Next Generation Emulation banner

LOL my guys are funny

1K views 27 replies 9 participants last post by  makotech222 
#1 ·
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words in the inaugural oath.

Newdow and other atheists and agnostics also want to stop the use of prayers during the inaugural celebration.

Newdow, who lost a Supreme Court battle to get the words "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, has failed in similar challenges to the use of religious words and prayers at President George W. Bush's inaugurations.

Roberts' attorney Jeffrey P. Minear filed a document in Newdow's lawsuit saying that Obama wants the words "so help me God" included in his oath of office.

The Justice Department and attorneys general from all 50 states have filed motions at the federal court asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and reads: "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."

The National Archives says that George Washington added the words "so help me God" when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since. However, some have argued that the first eyewitness account of a president using those words came at President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881.

Named in Newdow's lawsuit are Roberts; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and the two pastors invited to the event, the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will hear arguments on Thursday.
Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath - Yahoo! News

Oh boy. The one thing i dont like about religion is that one always trys to change the others. i could personally care less if he says that at his oath.
discuss
 
Discussion starter · #4 ·
We aren't technically a group lol, we just share an ideal. kinda like pessimists.
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
its just funny that they try so hard to seperate these small, insignificant things from government. technically us agnostics shouldnt really care, as we believe there can or cant be a god. So by saying so help me god, 2 things could happen. god helps him be president or nothing happens except wasting 2 seconds of his life. end of story. :p
 
Discussion starter · #9 ·
i finally make sense? i always make sense.
 
Discussion starter · #13 ·
alright then, thanks phil lol.

Technically, theism is religion. atheism, implies 'without' belief in god. We dont really 'believe' in science per se, we 'know' it. It can be proven over and over again by laws. religion require faith wherein the person 'needs' to believe in god because there is no proof.
 
Discussion starter · #17 ·
sure it is.

If i can't see, touch, taste, smell or hear it, it doesn't exist.

Atoms? Dark matter? black holes?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence
True which is why i am agnostic :) show me proof, absolute proof, and i will become theistic.
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
technically they cant be seen, only their effects. but i get what you mean.
 
Discussion starter · #22 ·
well Machiavellianism isnt about self-serving at heart, its about doing whats necessary for the good of all (mankind). it could also be described as altruism in a certain viewpoint. problem is no one really knows whats best, but GOD! lol.

sidenote: pcxl just wondering why you are linking me to gpu drivers, lol.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
Machiavellianism is entirely about self service at heart...

...yes it could apply to others if they were part of your family or extended family, as this would ultimately be contributing to the ultimate purpose of life to propagate ones genetic information.
Its about the end justifies the means. if becoming king doesnt benefit the people you rule, well, it just doesnt justify killiing thousands of people or whatever it was that you did to get there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top