Are Atheists Right to Sue Over a KY Law Mandating Homeland Security Pledge Reliance Upon God? (Take the Poll)
- Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:19pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
There‘s a controversial Kentucky law on the books that requires all homeland security documents to recognize mankind’s dependence on God. The 2006 state law, some say, is more reminiscent of a Middle Eastern theocratic proclamation than it is a Western legal mandate.
The regulation was put into place by State Rep. Tom Riner, a Democrat from Louisville and a Southern Baptist minister. He put the contentious “Almighty God” language into law without much fanfar. But now, years after it was enacted, the clamor is intensifying.
Edwin Kagin, an atheist who is leading the legal charge against the law, says, “It’s outrageous.” Kagin contends that the regulation is unconstitutional by both Kentucky and the federal government’s standards. He claims that the state is forcing religion on its residents and on a federal agency.
“The Constitution states that there shall be no attempt by the government respecting an establishment of a religion and that’s precisely what (the law) is doing,” Kagin said.
“What if the law said we cannot be safe without reliance on Allah, perhaps, or the flying spaghetti monster or anything you could come up with?” he continued. “A law such as this is a step toward establishing a theocracy in our state.”
While some may see Kagin’s views on the matter as a bit excessive, others say the law’s elements are uncommon. The state’s Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is required to prominently display a plaque that reads, ”The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” And the department’s literature, too, must pledge the same allegiance to a higher power.
Watch for more, below:
Riner (who’s also a Baptist minister) doesn‘t agree with Kagin’s feelings on the matter and he believes that the state is acting within its legal bounds. ”The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God,” Riner recently told Fox News.
“We believe dependence on God is essential…What the founding fathers stated and what every president has stated, is their reliance and recognition of Almighty God, that‘s what we’re doing,” he continued.
He holds the Declaration of Independence up as the inspiration for the regulation. ”In that document, it sets forth the need for men to understand that our protection, our rights come from God, not government,” Riner said. ”Trusting God is our heritage. We will not surrender that heritage, which is a heritage of looking to Almighty God for His blessing.”
Legal action first began back in 2008 after a news report about the law was published. Atheists won the first court battle in 2009, when Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate took their side. Then, a three-judge appellate reversed this decision during the last round of legal sparring back in October. These judges found that the law does not violate the constitution.
The coalition against the regulation, which includes American Atheists, a well-known non-profit atheist group, is planning to appeal the decision.
What do you think? Does the Kentucky law go too far? Take the poll, below:
(H/T: Fox News)
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 648 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 316 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 181 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 212 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 181 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (257)
garyM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:19pmThe communist imported people like this Edwin Kagin in here years ago, we better nip this in the butt or will end up with one in the oval office, whoops too late!
Report Post »kenXIII
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:59pmas a Christian i do not see why we would even need our government to waste time on that. we already know Gods will shall be done regardless of any others plans. so why would we NEED to have the government focus on anything other than minimal strait forward tasks. They can’t even stay focused on the minimal of duties while still producing acceptable results.
“The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God” us saying that changes nothing, we are or we are not in Gods good graces.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:07pmSeparation of Church and State – The Metaphor and the Constitution
“Separation of church and state” is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state‘s business and the state staying out of the church’s business. Because of the very common usage of the “separation of church and state phrase,” most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.
The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:09pmcontinued………….
However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state’s business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.
This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the “separation of church and state” metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the “free exercise” clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the “establishment” clause.
Report Post »Continued on the link below.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:10pmOf the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.
George Washington
1st U.S. President “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence”Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any others.”
Report Post »John Adams.
Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:11pm“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”
–Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
–Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
“We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of the government (but) upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison.
“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”
Report Post »John Adams
Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:12pmThomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence”God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Hancock
Report Post »1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence”Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:14pmBenjamin Franklin
Report Post »Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution”Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.
Rational Man
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:15pmSamuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution”And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.”
–As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
James Madison
4th U.S. President”Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
–America’s Providential History, p. 93.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:42pmThank you for taking the time to post all of that, RATIONAL MAN
Report Post »Rob in Katy
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:09am@Rational Man, thank you again. This separation BS has to be called what it is. We are the most free nation on the earth because of our share belief in the Almighty. I think those that don’t share that should be free to leave but not free force us to change.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:00amNo trouble at all. I gathered this info for an aruement I was having online with a progressive elsewhere. I figured it would come in handy and saved it. And I was right. I’ve pasted it three times on this website in the last few of days.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:13amEmblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words “In God We Trust.”
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930′s has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, “So help me God.”
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Report Post »kenXIII
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:31amCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
Report Post »One thing I would like to know is how can they restrict and punish kids from praying before they eat lunch in schools and from having there bible? Is that not prohibiting the free exercise thereof? To me it sounds like they are repressing their rights.
Also I remember a few stories on here. The first, they were talking about giving a day off for a muslim holiday. Then they said a student was allowed to educate other kids about the holiday in school.
The second was about kids that were allowed to have a religious dagger in school. Not sure if that one is muslim related.
Then two other things I have heard that I’m not sure on. First was a kid sent home for wearing a crucifix?
The second is it true they provide muslim kids a place to pray? I’m not sure where I read about that. Yet they restrict ours from doing so.
