Comments on: Minnesotans join suit to stop religious events at inauguration

By: Ver

Ver — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:58:53 +0000

Keeping in or leaving out “So help me God” should be a decision left up to the individual President him (or her)-self. The beliefs of others should not be an influence in either direction. Surely this is the fairest solution?

By: wrren

wrren — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:00:57 +0000

If one group wants to have religion included in this I say fine then let all religions be involved. All and every group that calls itself a religion . They should have equal involvement from the well know to the most obscure from the Vatican to the pagan. Get Sarah Palin’s witch doctor there as well,just to be on the safe side. Or let’s just have a secular goverment.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:49:13 +0000

“Essentially aside from the specific words in the constitution, the president can have the rest of the swearing in ceremony worded as he pleases… For Christians they swear on the bible and promise to God; for the jewish they swear upon their holy book and to God; for muslim’s they swear to Allah and on their book and so forth… as such a atheist would get to choose how they swear into the office in a fashion the best represents their heart felt feelings for this promise… Really in a sense, the president is practicing his religious freedom in choosing how to swear in.”

Monte, of course Obama’s individual religious freedom means he can swear in as he sees fit (including the mandatory part, as you noted). He can even pray if he wants. It a question of this official ceremony, in which the whole country participates in theory, Christian and non-Christian. Why should there be a sectarian prayer? Even just saying “God” without saying “Jesus” or “Allah” specifically isn’t non-sectarian to those who believe in no gods or multiple gods. If non-religious people wanted an invocation stating that there is no god, then Christians would have a point that religion was being imposed on them. But this isn’t the case. No one is asking for such a statement. Just make no statement. That’s neutral.

Let private events have whatever prayers they want. Just keep it out of the government event. That seems like so little to ask.

By: Monte

Monte — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:29:50 +0000

The inauguration is essentially the president’s promise that he will faithfully carry out the duties of the president and uphold the constitution… as such the promise should be meaningful and heart felt from the president himself. And this is why Obama and presidents in the past have invoked the name of God when swearing in.

Swearing to God and making a promise in the name of God is the highest promise a christian can give. To break the promise is to dishonor God himself and commit a grave offense in the eyes of the lord; as such the promise has a great level of meaning to christians since offending God is the worst thing they can do.

Essentially aside from the specific words in the constitution, the president can have the rest of the swearing in ceremony worded as he pleases… For Christians they swear on the bible and promise to God; for the jewish they swear upon their holy book and to God; for muslim’s they swear to Allah and on their book and so forth… as such a atheist would get to choose how they swear into the office in a fashion the best represents their heart felt feelings for this promise… Really in a sense, the president is practicing his religious freedom in choosing how to swear in.

Christian Fascism,
I’ve heard the same exact stuff coming from Atheists on what they think of the religious. The irony is that some atheist can get so up in arms about religion that they become as bad as the religious people they hate. Just as the religious have share of their intolerant and hateful members, atheists as well have their own share.

By: KatOfCarmel

KatOfCarmel — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:56:02 +0000

Saying prayers does not make an established religion.

These people just don’t have the IQ to admit that God, a God, any God exsist.

By: August Berkshire

August Berkshire — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:20:31 +0000

“August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.”

I tried and tried to think of a response to this, but frankly it says it all.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:13:19 +0000

To resolve this freedom “of” or “from” issue, here is the First Amendment:
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.

So neither phrase is used. If someone can make a case that the framers of the Constitution understood “freedom of religion” to prohibit having no religion, go ahead. Of course, has it not occurred to you that if you’re not free to have no religion, then you don’t have religious freedom?

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:02:43 +0000

john, “August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.”

You can believe in a god who would subject anyone to an eternity of agony and torment? If you love this god, you love him like an abused child loves the abuser: to get him to stop causing pain.

By: john

john — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:42:28 +0000

August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.

By: Christian Fascism

Christian Fascism — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:34:36 +0000

From the Washington Post Blog :

‘Idiots like Newdow should be shot.’

Posted by: askgees | December 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Report

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2008/12/atheists_to_challenge_prayer_a.html?hpid=topnews

I can’t think of a more persuasive argument for the complete eradication of religion from government, science and education. How can Christians say things like this with a straight face?