have a state religion, but the constitution does not make us secular. If anything it makes us an agnostic country.

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.

Now go ahead and flame me :rolleyes:

So why should God be in something like the inauguration? How is that not supporting Christianity?

And the only reason you might think Atheist are the more militant is because you talk on this forum. In the real world most religious people just assume you are like them. Go ahead and just tell some people that you aren't religious, even if you are, and see what the reaction is like.

[Layedballer]

I wish there was something that stopped people from drilling religion into their children. I would rather some sort of system(impossible to do of course) that gave an unbias choice from an early age on... which of course could change over time. Stupid parental brainwashing!

I would say I was given as close to unbias as you get, both parents told me they didn't know and it was up to me to decide. After weighing both options I went from agnostic to atheist

[LilyHaze]

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.


On the streets you'll find Christians "forcing" their belief upon you.
On the internet you'll find atheists. Its just how it seems to be.
*shrug*

People will be people, I just hold respect for those who are quietly respectful, those on any side that don't shove their beliefs down anyones throats.

[verlox2]

"JESUS IS UBER".

Well, he is pretty uber. I mean, he did defeat the Mole People underneath Chicago and totally destroyed the planet Epsilon IV by rewiring the reactor that connected to the planet's core, resulting in the explosion.

[Haeso]

When will people stop believing in these false gods and accept His Noodly Goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

[Layedballer]

When will people stop believing in these false gods and accept His Noodly Goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

As he stated, he does not require faith, for he will always be there for us, whether we believe in him or not
*tear* how beautiful and kind of him

[maskedtears]

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First off, it says Congress, aren't we talking about the presidential inauguration? Also it says law, I don't think that says the president has to be sworn in on a bible, it's his preference. Which brings us to my next point, which most people seem to forget about, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Considering this is not having to do with any law made by congress, the president can be sworn in on whatever he wants, any law to the contrary would be in violation of the first amendment. We don't have a state religion, but the constitution does not make us secular. If anything it makes us an agnostic country.

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.

Now go ahead and flame me :rolleyes:

I completely agree with you.

No matter what your status or ranking you are entitled to freely express your religous beliefs or lack there of. It's no one's business aslong as it isn't being forced on you.

[verlox2]

When will people stop believing in these false gods and accept His Noodly Goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

Did HE ever defeat the Mole People (Jesus) or battle Pharoe in a game of Super Checkers and THEN part the Red Sea by calling in a favor from Don Yahweh? (Moses)

[Calber]

If you honestly believe that you are a moron. Seriously. Sure there are a lot of angry atheists but in my experience it's the religious person who will start the "so why don't you believe in god" every time.

Maybe it just depends on where you are. My friends and family are predominantly atheists, so I hear a lot of "Why should you believe in god?"
I guess my point is that atheists are no better than Christians, nor vice versa. Personally, I believe that there is no evidence either way. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to know if they're right. Trying to prove doesn't exist is just as much a waste of breath as trying to prove that god exists. Believe what you want, but people need to be tolerant of each others beliefs, and whenever anybody starts preaching it gets on my nerves.

[Haeso]

As he stated, he does not require faith, for he will always be there for us, whether we believe in him or not
*tear* how beautiful and kind of him

But he DESERVES our worship, even if he won't demand it, and I won't rest until all believe in his noodly greatness. We must purge the heretics and convert the non-believers, a holy war is the only answer!

(For all the stupid people who probably wouldn't get what I'm doing, the first of 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts: I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.)

[Layedballer]

But he DESERVES our worship, even if he won't demand it, and I won't rest until all believe in his noodly greatness. We must purge the heretics and convert the non-believers, a holy war is the only answer!

(For all the stupid people who probably wouldn't get what I'm doing, the first of 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts: I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.)

It is the only answer! Purge the unclean!
I love the I'd really rather you didn't

[Apex Vertigo]

Maybe it just depends on where you are. My friends and family are predominantly atheists, so I hear a lot of "Why should you believe in god?"
I guess my point is that atheists are no better than Christians, nor vice versa. Personally, I believe that there is no evidence either way. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to know if they're right. Trying to prove doesn't exist is just as much a waste of breath as trying to prove that god exists. Believe what you want, but people need to be tolerant of each others beliefs, and whenever anybody starts preaching it gets on my nerves.