And why does it seem atheists only target Christian and Jews but never satanists and muslims? Looks to be the new nazi party.
Big Book Harry
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:16am@kenXIII as a Christian i do not see why we would even need our government to waste time on that. we already know Gods will shall be done regardless of any others plans.
Report Post »Of course the Father is sovern yet in these times of dispensation we are called to give Him glory and honor. “If anyone denies Me before man I will deny him before my Father.”
First the gays came out of the closet now these lost souls. Matt. 24:12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.
gmoneytx
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:06amThe law has nothing to do with a “religion” it says GOD! This guy is a moron.
Report Post »taxx
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:25amThe separation of church and state metaphor is a great example of how judges interpret the Constitution, specifically the establishment clause and create a new law by their decisions.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:04pmNipping things in the “butt” is not a good way to go about it
Report Post »Common sence is not confined to the Christian faith.
PheonixDragon
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:16pmIn reply to the poster, “Rationalman”, the passage in the Constitution, does say that the State shall not be a religious state, which means that religion is not a state ideal. There is a clear passage separating religion from secular ideals, as in a separation of Church and State; but what it means, is that the State won’t be allowed to embrace a religious rule; which also means that the Church will not impose a religious rule over the state.
Report Post »Yet, with the coming of Islamic law, and those judges who say it has more power than the Constitution, I think we need to start cleaning house.
As for the Kentucky law, I don’t see it as making religion a state ideal, as long as Kentucky doesn‘t decide to tell all of it’s residents, which church they have to attend.
Then I might be a mite upset.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 1:38pmYes, the law goes to far, in that it requires you to believe a certain way.
But it also occurs to me that this law might have been designed to restrain the Federal government. That is, the goal might be reliance on god AS OPPOSED TO reliance on bigger government.
Be careful how we handle this one, Blazers; While our government was set up to allow freedom of belief and worship for every single individual, the logic supporting that notion can only be grounded on a worldview in which there is a God – if there is no God, then no logical claim can be made to inherent rights.
Atheists are free to believe, against the proof, whatever they want about God, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:18pm”The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God,”
Well of course HE thinks that–that’s precisely the point and the problem; ONLY the adherents of the faith find the reasons for personal belief persuasive, and NO ONE else.
In order for something to be validated as true, it has to stand up to the scrutiny of logical inspection of the premises, conclusion, and reasoning. If it cannot be objectively verified, then it cannot claim the status of truth. At best, we might offer some probabilistic reasons to suppose it might true.
For this reason, precisely the point illustrated by Kagin’s analogy, public authority should not be in the business of supporting religious claims–because there is no mechanism, supra-religion, to compare between various real and conceivable religious claims to determine which OUGHT to have the pride of place (because PRACTICALLY it is often undesirable, or simply impossible, to endorse ALL real and conceivable religious claims), so EITHER we admit everyone’s claim (undesirable for most, and often impracticable) OR we can’t play ANY favorites.
Now one might say, we can play ONE favorite–to the single largest religion. But that isn’t really a solution, because it is ONLY appealing when you have majority status; as soon as you lose that, an alternative policy becomes preferable from your perspective.
Report Post »Conservative Atheist
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:49pmblickquickly
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:12pm
“Those godless heathens can suck it.”
Blick, I am not a hethan, I got to work, pay taxes, take care of my wifey+kids, and I dont think the United States should be a welfare state. You and I probably agree on most things I just dont talk an imaginary friend.
Report Post »You sir (and everyone that has said similar things on this board) are the exact religious zealot’s that the tards on the left are always screaming about. You people saying “F you get out of my country then” are just as wrong as the people on the left trying to say you cant have a christmas tree anywhere in sight.
And just as Neutron said earlier (even though you are one of these zealots I speak of) I agree with him that believers and non-believers BOTH need to grow a collective pair and get over the fact that other people dont believe what you do…..And the whole point to this story is that the state is trying to FORCE PEOPLE TO PLEDGE TO gOD.
If you would prefer to pledge to god, be my guest, but it shouldnt be MANDATED-Get it now???
TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:57pmblaw blaw blaw….. so you atheist, actually less than 2% of America, should decide all of this for the other 98%…. blaw blaw blaw…..
Stand Strong America, One nation under God
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:17pmThis law is merely the state endorsement of an opinion. Such an endorsement infringes on no one’s civil rights, as no one has the right to have the government agree with him. As long as he is free to believe as he chooses without any loss of substantial rights there is no constitutional problem. People whining that they are oppressed by the thought of the State telling them there is a God or who that God is only prove what immature babies they are.
I don‘t care if the Goverment believes crap like man made global warming as long as it doesn’t try to bribe of forces others to agree with it or change their practices to conform with that belief. I want my incandescant light bulbs, dammit!
If the pronouncements of my government really bother me I have a remedy: fight to elect people who will change what the state preaches.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:22pmThe purpose of the seperation of church and state was to ensure that the government did not force the people to adhere to any one religion. That is it. To say God or Almighty God, is not forcing any particular religion, therefore is Constitutional. All religions refer to their supreme power as God, except of course, atheists. This country seems to allow the minority to outweigh the majority in these type of issues and that is not what America is about. You can look at the poll above and see what the majority think.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 9:13pm@ISLESFORDIAN
“as no one has the right to have the government agree with him.”
