God and the Oath of Office

The few times that I have even come close to "jumping on someone" when they mentioned god was when a poster made attacks on atheists.

The first time was was on 1/16 when the psoter AS I SEE IT posted:
"Atheist can go to HELL. We'll go to HEAVEN. GOD IS !!!"

My response was:
"Since there is no god, no heaven or nor hell that is a moot comment. "

It was a valid rejoinder to an admonition to "go to hell". Since Atheists do not believe in hell, reminding the poster of that and also pointing out that a toothless threat is just that, toothless.


The only other times I "jumped on someone" were responses to your comments. And even then I usually tried to explain my reasoning to you.

The other times I disputed god's existance were ususally respones to other posters who either directly asked me how I could not believe or stated that they had proof when waht they had is faith. There is nothing wrong with faith but it is not proof in any scientific sense of the word. I have no problem if a person has faith that god helped them through hard times. IF that is what they believe and said belief gives them solace, peace or strength to weather more hard times, it serves a good purpose forthem and they shoud continue to believe. But in no way can it be called proof of anything but there own faith. I know many atheists who raised themselves out of hard times and situations and they can attribute it to inner strength and using their minds. It is all a matter of viewpoint.)


"the court already thow it out and new law was bring in to stop his case or any like it to fail auto so they had ther final say."

The Surpeme Court has not thrown it out as it never had the time to get to it. As I have said, Newdow's case had some flawsin it (as many of his cases do). As for any attempted new laws to stop such cases (those that would deny the courts the right to hear such cases), anyt such laws will be struck down as a violationofthe Constitution.

IF you had read what I have said, you would know that I have never said it is bad to believe in god. In fact I have said that IF one's belief in god or their religion helps them then they should continue to believe in god. What I have said is why I do not believe in god and why it is my assertion that religion must be kept out of government (for the protection of both). Not out of individual citizens' private lives, where it belongs and should be followed if they so choose. I also said that I never intended for those people who decided, on their own, that there is no god to make that decision. I was only engaging in intellectual conversations where we were comparing our beliefs and how we arrived at them.

And just so you know I have also told people who were having doubts abuot god soley because their lives were hard or "unfair", that, in my opinion, that those are valid reasons to stop believing. That if they were having those types of doubts that there are a number of books to read (all of which are pro-belief such as some of Rabbi Harold Kushner's books). I have also recommenfed that they talk to their various clerics or find other clerics that they can relate to. The one thing that I have spoken against is the idea that God only gives one as much as they can handle. That idea I have always rejected (even when I believed in God.)

I am sorry that you did not understand that but now maybe you will. You have every right to believe as you do, just as I have every right to believe as I do. But my reasoning against the prompting and the prayers does have a basis in Constitutional law. And as i have said, all that I want is a final ruling by the court on each. Once they decide on it, I will accept their ruling. Until they rule I will continue to challenge the actions. The Supreme Court has the final say on the matter, not Obama, not you, not me, not the people of the US.

By the way, Jefferson did NOT believe in a divine Jesus (he did feel that Jesus' non-deity oriented teaching were exceptional) or in the devil. And he had no problem with other religons or with atheism,.In fact he wrote "it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

I agree that he has a right to place his hand on the bible and he is allowed, after the oath, to sayu his own supplication. As you and I have said to each other we agree on that issue. lightningz is not able to understand those nuances because they take intellect.

"The purpose of the chief justice is to guide him through the oath, stating it has the president wishes with an changes including "so help me god"."

I would disagree with that assertion. The purpose of the Chief Justice is only to administer the oath. The ONLY part the the president has any say over is whether to use the term "swear" or th term "affirm" (as well as his own name). The idea that either can make changes to the oath is not valid.


"how would an atheist president be sworn in? It seems that an oath is a religious tradition and thus an atheist can not truly take an oath. This reasoning has been applied in the past, for example barring atheist from giving testimony in court since he cannot swear on a bible to tell the trust."

That argument as has been ruled invalid several times. Also the idea that an oath is religious in nature is no longer valid (for the same reason that marriage is no longer jsut a religious ceremony).

"But atheist are currently allowed to give testimony in courts, giving an affirmation or alternative secular oath without "so help me god" instead. "
Most courts have removed both the bible and the "so help me god" parts.

As for how an oath of ofice can be taken without a bible, it is simple. First, putting one's hand on the bible is NOT part of the oath taking process in the Constitution. One puts one's hand on the US Constitution (the ONLY sacred document to the US Government and the basis of our government and laws). Then one says the oath, and ONLY the oath.

There have been members of the House and Senate as well as other government officials and military officers who have done so. And most of them were believers in God. They simply felt that, at least in an officail US Government capacity the Constitution is more important. Now whether they made their own supplication to thier god afterwards I am not sure and it would be their right to do so.

It really is not that complicated.

There is a major differnce between typos, which everyone makes, and on occassion catch and correct, and a complete lack of skill with the English language.

I, and others, make typos. You show not only a complete ignorance of the English language but almost a complete lack of cognitive reasoning and intellect. There is a distinct difference between writing styles (mine tends to be academic in nature) and an inability properly use the English language (which seems to be your problem.)