Oh but Atheist are better than Christians in that sense. That is made evident by every religious subject that is forced upon us in society on a daily basis, rather it be in school, in a court room, our holidays or even in nationally viewed inaugurations of our President of the United States of America.

I agree we need to be tolerant of other peoples views, no matter how ludicrous they are which is exactly why saying "Under God", "In God we Trust", "So help me God" and swearing upon a Bible in court is wrong because it does not respect the views of others.

[verlox2]

But he DESERVES our worship, even if he won't demand it, and I won't rest until all believe in his noodly greatness. We must purge the heretics and convert the non-believers, a holy war is the only answer!

(For all the stupid people who probably wouldn't get what I'm doing, the first of 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts: I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.)

You have insulted me an my people, I'm calling in a favor from Don Yahweh. Prepare to be whacked AKA smited.

I'm just kidding, I love ya.

[Haeso]

You have insulted me an my people, I'm calling in a favor from Don Yahweh. Prepare to be whacked AKA smited.

I'm just kidding, I love ya.

He will not have mercy on your unending soul in the afterlife heathen, enjoy your STDs and stale beer. For you shall be enjoying them shortly once the holy war commences the unclean are purged.

[Niles]

Bow before the Vikings and they will "help" you get rid of this so called god in your goverment.

[verlox2]

He will not have mercy on your unending soul in the afterlife heathen, enjoy your STDs and stale beer. For you shall be enjoying them shortly once the holy war commences the unclean are purged.

Well, I don't drink and I always use a condom.

[heroshade]

We shoud execute the Athiests and the religious!!

[verlox2]

We shoud execute the Athiests and the religious!!

So someone kills everyone on the planet then commits suicide?

[Niles]

We shoud execute the Athiests and the religious!!

And bow before the Vikings.

[Haeso]

Well, I don't drink and I always use a condom.

There are no condoms in Pastafarian hell, heathen.

[verlox2]

There are no condoms in Pastafarian hell, heathen.

Wait, so I'm dead, right? So that means I can't die again. I'm, sure, there will be some discomfort in the nether regions but I think I could live (unlive?) with that.

[Calber]

Oh but Atheist are better than Christians in that sense. That is made evident by every religious subject that is forced upon us in society on a daily basis, rather it be in school, in a court room, our holidays or even in nationally viewed inaugurations of our President of the United States of America.

I agree we need to be tolerant of other peoples views, no matter how ludicrous they are which is exactly why saying "Under God", "In God we Trust", "So help me God" and swearing upon a Bible in court is wrong because it does not respect the views of others.

First off, your saying that "Atheists are better than Christians" is completely missing my point. I don't care if you're Atheist or Christian, I care if you are tolerant. Neither belief is "greater" so it doesn't matter which you choose. Yes, due to our culture being more religious than not, religion is prevalent in society. It is tradition, and though it may not be completely just, I think it is harmless, and I find that most of it is actually protected under the first amendment, rather than prevented by it. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make you better.

Second, your saying that the use of terms like "In god we trust" is wrong because it is intolerant also takes what I was saying the completely wrong direction. It's like saying that if I read the bible I'm being intolerant to Atheists who might not agree with my choice to read the bible. People shouldn't be legally bound to swearing in on a bible, but if they want to then by all means they should, and I think we should respect that decision.

[Haeso]

First off, your saying that "Atheists are better than Christians" is completely missing my point. I don't care if you're Atheist or Christian, I care if you are tolerant. Neither belief is "greater" so it doesn't matter which you choose. Yes, due to our culture being more religious than not, religion is prevalent in society. It is tradition, and though it may not be completely just, I think it is harmless, and I find that most of it is actually protected under the first amendment, rather than prevented by it. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make you better.

Second, your saying that the use of terms like "In god we trust" is wrong because it is intolerant also takes what I was saying the completely wrong direction. It's like saying that if I read the bible I'm being intolerant to Atheists who might not agree with my choice to read the bible. People shouldn't be legally bound to swearing in on a bible, but if they want to then by all means they should, and I think we should respect that decision.

Not at a secular event we shouldn't. But back on topic. You're all going to stale beer and strippers with STD hell anyway.

[Rhade]

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First off, it says Congress, aren't we talking about the presidential inauguration? Also it says law, I don't think that says the president has to be sworn in on a bible, it's his preference. Which brings us to my next point, which most people seem to forget about, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Considering this is not having to do with any law made by congress, the president can be sworn in on whatever he wants, any law to the contrary would be in violation of the first amendment. We don't have a state religion, but the constitution does not make us secular. If anything it makes us an agnostic country.