You are absolutely right–which is PRECISELY why PRIVATE religious devotion is the ONLY acceptable form of devotion–there CANNOT be a mixing of “public” and “religion.” Now, I don‘t think that has to MEAN you literally can’t be/show religion in “public,” in the colloquial meaning of the word–that’s just despotic.
But what I DO think that means is GOVERNMENTAL resources and authority CANNOT entangle itself with religion (either positive or negative). Government should be in the business of sponsoring ambivalence towards religion–”I don’t know, it’s not my [the government] job to make such a judgment about what is theologically true; that is for the citizen” and NEITHER supporting atheism NOR any particular religion (the majority at the time or not).
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 9:22pm@WEST COAST PATRIOT
“The purpose of the seperation of church and state was to ensure that the government did not force the people to adhere to any one religion.”
That is “A” purpose, but not necessarily “The” purpose, or the sole purpose, of the principle of separation. it’s true, it was intended to prevent theocracy, but it was also to protect religion from itself–because religion is PERFECTLY happy to legislate, SO LONG as it holds the largest plurality in the society, but as soon as that is not the case, it finds the domination of the state by ANY OTHER RELIGION not itself, to be despotism. And I agree–it IS despotism to allow theology to have political power, REGARDLESS OF THE THEOLOGY.
“All religions refer to their supreme power as God, except of course, atheists.”
There are/have been/will be religions that are not monotheistic, and in fact non-deistic (you can make metaphysical claims without them involving intentional divine agents) religions like Animism, or reincarnationist beliefs.
“This country seems to allow the minority to outweigh the majority”
Report Post »The majority can be wrong–the ad populum fallacy; majority belief does not equal truth. I shouldn’t have to explain this.
“that is not what America is about.”
It‘s also usually not been what we’ve done–our history has NOT been one of being overly protective of minority opinion.
“You can look at the poll above and see what the majority think.”
Ah ah ah ah ahha ha haha ha.
The-Monk
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:12am@Conservative Atheist
Report Post »I agree with you on many levels. Keep God out of Government and Government out of God. This Nation is, however, a Christian Nation and not an Islamic Nation or a Satanic Nation. Either of which would undermine our basic values of Democracy and tradition. I like celebrating Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. I don’t celebrate Honokaa or Quanza. However, it‘s OK if other people do as long as they don’t completely shut down my Holiday’s. I want a Christmas tree, Christmas lights, Santa Clause and the rest. It’s my right and no one should have the right to take that away from me.
The-Monk
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:25am@Conservative Atheist
Report Post »I forgot to warn you about trying to take away my Christmas tree, Christmas lights and Christmas presents… I will leave you to Achmed the Dead Terrorist and let him Keeel You!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Sorry, but you might just deserve to die… heathen.
StonyBurk
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:32amWhy did that first Congress under the Constitution use the term “Congress” when stating the self evident truth they desired to convey in that religious clause –only to use the term the atheist Kagin uses in error “government” in that same first Amendment in our Bill of Rights” the progressives always misstate the object they wish to have redefined. I cannot reconcile the third atheist to what Justice Joseph Story wrote in his seminal Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States ,1833 and in the textbook on our Constitution A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution,1840–see p316 section 444 A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution Regnery 1997 from the 1859 original.And I rather enjoy the response Charles Hodge gave in his speech in1876 On the demands by the atheists, and the infidels–”( recognition of their demands) simply cannot be done.” The Glory of America desk calendar June 19 citing Hall ,Revolution,156.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:34amIslesfordian
Report Post »Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:17pm
This law is merely the state endorsement of an opinion. Such an endorsement infringes on no one’s civil rights, as no one has the right to have the government agree with him. As long as he is free to believe as he chooses without any loss of substantial rights there is no constitutional problem. People whining that they are oppressed by the thought of the State telling them there is a God or who that God is only prove what immature babies they are.
_____________________________________________
Instead of an Oath to God, its Allah, Budha, or Brahma will you still find no offense? Being required to swear to a deity you don’t beleve in is a pure violation of freedom of religion.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:30am“Being required to swear to a deity ”
Do you have a problem in reading comprehension, Encinom. I said, “As long as he is free to believe as he chooses without any loss of substantial rights ”. That means he cannot be “required” to say anything. The government simply declaring something and leaving everyone free to agree or disagree is what I am talking about and precisely NOT what you mention when you talk of required oaths.
@Thrid Archon
“@ISLESFORDIAN
“as no one has the right to have the government agree with him.”
You are absolutely right–which is PRECISELY why PRIVATE religious devotion is the ONLY acceptable form of devotion”
I wish you would lay out the logic there, because I see no connection between your agreement with me on that statement and what you claims follows logically. What are you assuming? Are you perhaps assuming that the only reason why the government woul express a religious opinion is because someone thought he had a right to get the government to agree with him and exerted political power to make it so? I see nothing problematic in that. If it is done politically and democratically it can be undone the same way, especially if it goes against the majority wishes. I am in favor of majority rule as long as minority rights are protested. As no minority has the right to have the government agree with it (my point above) there can be no objection to the majority expressing its opinion, religious or otherwise, through official st
Report Post »blickquickly
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:12pmThose godless heathens can suck it.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:19pmYou forgot to add “all religions, real and conceivable, which are not the one that put up the banner.”
