God and the Oath of Office

There is some truth to that.But also for other reasons. they wanted to be free and have a choice in their lifes instead of being told what to beleave in and what to say.We have our weakness and our strong points but at least we have a choice. Some people in some countries do not. USA LOVER

REvolutionary war,

The majority of your is well written and makes sense. But explain this comment:

"I suppose it wont be a problem for the new administration to alter the constitution to suit their needs, I believe that's referred to as a "Monarchy" in the making."

I have read a substantial amopunt of what Obama stands for and nowhere have I seen any indication that he wants to alter the US Consitution to suit his needs or create a Monarchy with the executive having unchecked authority. In fact, I would argue he wnats the opppsite. That comment does seem to define the outgoing administration though and it especially is in line with Cheney's view that the executive is not subject to oversight or interference from either the legistlative or judicial branches of government.

"I think this is something you sould keep to yourself."

You think? Really. But seriously, you made the foolish statement that I serve no purpose. I proved you wrong. The web can function as a source of education and my posts are meant to help fulfill that purpose (not for you per se but for the general readership). There are many like me, (even some of the opposite side of this and others arguments) who try to help educate people.

"I fill sorry for them and mostly for you due to you when you get judge all this will be held up to you for makering beleavers fall."
Since there is nothing to judge me (and since what I did is a posotive thing not a negative one) that is something that I do not worry about. First off I did not make anyone fall. They made their own choices. Secondly, they do not fall, the raise themselves up by following thier hearts and minds through logic and intelligence

"Can't fight there but i don't know if it sould be in the goverment."
It serves no purpose and as I pointed out, because there are so many religious viewpoints (as well as many viewpoints about what god is), if the government decides to adopt one it is clearly in violation of the Establishmnet clause

"But as for you serving a purpose maybe in the eyes of the devil."
There is no devil either so that comment is moot and of not value.

"but I know for a fact that there is a god"
No you do not . You THINK that there is a god, but if you used true scientific analysis you would know that you cannot say it is is fact.

"but what right do you got to make someone else lose there way? you got none no right at all. if you don't beleave do so but keep it to yourself. "

They are not losing their way. They are finding their way. I have not only a right to provide them with information to help them find their own way (often by setting forth the alternative viewpoint) but an obligation to do so. I could tell you to keep your beliefs to yourself, but you have a right to voice them as well. THAT is part of the US Constitution.

"Constitution Lover you or the bigest moron."
Your posts show that your opinion has not standing to comment. I will easily put my intelligence, academic standing (several advanced degrees and actual recognition in Constitutional studies) and education up against yours any day of the week.

"If i asked you to reply i would ask"
Once you post a commetn you are automatically inviting comment and response. If you are not aware of that then you need to better your understanding of the process.

"What i am saying there is no reson not to beleave in god."
And if you have read what I posted I have given a few very good reasons not to believe that god exists. If you do not understand them that is your failing not mine.

"I did not say the bible is right or wrong all i said if you don't beleave may god help you find him."
If god does not exist he cannot help anyone find him.

"Also if you don't beleave in god shut up and stop reading things that has god in it."

Do you really need someone to explain how completely banal such a comment is. The issues raised in this article (and several others) are
extremely relevant to us. They are about the legality of god beingin insinuated into government. If you do not understand why those who do not believe in god have a very legitmate reason to be invled in those discussions, that is your problem not ours.


"all you anti god people or people that fail to understand ***."
I can not speak fo rothers but I am not "anti god". One cannot be anti something that does not exist. And if you have bothered to read some of my other posts, you wuld notice that I have nothing against those who believe in god(s). I support (and have fought for) their right to thier personal beliefs. What I oppose, as I pointed out before, is the attempts by some belivers to insinuate thier beliefs into government (at the expense of both those who do not believe in god and at the expense of those whose beliefs in god are different.)


"But your not you try to force people not to beleave why not keep anti god people away from the gov its all the same."