Nothing pisses me off more than people who constantly try to force their beliefs down other people's throats... and in my experience those people tend to be atheists.

Now go ahead and flame me :rolleyes:

You are so wrong.

In essence, I can practice whatever religion I feel like practicing, due to the free exercise clause.

However, a government official, or any arm of the government (signified in the amendment as "congress shall make no law") may not hold one religion over another. This prevents a particular religion gaining power over a political leader; we are not a theocracy.

Basically, the government is not allowed to hold one religion over another or show any sort of preference. While citizens are allowed to practice as they wish, when that citizen takes on a government job, such as the presidency, he should not be allowed to show preference for one religion over another. This is going against the constitution and showing government favoritism, which is absolutely ridiculous, as the government represents the people as a whole and it should not be up to the few individuals we entrust it to to select a national religion for the rest of us. If they want to be religious, they can do it in their own homes, but I disagree when they attempt to make Christianity or any other religion into a faux national religion by playing the "I'm just a _________", it's my right to practice.

NOT IF YOU'RE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ON A PUBLIC STAGE.

What, your patriot act can take away my rights for the advantage of safety, yet you retain your exercise rights to disadvantage the establishment clause? Bullshit.

[Apex Vertigo]

First off, your saying that "Atheists are better than Christians" is completely missing my point. I don't care if you're Atheist or Christian, I care if you are tolerant. Neither belief is "greater" so it doesn't matter which you choose. Yes, due to our culture being more religious than not, religion is prevalent in society. It is tradition, and though it may not be completely just, I think it is harmless, and I find that most of it is actually protected under the first amendment, rather than prevented by it. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make you better.

Second, your saying that the use of terms like "In god we trust" is wrong because it is intolerant also takes what I was saying the completely wrong direction. It's like saying that if I read the bible I'm being intolerant to Atheists who might not agree with my choice to read the bible. People shouldn't be legally bound to swearing in on a bible, but if they want to then by all means they should, and I think we should respect that decision.

The inauguration is a secular event, there should be no mention of any religion, period. There shouldn't even be intelligent argument over this, honestly. By 'better', I meant more tolerant, I figured you'd be able to understand that but you didn't, oh well.

Completely harmless? This must be a joke because religion has been incredibly harmful and although it has had some good points (points that could have come without religion, I mind you) it still today seeps into our daily lives by depriving those of rights in issues such as abortion, gay marriage, I.D. and countless other aspects of our society further degrading our intellectual standards which is one major reason why every other civilized country on Earth is soaring past us intellectually.

And the currency, there is no intelligent argument for that either, there should not be a nationalized slogan that swears oath to one religion. Even if the founding fathers were faithful Christians which we know that not all of them were, they still saw how such public national support could harm society, "In God we Trust" is disrespectful to those of faiths differing from Christianity and those refraining from faith all together, as is every other slogan, motto, or pledge that is forced upon us.

[verlox2]

"In God we Trust" is disrespectful to those of faiths differing from Christianity and those refraining from faith all together, as is every other slogan, motto, or pledge that is forced upon us.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying that Christians have some sort of monopoly on God? Cause if so you really are a dip. I'm pretty sure Jews and Muslims have a pretty huge trust in God.

[Apex Vertigo]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying that Christians have some sort of monopoly on God? Cause if so you really are a dip. I'm pretty sure Jews and Muslims have a pretty huge trust in God.

No, dumb ass, but it is referring to the Christian God and certainly not Allah. It also makes no reference to polytheist or atheist, anything based in the American government should not support any one group and the only fair way to do that is to not acknowledge religion based subjects at all.

[verlox2]

No, dumb ass, but it is referring to the Christian God and certainly not Allah.

Hmm, last I heard That That Is is referred to as the Abrahamic God, and only referred to as the Christian God by fools.

[Calber]

You are so wrong.

In essence, I can practice whatever religion I feel like practicing, due to the free exercise clause.

However, a government official, or any arm of the government (signified in the amendment as "congress shall make no law") may not hold one religion over another. This prevents a particular religion gaining power over a political leader; we are not a theocracy.