Report Post »Patriot of My America
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:13pmWell fella’s as for me I can speak to this, I was injured very seriously and I can say the Lord does exist as in my personal experience. I will not describe my injury but I can say there is no other way to describe what happened to me. As I looked I was well above my body floating in water, and I thought ” Oh God Not Today, ” and I was Slammed into my life less body, at which point I was able to roll over and take a breath. As my friend came next to me and pulled me into the boat he said.. Man are you blue, I could not speak yet, the Dr. told me there was no reason I should have survived .
Report Post »And I thank the Lord, God, Almighty.
cdavis2009
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:26pm@Separate Soldier: The Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion (like the Church of England) or making decisions regarding the free exercise of religion. The states were left to make their own decisions. Therefore, if Kentucky wants to require someone to take an oath under God it is that state’s right. The individual has every right not to take the oath.
Report Post »Conservative Atheist
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:12pmI am very suprised at the close mindedness being thrown around this thread. One of The Founding Fathers reasons for creating this country was so it’s citizens would have freedom OF and FROM religion. You Cannot Constitutionally require someone that works for the Gov. to swear their allegiance to god, that is f’ing retarded. Grow up people.
Report Post »Marengo Ohio Patriot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:18pmOF is correct.. FROM proves you are a moron!
Report Post »hvy_gunner_0331
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:21pmBut the United States is formed upon Judea-Christian precepts, and the whole basis of our Freedom is that it has been endowed by the Creator. Otherwise, the whole concept and basis of the United States is null and void. You have the right NOT to believe, but don’t start sawing down the very supports that hold the house up!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:31pmTHis is not a 1st Amendment issue but an Art. 6 problem. Art. 6 prohibits religious tests for office.
Report Post »ZAP
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:49pmI have a hope,you have none
Report Post »cdavis2009
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:51pmRead “Original Intent” by David Barton and then rethink your hypothesis . . . The founders believed that taking an oath required a stated belief in God, otherwise they saw the oath as pointless. This isn’t an opinion . . . just citing the writings of the founders who unabashedly (even those who were not orthodox or religious) believed that for this country to survive God needed to remain at the center (specifically the Christian God). They also were clear in stating that this country was founded on Biblical principles. That is why scripture is in the carvings of many buildings in D.C. That is why you can basically reconstruct the Bible using quotes in historical writings from the founders found in the Congressional library. The founders intent was to protect all expressions of faith. What we have now is a deliberate effort to shut people of faith up. While the founders would agree (and did state in their writings) that no one has the right to force someone to believe something) they did not see open expressions of faith as forcing someone to believe. They also saw it as important that leaders did have faith in a higher power because they felt that only those with such a mindset could be trusted to live on established principles because they would be answerable to someone other than themselves.
Report Post »rickyw
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:52pmWhat is the motto of the U.S.A.
Report Post »IN GOD WE TRUST it has been since the beging of our country and will be till the day I die.
The Supreme Court building is covered with faces and litachure on God . You have the right to not beleive and we have the right to .for the day will come and you will I promise you you will ask God to save your soul .you all do but are cowarfs to amit it.MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BECAUSE YOU WILL NEED IT IN THE END.MERRY CHRISTMAS.AMEN
Conservative Atheist
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:54pmArnt u supposed to be a Glenn Beck fan?? I have heard Glenn many times speak of the tyranny of the King of England and how religiously oppressive it was. So yes it is OF and FROM. Calling names doesnt make you right, it makes u look like a moron…
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:09pmIf you atheist could only re-write the constitution the way you want it to read you could continue to throw you moronic hissie fits, but you can‘t and you won’t so try reading it and not misquoting it and grow up…
Stand Strong America One Nation under God
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:12pmcdavis2009
Very well said and solidly validated. We must remember that facts are so confusing to atheists
Stand Strong America
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:19pmConservative Atheist
ding ding ding Wrong again. I know this may gut wrenching for you but it does not say “from” no matter what you rant about, no matter how much you throw yourself on the floor beating you little fist and kicking the air so someone will pay attention to your tantrums and misquotes, the REAL constitution does not say that… lol … ha ha…lol it is such a sight to see you acting so.. lol Read boy Read!!!!!!
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:20pmFreedom of Religion merely means you have the freedom to form your religious principles, which also includes the lack of religious beliefs. If you have the right to choose a religion, choosing to not have one is part of that right. By establishing that one must pledge to a God is violating that choice, is it not? Saying freedom FROM religion just re-iterates the fact that freedom OF religion provides us Americans with the freedom to choose. Being free to not have a religion is part of the freedom of religion. How is it moronic to believe that this freedom includes the freedom to not be forced to accept other people’s belief?
And how can you say it’s not a violation for a government to force you to pledge to a God. Because it’s YOUR god? Do you want to allow that precedent? Can you guarantee that YOUR god will still be the dominate religion in 50 years? 100? Do you want the government to have the power to force their religious beliefs on your children or grandchildren?
