IheartTesla Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1636170' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.40']cyrano, No. Presidents are the office and the individual. As individuals they do not give up the right to freedom of speech or free exercise of religion. Because there is no legal or Constitutional requirement that the individual say "So help me God" there is no establishment problem.[/quote] I guess by that logic judges can place the 10 commandments in their courtrooms, eh? There is no legal requirement for anyone, especially entering that courtroom, to actually obey those commandments. Any time the government "encourages and endorses the practice of religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular" is fair game for a lawsuit. More power to Newdow I say. The waste of taxpayer money will be minimal when divided by 300 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 So long as it isn't required, I don't care. Albeit I actually prefer the Almighty to God. God just sounds so pedestrian. :P Anyhow, I don't see Obama as the one to buck the trend. For one, he doesn't strike me as a religion in name only politician, that it would actually mean something to him. For two, he's got enough on his plate without upsetting the 80% who would care and rehashing all that secret muslim crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbigski Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Relic' post='1636186' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.12']What do you think will happen if someone DOESN'T say it?[/quote] Either the dragon fires don't get re-lit and we suffer from a daedric invasion, or plagues of locusts. Could go either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1636283' date='Jan 2 2009, 15.24']Either the dragon fires don't get re-lit and we suffer from a daedric invasion, or plagues of locusts. Could go either way.[/quote] Damn, moments like this, I miss George Carlin. He would have taken that dare. Oh and speaking of... [i]I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. ~ George Carlin [/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1636283' date='Jan 2 2009, 21.24']Either the dragon fires don't get re-lit and we suffer from a daedric invasion, or plagues of locusts. Could go either way.[/quote] :lol: Awesome response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'Kar Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1636283' date='Jan 2 2009, 15.24']Either the dragon fires don't get re-lit and we suffer from a daedric invasion, or plagues of locusts. Could go either way.[/quote] Just finished the game. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I agree that we'd be better off if Obama didn't say it, but nothing bad will happen just because he does, so to hell with it: if he wants to say it, let him. However, I do think it's wrong for Roberts to tell him to say it, because it makes a political thing out of the religious, which, blah blah blah is impossible [i]not[/i] to do anyway, blah blah blah, but he shouldn't be allowed to put the President on the spot in that fashion on that topic. Suppose Obama didn't want to say it, felt it was wrong to include that and preferred to leave it out? He can say something about it to Roberts, maybe, but the guy has no reason I know of to comply with that request. He nods his head, but later when the moment actually comes, he says, "... so help me God," and Obama has either to betray his conscience or look all kinds of foolish and arrogant and God knows what else the McJesus crowd will dream up. Don't give Roberts (or anyone else in any subsequent ceremony) the chance to mess it up. To tell the truth, I kind of like the leading statement someone suggested, where the name of the deity is to be inserted at the end. The chief justice says, "... so help me .........." And then the atheist or the strong-separation-of-church-and-state President can say, ".... so [i]help[/i] me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='cyrano' post='1636165' date='Jan 2 2009, 10.35']So he's a crank now is he? That's all I need to know about this "opinion" piece.[/quote] Yeah, that's pretty much the part that made me dismiss this piece as well. If anything, I consider the Pledge of Allegiance stuff the most valid and important of his actions. And in general I agree with the lawsuit. If Obama wants to say "so help me god" at the end, on his own, then he can do that, but I don't want backdoor semi-official religious additions to the official oath of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Just like "hysterical" for gay folk, "obnoxious" and "nutjob" and "crank" are the standard pejoratives for atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='cyrano' post='1636326' date='Jan 2 2009, 16.56']Just like "hysterical" for gay folk, "obnoxious" and "nutjob" and "crank" are the standard pejoratives for atheists.[/quote] I thought it was "hateful". Or is that one for Liberals? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Other-in-law, [quote name='Other-in-law' post='1636334' date='Jan 2 2009, 14.08']I thought it was "hateful". Or is that one for Liberals? :unsure:[/quote] I'm pretty sure that everyone gets labelled "hateful" from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Yeah, "hysterical" is the one typically used for feminists. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 "Obnoxious" fits atheists better I think. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Kat' post='1636341' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.16']Yeah, "hysterical" is the one typically used for feminists. :P[/quote] I thought it was "uppity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='cyrano' post='1636326' date='Jan 2 2009, 14.56']Just like "hysterical" for gay folk, "obnoxious" and "nutjob" and "crank" are the standard pejoratives for atheists.