Basically, the government is not allowed to hold one religion over another or show any sort of preference. While citizens are allowed to practice as they wish, when that citizen takes on a government job, such as the presidency, he should not be allowed to show preference for one religion over another. This is going against the constitution and showing government favoritism, which is absolutely ridiculous, as the government represents the people as a whole and it should not be up to the few individuals we entrust it to to select a national religion for the rest of us. If they want to be religious, they can do it in their own homes, but I disagree when they attempt to make Christianity or any other religion into a faux national religion by playing the "I'm just a _________", it's my right to practice.

NOT IF YOU'RE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ON A PUBLIC STAGE.

What, your patriot act can take away my rights for the advantage of safety, yet you retain your exercise rights to disadvantage the establishment clause? Bullshit.

So you're free to practice religion unless you're a public official? Let me understand you, nobody in government (President, congressmen, bureaucrats, public school teachers etc), are allowed to show religious preference? So that means these people shouldn't be allowed to go to church, or say a prayer, or celebrate religious holidays? Or god forbid they exercise free speech in expressing their belief in a specific deity!
No. The idea that all government officials have to be completely secular is just plain stupid. Basically you're arguing that because they're in the government, the have no rights. :bang:

Ok, let me put it this way, if the government can't favor any religion over any other (which they can't, however members of the government are free to in their own affairs), then which religious establishment does the phrase "So help me god" favor? Surely it's the Christians, because they believe in god, oh and the Jews too, and the Muslims, and every other monotheistic religion, and I think most polytheistic religions would accept it as well... I guess you could say this disadvantages the "Atheist" religion, but this only applies if you are to take Atheism (the lack of religion) as a religion. Of course if Atheism is a religion, then a completely secular government (a government that lacks religion) would inherently be supporting a "religion", thus violating the first amendment. So in fact, by your logic it would seem that the establishment clause is in fact impossible to follow, because no matter how you conduct yourself you would be "favoring" a particular religion.

The inauguration is a secular event, there should be no mention of any religion, period. There shouldn't even be intelligent argument over this, honestly. By 'better', I meant more tolerant, I figured you'd be able to understand that but you didn't, oh well.

Completely harmless? This must be a joke because religion has been incredibly harmful and although it has had some good points (points that could have come without religion, I mind you) it still today seeps into our daily lives by depriving those of rights in issues such as abortion, gay marriage, I.D. and countless other aspects of our society further degrading our intellectual standards which is one major reason why every other civilized country on Earth is soaring past us intellectually.

And the currency, there is no intelligent argument for that either, there should not be a nationalized slogan that swears oath to one religion. Even if the founding fathers were faithful Christians which we know that not all of them were, they still saw how such public national support could harm society, "In God we Trust" is disrespectful to those of faiths differing from Christianity and those refraining from faith all together, as is every other slogan, motto, or pledge that is forced upon us.

1. Where is it stated that the inauguration is a secular event?
2. "By 'better', I meant more tolerant" I got that. But being the minority doesn't automatically make you tolerant. That would be like saying Nazis are more tolerant than Democrats because we live in a Democracy. It just doesn't make sense.
3. Four words on a coin is harmless. Banning gay marriage is not. I didn't say that religion is always harmless, but in the context of being sworn in on a bible it is.
4. There are no national slogans that swear an oath to one religion. Unless god actually belongs to just one religion (which one would it be?).
5. Right, the founding fathers knew the danger of statements that hinted at the existence of a "god", which is why the declaration of independence states "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
6. "In God we Trust" only disrespects those who do not believe in god, but it doesn't favor any particular religious establishment.

[Malishan]

If you honestly believe that you are a moron. Seriously. Sure there are a lot of angry atheists but in my experience it's the religious person who will start the "so why don't you believe in god" every time.

Yes that's why the "lol god" threads outnumber the "so why don't you believe in god" threads here 1000:1.

[Nevron]

I guess you could say this disadvantages the "Atheist" religion, but this only applies if you are to take Atheism (the lack of religion) as a religion. Of course if Atheism is a religion, then a completely secular government (a government that lacks religion) would inherently be supporting a "religion", thus violating the first amendment. So in fact, by your logic it would seem that the establishment clause is in fact impossible to follow, because no matter how you conduct yourself you would be "favoring" a particular religion.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the portion I quoted is a terrible argument. There is no atheist religion, and the absense of religious mention from the government forum would not be an inherent acception of atheism. You're trying to say an empty glass is full of "nothing" rather than empty.

[holychicken]

I see no problem with a president voluntarily saying "so help me god" at their inauguration. However, if it were forced, it would be a different story.