People don’t realize the dangerous precedent they set in these cases…..
Report Post »cdavis2009
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:21pm@ TheVoice1: Stop agreeing with me unless you stop name calling. Notice that I never talked down to @theconservativeatheist in my response. I asked that he review his point of view and gave historical facts as to why. You are no better than anyone else and name calling or bashing doesn’t get us anywhere. If we speak the truth but have not love we are but a noisy gong or clanging symbol.
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:33pmcdavis2009
Heres a news flash for you cdavis.. ready here is comes, I will agree with who I want to agree with when I want to agree with them, got it! This is not your site nor is what I do and how I do it your decision got it! So, let see how do I say it… hummm…. kiss my big scaley bass! Got it! The atheist misquotes are still absolutely wrong regardless of what you think of me… buzz off
Stand Strong America
Report Post »KPEdwards
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:34pmFirst, RICKY, it wasn’t the motto from the founding – it was 1956. It’s younger then some citizens.
Secondly, I, personally, think it’s really incorrect to believe that a religious belief should be at the center of our government. I really believe that we should have our people as the center of our government. In my views, our legal rights come from the government, but it is up to the people to make sure that our legal rights line up with what they individually believe are our natural rights.
The government should not have a reliance on any deity. No deity created the government. We did.
Of course, this is assuming you don’t believe in predestination. In which case, why would you be complaining about anything as this is what is supposed to be happening since it literally could not happen any other way?
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:40pmcdavis2009
And you slamming me for agreeing with you is the love of God???? In judging me you have judged yourself by your own words and it is by them that you will be accountable, for every word that proceeds out of your mouth you are accountable… as am I… take your piety somewhere else, just dont forget to vote…
Stand Strong America
Report Post »devlin7
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:42pmThat is where you miss read the Constitution… it is Freedom OF religion.
From the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution:
“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.”
You can practice whatever religion you wish, the Federal government can not ESTABLISH a religion and make the citizens follow it as the British had with The Church of England.
Please point out where it states freedom FROM religion…. I don’t see that in the text….
Funny the Atheists always read that incorrectly.
Report Post »KPEdwards
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:43pm@CDAVIS2009
I think it’s important to note that in this particular case, it is talking about the government, not any individual within it, declaring a reliance on a religious principal. I think one’s faith (NB: I’m an atheist, and as such I have faith that there is no higher power) is important, and shapes an individual – and these individuals shape our society. I think it’s important to have these individuals form the foundation and support of our government, and not the religious principals directly.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:17pm@Ricky
Uh I believe that “in God we trust” was not our official motto until 1950 not “since the beginning” as you said.
Did some of our founders believe in that? Yes
Did all of them believe in that? No at all.
Just because you can find one founding father who thought that way, doesn’t mean it was intended and said by ALL founders.
Report Post »not2bherd
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:49pm@ conservative
Report Post »Let me get this straight. If Kentucky and or any other state will recognize God, then you will somehow be unable to have life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The very things that the US constitution declares that we have as rights, being created by Him. By your posts I see that you are opposed to our government forcing us to adhere to any religion, and I quite agree. I am also opposed to the establishment of the religion of evolution and make no mistake IT IS a religion. The redefining of terms will not make it anything else. It is a system of beliefs that is used to define that which will or will not be accepted as scientific truth. My God will not force you to believe in Him. Must we be made to believe in evolution? I realize that you have not yet mentioned it in this thread, though at some point you must. My mind is open. If you can present compelling and substantial evidence that God does not exist then I will believe what you do. Until then, I will continue to believe in the God of history.
kenXIII
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:15pmcdavis2009
Report Post »does that mean if if Kentucky wants to require someone to take an oath under allah they can? because you say if Kentucky wants to require someone to take an oath under God they can.
as a Christian I’m trying to see how that works because if we are not careful we could make rules that backfire on us.
SgtB
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:53pm@CDAVIS, If you feel so wholeheartedly that an oath taken without reference to God is a false oath, then how do you feel about the military not requiring it to be said in the oath that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine is required to take?
The reality is that you cannot have a religious test to hold office. Forcing people to state a belief in a God would be a form of religious test and that is unconstitutional. And while I’m on the subject, the entire legal system is no unconstitutional because every judge in America is given the title of nobility that is “Your Honor”. We got away from England to get away from aristocracy and nobility and we setup a new ruling class here. If you don’t think that judges see themselves as nobility and above the law, then you haven’t paid attention to the news.
Report Post »Zpro
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:56pmJust exactly what religion is ALMIGHTY GOD? Seems to me Atheists spend a lot of time talking about something that doesn’t exist in their realm. For those of us that recognize creation I say….”.May God Bless You” with a miracle. For the others that sprang from monkeys, might I say.with the utmost respect for you belief system..“May Nothing Bless You” with a banana..
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:03am@Not2bherd, This whole thing about evolution being a religion and it being forced down your throat is BS and it needs to stop right here. There are alot of people who believe that this world is no more than 4,000 years old. When confronted with facts stating that it is not, they say that God created a “mature” world ready to support human life. Well, isn’t this an interesting argument. If they say that the earth was created mature, then who is to say that God didn’t take eons to create this place? Why does God’s day have to be the same length as a day on earth? Who makes such claims?