[/quote] Odd, They use those terms on over-zealous religious whack-jobs and republicans also... and no one seems to really mind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie McBride Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1636374' date='Jan 2 2009, 23.48']Odd, They use those terms on over-zealous religious whack-jobs and republicans also... and no one seems to really mind that.[/quote] Because in that case it's just the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EHK for Darwin Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Relic' post='1636186' date='Jan 2 2009, 12.12']What do you think will happen if someone DOESN'T say it?[/quote] Pat Robertson and those like him will scream about an all out assault on Christianity. Religiously conservative bloggers will go on 'I told you so' tirades about Obama being a god-hatin Muslim. Hannity, Rush and their ilk shout to the heavens about PC loving libruls destroying American values and culture. Republican elected officials will exclaim how shocked and offended they are. (And will only use the terms shocked and appalled to do so...or they may mix it up with shocked and offended) 3 year old slanderous e-mail chain letters will start circulating again. Recipients won't be sure whether Obama's a Muslim, Arab, Jew, or Atheist, but they'll be pretty sure he hates apple pie. Mainstream media will invite on a bunch of agenda driven hacks who will give disingenuous, self-serving propaganda and call it analysis or commentary. And on chat boards, in bars, and at family gatherings for the next 6 months I'll have to hear whatever argument Hannity/Limbaugh comes up with verbatim...again and again. On a side note, my NRA/Gun loving Uncle now likes Obama...largely because liberals are complaining about him lately. I guess that's progress. ("If they hate him, than I like him" would be the exact quote) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Lord of the North' post='1636360' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.36']I thought it was "uppity"?[/quote] No, that's black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1636409' date='Jan 2 2009, 16.30']Pat Robertson and those like him will scream about an all out assault on Christianity. Religiously conservative bloggers will go on 'I told you so' tirades about Obama being a god-hatin Muslim. Hannity, Rush and their ilk shout to the heavens about PC loving libruls destroying American values and culture. Republican elected officials will exclaim how shocked and offended they are. (And will only use the terms shocked and appalled to do so...or they may mix it up with shocked and offended) 3 year old slanderous e-mail chain letters will start circulating again. Recipients won't be sure whether Obama's a Muslim, Arab, Jew, or Atheist, but they'll be pretty sure he hates apple pie. Mainstream media will invite on a bunch of agenda driven hacks who will give disingenuous, self-serving propaganda and call it analysis or commentary. And on chat boards, in bars, and at family gatherings for the next 6 months I'll have to hear whatever argument Hannity/Limbaugh comes up with verbatim...again and again. On a side note, my NRA/Gun loving Uncle now likes Obama...largely because liberals are complaining about him lately. I guess that's progress. ("If they hate him, than I like him" would be the exact quote)[/quote] First, it would be foolish to even try and say that there is not a very valid point in the argument for the "assault on Christianity". It's more like a backlash, than an actual assault... but it is there and it is moving the balance to a position that persecutes Christians none the less. Christianity has been forcefully shoved down everyone's throats for so long, that a little bit of unfair treatment of Christians might actually be called for. I say this as a Christian. Second, American values and culture [i]are[/i][u][/u] being destroyed. Not that big a deal, really. A new set of values and a new culture is emerging. Which will be better, only time will tell. That's just the way of things, dynamic societies like America's will occassionally have to destroy what exists in order to build anew. Sometimes things are destroyed that ought not to have been, sometimes things are saved that should have been destroyed. In order to survive, a society [i]MUST[/i] be able to adapt. Third, there truthfully is not much difference between republican elected officials and democrat elected officials. They're all (probably 80-90%) just as corrupt. None of them do the job they were elected to do... and none of them care. They are friends. Many of them take their bribes and favors from the same people. The differences are only in the feed that they toss out to their bleeting masses. Fourth, chain letters have been. Chain letters will be. I'm fairly certain that Obama's thoughts on Apple Pie have never been questioned in one that I've seen (and I'm not sure I'd hold it against him if he hates it). I don't know what his religion is, or if he even is religious. At this point, I don't care. Likewise, I no longer care about the terrorists that he pals around with. I am in "wait and see how he does mode."... and I don't think I'm alone there. Finally, I am one of the NRA/Gun-Loving Right-Wing Nut-jobs that [i]people like you [/i]just love to hate. I voted for Palin and the Penguin (actually hoping that McPenguin wouldn't last through the first few months in office). I don't like Obama, I fear Obama. I will not take that as an excuse to rail against him, or rant and rave about him though. I will wait and see how he does, and hope for the best. I can see where he could be worse than Bush, but that would take an incredible amount of effort to pull off, so I'm fairly certain that however he does, it will be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote name='Kat' post='1636341' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.16']Yeah, "hysterical" is the one typically used for feminists. :P[/quote] Andrew Sullivan mentioned that he was described as hysterical a fair number of times, which he thinks is common for people of his orientation. I was always under the impression that folk use "shrill" in conjunction with feminist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.