That is garbage.

"why sould a men who loves god keep it to them selfs but some anti god person jhave every right to cry and thow a fit when god is said."

The issue is not keeping it to oneself. There is plenty of religious expression on the radio, on church and private property. No one is asking you to keep it to yourself. Just out of government, whereit does not belong anyway.

I acknowledge that on occassion I do have typos. But on the whole the mechanics, grammar and spelling in my posts works. If that is the ONLY thing that you can criticize, your comments can be easily ignored as they serve no purpose.

"all i can say is our nations founddation was founded on god"
Saying it does not make it correct. Our nation was NOT founded on any deity . It was was foudned on human beings and human rights and equality for all (even though it took a while for that to settle in and is still lacking for some)

"well they are taking god out of everything"
No they are not. Just govenment, where it does not belong in the first place. Also think aob tthis. Exactly how is god to be defined. Which version of God? Which religion's view on what God "wants". Since there is not one viewpoint, interpretaion or opinion on this issue. That is why the founding fathers specifally understood that god and religon belongs wiht the individual citizen, NOT in the government.

"want proof look around....."
Nothing to see. Nothing of what has happened had anything to do with people removing diety from government. Prayer was in the schools when the Great Depression happened. There was more "god in Gernment" when the Teapot Dome Scandal occurred. There were Blue laws forcing Sunday as a day of rest when the lynchings occurred. It was just humans being human and you could put god in every inch of the land and nothing would change (except for the possibility of violence against those who do not believe in god, and possible intrer-religious outbreaks of violence.)

" If Obama wants to swear to God as he takes the Oath of Office, he has every right to do so within the law. "

If he wants to do it AFTER he takes he has every right. As long as people undestand that it is not part OF the Oath. Now that part of the suit that is within the law is where it says that Chief Jusice Robertsfrom PROMPTING the words. Obama is more thatn welcome to finish saying that OAth and THEN as a personal supplication, say the words. But Roberts is ONLY supposed to prompt the actual oath and the supplication is NOT part of it.

But remember, everyone focuses on that part ofteh lawsuit. It is only half of the suit.
The other half is that prayers and on that issue the law may not grant him the right to have them. I would much rather have had two separate suits been brought. The first would have been directed ONLY at Roberts forbidding him from prompting the words. That would have left the choice to Obama for an unprompted supplication. The Constitution is kept unviolated and both sides get what they want (a nice side note but actually irrelevant under the law). And that suit could very well have been won, or better yet, Roberts would promise not to prompt it and the suit becomes moot.

The second one, would be for blocking the prayers. Although unlikely to suceed, THAT suit does have very real merit and eventually must be decided by the Suprpem Court.

"Also why do these people fill there is no god."

Because there is no irefutable proof that supernatural entities (and gods are supernatural entities) exist outside of the human imagination. Even the complexity of our solar system does not prove supernatural entieis. It may point to a desing process but that process does not in any way shape or form require a supernatural entity. It jsut requires desingers, and there is not way to prove what was those designer(s) were. One idea is that it was god, but that is not proof.

"If i had to guess i think they beleave for god to be real he must help everyone."
Not at all. There has to be proof and there is none. (See above)

"he does may be not the way you what it to be but hes still there. he don't show himself and help everyone due to one reson! We or all sinners and life is a long test to see if we fill the same in the end for him with the lack of help and of not seeing or hearing."

That is religious belief, not reality.

"a non beleaver is one who whats to be carryed instand of finding himself and god."

Not at all. We do not need to be carried (since there is nothing to carry us inthe first place). We are quite capable of doing for ourselves.

"its good alot of you or kind to others but thats not all there is to it."
Actually that is all that there is. And it is quite enough.

"ON one side you helped someone but did not see god when you did? How can someone help other without beleave they would not just go to the bart and get wasted itsade of feeding there starving family? Its the same with god if you hold him close to you hes there."

That makes no sense whatsoever. It is pure drivel.