Personally, I believe that there is a God, but I find it absolutely insane to deny that the earth is older than 4,000 years. I also find it insane to believe that evolution doesn’t exist. For Christ’s sake, how do you think we have dogs, cats, sheep, pigs, goats, and all other sorts of domesticated animals? The theory of genetic mutation and evolution through the separation of breeding populations over extended time (thousands of years or more) is sound.
Now, with that knowledge stated as fact, there are those (the Margaret Sangers and Verschuers of the world) who would try to control such a process by either genocide or sterilization. These people are and will always be around. In fact, they existed well before the theory of evolution. Royalty tried to maintain royal bloodlines just as ranchers try to maintain good stock. All we can do is prevent such actions against the human pop
Report Post »oh4ore09
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:12am@rickyw Since when was 1863 the founding of our country?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:41am@CDAVIS, David Barton is a fool and false. The Oath of Office contained with in the Constitution makes no reference to GOD. If the Founders truly believed in the importance of swearing an oath to god, than they would have place God in the Oath of office. Instead they wrote Art. 6 which prohibits any relgious test for Federal or State office.
Report Post »holy ghostbuster
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:06pmIt’s hard to believe that law was enacted in 2006? What century are we living in?
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:12pmThe States can enact about any law the PEOPLE see fit. If the Feds don’t like it. If the atheists don’t like it. Too damn bad! It was after-all settled in the laughable idea of democracy.
The people have already spoken. Boohoo for the anti-god moral-LESS atheists.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:19pmActually the Religious Test clause of the US Constitution names the States as well. So no, the States can not require a plede of alligence to some made up sky father.
Report Post »Marengo Ohio Patriot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:23pmhey 10th see my response to geo… REPUBLIC moron. not democratic…get back with me if you need help! (you do!)
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:23pmThere was this thing, called the Fourteenth Amendment, which introduced a notion of “substantive due process” which BASICALLY has come to meant, for some of the important bits of the federal bill of rights at least, if it is good enough for the federal government, then it is good enough for the states–that is the current standing interpretation of the law of the United States. And the Constitution means that, in areas of contradiction the Federal law is, naturally supreme. You can choose to ignore the last 150 years or so since the Civil War, but that doesn‘t mean it didn’t happen.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:12pm@ Marengo Ohio Patriot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:23pm
hey 10th see my response to geo… REPUBLIC moron. not democratic…get back with me if you need help! (you do!)
————————————————————————————————————————————–
The only thing atheists need is a swift kick in their ass and put back in the troll box they were barfed out of. I guess you have difficulty in reading sarcasm. Thus the reference to the “atheists” democracy that they so love to fornicate with.
I happen to believe in the Constitutionally Represented Republic which was MOST CERTAINLY based on the Creator God and His Laws, and our moral codes for society on the teaching of Jesus Christ. We are entirely a Christian Nation, and if atheists don’t like it, leave.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:49pmFurthermore. While this is most definitely a Constitutionally Represented Republic, ALL of our Institutions were to be democratic with-in the Free Market Economics of a Capitalistic Civilization.
To destroy the Constitution, atheists and their ilk must destroy the US Constitution, in other words pervert it through the process of wolf in sheeps clothing Amendments. Hence the nutjob extension to what was originally intended to be a right thinking amendment to abolish slavery, but was perverted through creepy minds. Same as the 16th and 17th Amendments. ONCE the 17th Amendment was voted into law the United States CEASED being a truly Constitutionally Represented Republic, and became the abortion known as democracy.
When the dust settles, the wording of the 14th Amendment will be clarified to represent equality of all Americans among peers, end of story. The 16th Amendment will be scraped for the totally POS it is and represents, and the 17th Amendment will be bolded so that future generations will know EXACTLY where the gravest mistake in the Nations history came from.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 9:23pm(in order to destroy the Constitution, atheists and their ilk must destroy the moral codes of Jesus Christ) ^^^
Report Post »fidelcashflo44
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:02pmWho is the author of this article? Billy Hallowell? SHOCKER.
GET A REAL JOB YOU HACK
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:01pmI voted NO .
Report Post »olddog
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:56pmAll the atheists should definitly move to California where they’re welcome…
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:55pmWithout God the United States would have never been.
Report Post »LibertyBlossom
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:53pmI’d say that he makes a good argument regarding the Declaration of Independence which, like it or not, did base our government on God given rights. Since the law establishes a reliance on ‘Almighty God’ and not any specific religion I’d say it ought to clear the constitutional hurdle. Unless you can prove that ‘Almighty God’ is a term used only in one particular religion, saying that using the term in a law establishes a religion is a stretch.
Report Post »Zpro
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:21amApplause!
Report Post »olddog
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:53pm@johnny 916, me thinks you be gay. I’m right, yes…
Report Post »geonj
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:53pmwhen atheists become the majority, they can be offended. until then, they need to sit down and shut up. as a Christian, i am offended by atheists trying to dictate how and where i celebrate my faith.