BTW, our back and forth has become part of a class on online dialog that I am teaching. Another reason for some but not all of my uncaught typos is that some of the time I am writing while talking to grad students. At other times it is just me typing alone but having the BBC World News radio program running on my computer at the same time (or with my wife in the room whiile she is talking to me prepping her courses.) Your writing has provided quite a bit of comedy for my 20+ students. They think that you are comic albeit pitiful. And I am fairly sure that all of them are believers in God (mostly Christians or Jews). Although I am going to eventually cut off our back and forth because some of them have said it is unfair for me to parry with an underarmed opponent. Now they love bkrummel, USA Lover sm29s66, and especially Revolutionary War. I may not always agree with them but they tend to post intelilgent and well thought out ideas and are willing to engage in intelligent conversation. Try learning from them.

"We all have the right to say what we think and pray if need be."
But there is no need for prayer at Government events.

So you can say anything? Okey lets test this call the cia and tell them you what to kill them and see if you don't get locked up. better yet tell them you put a bomb on a plane and see what happens. Dude you have no freedom of speach my two of my sites got locked down by the fbi for talking how the world would be better if there was no gov. Also you can get locked up for a number of things. So all i what from your next post is prof of everything you say or else your full of ***."

I never said that we can say anything. That comment was made by USA Lover. Try reading before you respond. I have alwasy said that there are limits to Freeedom of Speech. I know the US Constitution having studied it and taught it.

By the way, I never said that Obama COULD NOT sy the words. I knew all along that he would do so. Waht I have said (IF you were able to read) was that the Chief Justice should not have prompted them. I knew he would but that one issue will eventually be the basis of a Supreme Court case. One that actually may stand a chance of winning. Also given that Roberts screwed up the Oath when he admnistered it was funny. Proves the point that he should READ what is written and not add things to it.

Also I never once said that he should not mention god in his speech. The Inauguraion Address is HIS words and his words alone. He has every right to mention God in his Adress.

From the linkyou yourself posted.

"In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

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.

THAT is the entire Oath. Nothing more.

"The oath may be sworn or affirmed. Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it has become a standard practice for modern presidents to add "so help me God" at the end of the oath."

"Standard Practice" does NOT mean that it is part of the oath. It means that people have CHOSEN to say it but that it is not PART OF the Oath. Thank you for proving my point.

"Wrong again the web is mostly for entertament. books or for education. the net nope it has alot of porn thouth."
You really do know very little about the web. Books are as much for entertainmetn as the net is. And the web is considered the fastest growing educational reference there is. You may be incapable of being educated by it, but I doubt you are capable of being educated by anything.

"Wrong again you can be the nicest person in the world if you don't find god well it kind of still means hell due to you only learned what you think would of sealed the deal if your wrong.
that is something that I do not worry about.
due to what i replyed to it shows you do care but only if you end up wrong your trying to cover yourself."

Even if you wrote that in English what you said would make no sense.

"Did they force you to talk your madness to them. if so maybe you sould stay away from people with guns."

Since it is not madness your question is void. but they asked me to explain my views on the isuue. One does not need to be forced to have intelligent dialog (something you are obviously incapable of). In fact intelligent people (something else you do not understand) seek out educated dialog.

"Wrong again buddy you could of keept your mouth closed if you did not make them lose there way. Also I have a filling your some what of a beleaver due to even you said hearts if you did not you would of used other wording. due to most people who don't beleave use head due to thats where a human brain is."

Once again you prove that you know nothing. You really are an embarassment to believers.

"Again I know for a fact there is one."
You know nothing.

"I think this country started with a lot of praying and faith in God to see us through."
Not really.

"Just because a few and I mean a few out of all of us in this country we are blessed to live in don't like pray, thats their problem."
The number of atheists in the USA is growing. But it is not an issue of not liking to pray (the reality is not that we do not like to, it is that we see no need to, mainly because there is nothing to pray to.) it is na issue of the appropraite place for prayer. Government event are not an appropriate place for formal prayers (private prayer sure but not official prayer)

"We all have the right to say what we think and pray if need be."
But there is no need for prayer at Government events.

"So to you atheists when you can get 75% of Americans to go for what you want to be removed from public"
Not from pubilc, from government. And we do not need 75% to do it. Just a Court that agrees that it vioaltes the US Constitution.

"Someone who isn't afraid to beleive in prayer."

We are not afraid of prayer. We just do not need it. If you need it then by all mean you should pray.

Actually several of my acquaintances know who I am on this board. And know waht I have written.

One, a Methodist minister, who has a Masters in Government and a PhD in theology, just emailed me saying "You really put that foolish clown lightningz in his place. He never stood a chance against you. You won my friend. Know that he only represents himself, not God or Christianity".

Another an Episcopal Priest wrote me: "Although we do not agree on God or Jesus, you most assuredly put ligtningz in his/her place. He/She never stood a chance against you. You are right, he does not represent us and is an embarassment to God's side. "

There you have two believers who feel that you should stand down and not humilate their side of the arguement any longer.

I admire you too. In today's times there are so many risk in getting into your own business with the way big busines is. You put your family first which is something alot of people don't do. Good Luck in what ever comes your way. I guess It's meant for me to just have faith that we'll get by. Hopefully Times will change for the better.The hardworking people that are so easily forgot hopes for a better future for their children, if not them ,and will have that day come true USA LOVER.