"but it seems to me, that when it comes to religion, and our rights to practice it, is coming under attack, and that is a form of oppression..."

Please tell me where your right to personally practice your religion in your own private life has been curtailed. Are you able to go to the church of your choice? Is that church able to put religious saying on its sign outside? Are you able to read your bible during your lunch break? Are you able to put Christmas lights up on your house (or in your aprtment windows)? If there is a fire at yoru church will the fire department come and risk their lives to save your church? Has anyone told you that you are not allowed to believe in God and Jesus inyou own life? No? then you assertion that your right ot pracitce your religion is not valid. What you seem to be complaining about is your not having the right to have the government put your religion above all others, and not being about to able to have a government seal of belief. I am just saying that if you really think about it, no one is trying to stop you from believing in your god or your religion.

"I look at this way, if my house is blue, and I state that I think all houses should be blue, because different colors offend me...is that fair...no...diversity is what our nation survives on...fact is America is a melting pot of all societies, and religions, and beliefs...and no one should have the right to attack others for what they do or do not believe in...and I apologize for my attack in my last statement...because you have the right to your opinions, as I do of mine....whether or not they are right or wrong I dont know...in time we may find out.."

Good statement. I can respect that.

"I think the separation of church and state is rediculous to begin with..the idiots behind this crap, will face our maker when their lives end, and then let them explain to God Almighty that they did not believe in him, or what he stood for"

Well, "the idiots behind all this crap" (the idea of the need to keep religion and government separate for the protection of both) were the founding fathers. As for those of us who support it now, many of us actually believe in god (I am not one of them). When I die, that is the end of it. Since there are no supernatural beings (god is a supernatural being) and since there is nothing after one die I am not worried about dying.

"The sadest part of all of this, is that our children are suffering...if there was more emphasis on God, and what he stands for, and if it was able to be taught in school, may be we would not have as many juvenile deliquents"

Don't bet on it. If parents aren't able to imbue their own beliefs their children about their religion in their own homes that is their failing, not the schools.

"should wake up a smell the coffee, before its too late for themselves, and they should beg for forgiveness from God Almighty..."

Coffee is real, supernatural beings are not.

"Our country was founded on the foundation of God."

ACtually it was not. It was founded on the ofundation of law and democarcy, as well as the foundation of the right to believe or not.

"You have the freedom to believe the way you want. Why does it bother you so much that the rest of us believe in God."
I do not have a problem with you beleiving. It is your right and if it inspires to do beneficial things, then ist served as good purpose. What bothers me is when you try to insinuate your specific view of god into government and the law. I have no problem with Obama sayig the four little words AFTER the END of the Oath. They are not, nor have they ever been part of the oath. As long as people understand that, I am fine. Buyt given what has been posted here, many people are still completley ignoarnt about what the US Constitution says and means. THAT is a serious problme. Those four little words may have meaning to him. They may have meaning to many people. But they have no meaning to the country as an entity, to the Constitution or to the laws. The prayers on the other hand ARE a problem as they are de facto Establishment violations.

"I dare say when you come to the end of your life, you will beg God to save you."
Then you will lose that dare. I have known many people who did not believe in supernatural intervention in the world (which is what god and religion are) who never changed that view on thier death beds and a couple of whom actually made a point of saying, "there is no god" as their last words. I am sure I will be like them.

I don't know why the judges are so quick to let a single voice convince them to give up so much of
our heritage just because a particular party doesn't approve."

Becuase it is against the Constitution and THAT is the ONLY thing that matters.

"Please don't let them destroy that in which the rest of the US citizens believe."
If removing the prayers destroys what you believe then your faith is very weak and valueless. I knw many people who believe in god who also do not wnt the prayers to be said. They feel that it cheapens thier religion and their god. THEY have strong faith. They do not need god and religion to be shouted from the rooftops or on government stages. They hear it in thier hearts (and they would say in their souls.) They have pretty impressive faith.