Report Post »Marengo Ohio Patriot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:16pmhey geo… you pathetic hypocrite… maybe you should read about what this country is… a REPUBLIC. read the definition…… call me, if you still don’t have a clue…
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:53pmThe whole founding of the United States was because and based on God. That’s where the idea of liberty came from, “Give me your first born”, moreover “Give me all your children.”
Report Post »Mitchm999
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:51pmEveryone in this great country should take an oath to god. If they don’t want to, they should leave.
Report Post »republic2011
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:49pmIf you are against a firm reliance in divine providence, then get the hell out of America. We were founded on these principles and are tired of people trying to weed them out. There are other countries out there that are already 100% atheistic where you can go live, if it bothers you that much. You want to be an atheist, great, just don’t try to change what made this country great. Enough already.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:48pmHow many atheists are in Homeland Security? So an extreme minority rules? What if this was reversed and the majority of Christians wanted this “reliance on God” put in the pledge. I’m sorry, this country was founded on God. Why should a very few change it for everyone else. An atheist would not even allow the phrase to be changed to “a higher power”. They believe in nothing outside of themselves. What would they pledge on? Their honor? An extensive background check would have to be done then to see if they were honorable people and their word was worth something.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:09pmWhat then makes up an atheists rules of honor? Something he decides for himself? Wonder if an atheists rule of honor includes things others find to be unhonorable? If we don’t base our pledges on God, what is the standard measure of good.
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:24pmVery very good point and well said
Stand Strong America
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:46pmBy the results of the poll about 75% of those that frequent The Blaze are absolutely oblivious to The Constitution. You can be fervently religious and you can be a Constitutionalists but you can’t be both at the same time it appears. It simply proves how unrealistic those are who rely on their religion before the reality that presents itself everyday.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:48pma la carte Constitutionalists
Report Post »isur5ed
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:45pmI want to keep, as much as possible, God in a place of honor of our society. Yet, when we invoke the name of God it should mean something. Requiring a non-believer to take an oath in the name of God is really forcing them to take His name in vain. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Report Post »Twinspeedr
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:51pmAlways have been, always will be dependent on our Creator. You have NO RIGHT to freedom from religion, because you are a tiny minority and you could win every case if you did.
Down with the tyranny of the minority! Either make the case to convince the rest of us, or go home!
http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/statepreambles.htm
Report Post »isur5ed
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:19pm@TwinSpeedr
Report Post »Hold on there, turbo. I’m a conservative Christian all the way. Instead of hate speech, maybe you could address the validity or otherwise of my point on the 3rd Commandment.
NEUTRON
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:38pmThe country was founded under the princaples of “God”. Dont like it? Then Git Out! Next these athiests are going to have us do is give the governtment all our coinage and have them restamped “In Darwinism We Trust.” Majority rules, sorry athiests. Same goes for your war on Christmas. Chill out, and grow a pair… Its not going to hurt you to put up with god once in a while.
Report Post »Johnny916
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:41pmCan you prove the United States was founded on the principles of God or Christianity? I can agree our nation has a rich Christian history but we’re both right. The nation is secular but we should have freedom of religion and respect to others. I just view the nation as more secular.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:46pmFreedom of religion, not FROM religion. To my knowledge, God is not a religion is He?
Report Post »NEUTRON
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:50pmJohnny916 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–“ See the word ”creator“ Its also known as the word ”God” I dont know what else is enough evidence than straight from our declaration of independance?
Report Post »Heffe44
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:31pmThe declaration of independence is not the constitution you idiot. Nobody is bound to it like they are the constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…“ The ”respecting” part is what we are talking about here. Once the goverment shows favortism to one religon over another that is making a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” So that proves that we do have a freedom FROM religion. It is not the goverments place to comment on religion at all.
Report Post »M1A2_Tanker
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:08pmHeffe44,
“G_D” IS NOT A RELIGION! Not one person here is saying you must pledge allegiance to religion. Period.
Report Post »wellhangingchad
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:37pmI believe in states rights. Vote with your feet! Live in a state that has your views and values.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:37pmClear violation of the US Constitution’s prohibition against Religious Tests for office.
Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:47pmSo God is a religion? I don’t think so….
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:53pmonly applies to the fed gov’t. At the time the States actually became states under the first Costitution many had State recognized religions. The 16th state (that would be Tennessee who applied for Statehood and joined the union while Washington was still Pres – that would be the first President) – each state had to have an approved State Constitution…the Consitution of the State of Tennessee prohibits an atheist or person who does not believe in God from holding office. I would think had the founders had an issue with such things, they may have pointed it out in 1796 when Tennessee joined the union. After all the guys who came up with our gov’t had just finished the work 5 years before…
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:22pm@kaydeebeau
Report Post »Read the Article it mentions States as well as the Federal government. This is an outright band on all levels. Additionally, the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause of the 1st to the States as well.
Heffe44
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:37pm@Baddoggy
Report Post »You have said this several times so I guess I will answer you. Yes, the capitol “G” God is directly referring to the Christian God. Small “g” god is referring to any generic creator. That is clear violation of the 1st amendment. Countless court cases has proven you and everyone else that thinks this type of stuff is ok wrong.
TheVoice1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 7:49pmBaddoggy
so well put, they cannot get around it….
Stand Strong America
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:30pmLoad there non-believing butts up and send there a$$ to a nation where they can get what thet want! They are not required to believe in God to be a citizen and all the benefits that go with being a citizenship so shut the h-ll up! Next they’ll wanna change something else, gotta shut them up or just let them whin. They have caused enough problems in America!
Report Post »Johnny916
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:38pmWhat kind of problems have atheist and other non-believer caused to this country? I never seen atheist or anyone secular doing anything wrong.
Report Post »TheLeftMadeMeRight
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:47pmYour fellow atheists have pushed their agenda on this country attempting to squash religion and the rights of people who believe at every turn. The degradation of the church and family unit across this country is just one of your triumphs. If you don’t believe in God, then shut up and don’t believe, but leave my Christmas tree and my right to pray anywhere I want ALONE.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:09pmI’m glad I got a reply out you Johnny, I think you are exactly the kind of people I was reffering to!
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:16pm@ Johnny666, I‘m not going to argue with anyone who doesn’t believe in God and don’t have any standard of truth to refer to. I can get a much more intelligent a conversation talking to my dog than talking to people like that!
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:42pm@JOHNNY916 “Can you prove the United States was founded on the principles of God or Christianity?” Yes. You may have heard our Pledge of Allegiance “One Nation Under God” When Christopher Columbus came to America..he came to bring the gosphels to the heathens. We have always been a Christian nation..Take a look at our founding fathers.
Report Post »Our Constitution says that we have the right to freedom of religion..Our Christian religion was built into our laws because they are God’s laws. Therefore our laws tell us not to steal or kill…much different from Islam.
Also you asked.What kind of problems have atheist and other non-believer caused to this country? I never seen atheist or anyone secular doing anything wrong.
They have done plenty wrong Johnny. We used to have prayer in our schools. our children were taught morality, .and therefore we had the blessings of YHWY..but an Atheist named Madelyn OHAIR went to the Supreme Court to get that separation of Church and State.;,she spoke filth to the Supreme Court Judges..using the F word in every sentence and instead of holding her in contempt…sat entranced and went along with everything she wanted..now we have drugs, sex, abortions.. and ruined lives..so you tell me Johnny..do you still think that they are harmless?
encinom
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:44am“Yes. You may have heard our Pledge of Allegiance ‘One Nation Under God’”
Report Post »_____________________________
That portion of the pledge ws added in the 1950′s. the US is a secular nation are laws come from men not divine texts.
Exrepublisheep
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:29pmYou’d get it if mandated a reliance on Allah though.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:48pmAllah is another name for God. But brain dead people do not understand this.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:12pmI don’t remember reading about allah in my Bible!
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:55pmBAD DOGGY Allah might be the name of Islam’s god…but it is not the name of the Christian’s God..Mohmanmed never wanted to be known as a prophet..He was set up by evil men who were in league with powerful men at the time.. His wife and her cousin helped him with visions..He had hoped that his own people would come to know the divinity of Jesus because of his virgin birth..The Islamic people have been lied to for a long time.
Report Post »Mitchm999
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:28pmLet’s just throw out of the country all those who are not christians so we can get on with things.
Report Post »Johnny916
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:27pmYes, the law goes to far. I’m an atheist and feel that this should change for all the people.
Report Post »TexasHunter
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:38pm@ Johnny the atheist how is this law affecting you? Please tell me in grave detail.
Report Post »TheLeftMadeMeRight
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:41pmWell I’m a Christian and I think all atheists should change for the benefit of all those who believe…
So there.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:51pmStates rights…If you don’t like it move. I am sure California wil need residents soon as they are leaving in droves…Go there.
Report Post »olddog
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:51pmThe atheists want to get rid of God, I want to get rid of the atheists…A good way to get rid of them would be to send them on a one way trip to meet God personally but I‘m sure they’d meet satan instead…We certainly have Evil walking the earth these days..
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 8:03pm@Old
Atheists don‘t believe in God so therefore they can’t get rid of something that don’t believe in.
And I would argue that they don’t even want to get rid of people who believe in God, they just wish people would rise above silly superstitions.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 9:17pm@JOHNNY916…Johnny…I believe that I have posted to you before on this site and you were a practicing Jew…no?
Report Post »Infidelephant
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:02am@Olddog
“The atheists want to get rid of God, I want to get rid of the atheists…A good way to get rid of them would be to send them on a one way trip to meet God personally but I‘m sure they’d meet satan instead…”
We certainly have Evil walking the earth these days..
…there fixed it for you.
Report Post »GUYFROMMAINE
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 6:47pmWhy are “atheists” so afraid of God? From all I can see, this law wants you to affirm the obvious. It does not establish any type of religion, nor cause you to join it. I find it funny that these people who believe there is no God ( and that is all it is,a belief, and a false one at that) get so bent out of shape at Someone who they say is not real. And yet, they don’t spend the same amount of energy speaking out against real lies like evoultion, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. You say theism is harmful, I could argue and more easily prove that secularism, humanism, and atheism are more harmful. The truth is that Theism as the God of the Bible describes it is not harmful.
Report Post »