Christians gang up all the time, no worries there?

>> ^rasch187:
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.

>> ^rasch187:
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.


Sort of like how Christians make me want to be gay.

Oh, and, for the record, I'm a Scientologist so my post isn't technically part of the gang up.

>> ^Retroboy:
>> ^dragonfriend85:
Wy would any rational person want to hold office in Arkansas?
Fixed.


Because if wise men and women don't hold public office, the unwise will?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I'll let wikipedia do the talking.


Of course you will. Sheesh. You really have no clue what the Establishment Clause is or refers to, do you? Just another self-righteous Wiki-jockey. "Keep trying". LOL, that's rich!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That's it (at least the religious portion). Everything else... the Lemon Test, Souter's opinion, etc., are interpretations of the clause and the subsequent laws/decisions based upon them. The contents of EDD's comment violate exactly the same thing as prayer does. The Lemon Test is an Establishment Clause test, as far as it refers to religion. "The opposite of what prayer violates"? Clueless...

Stick to your strengths, hero. Guns, patriotism, toadying, and early release from active duty.

>> ^dragonfriend85:
Wy would any rational person want to hold office in Arkansas?
Fixed.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
What exactly does it violate?


It violates the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test, which I mentioned in the comment right before yours. Congress spends tax money to hire clergy for these things. Exclusively, Christian clergy. This serves no secular purpose, has the primary effect of promoting Christianity, and results in government entanglement with religion. Nearly every meeting of Congress or of the Supreme Court is punctuated with prayers by official chaplains employed by the state, which give the appearance that the USA is officially Christian. Congress does not have the right under the constitution to spend my tax money on a chaplain.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
related: http://www.videosift.com/video/Jean-Luc-Picard-s-response-to-Rick-Warren

Hehe, I was lucky to find that video and glad to see it become such a hit.

As I understand it, the "So help me God" in the oath is a quite recent addition, similar to the "one nation under God" in the pledge of alliegance.


Edit: Erm, that was supposed to be a comment on the blog, but it seems I hit the wrong button. Whatever...

Thanks! I had a suspicion this video would be popular, but I had no idea that it would earn me two promotes.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:

Picard owns.

*promote the bald goodness.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Violates the 1st amendment, all of those things in EDD's comment. Every single one of them discriminate against people who have the freedom to not believe.
EDD here is your case:
No congress, legislature or executive power may legislate a law promoting or degrading the first amendment. Every citizen who wishes to run for office in states that have no atheist provisions need only file civil suit against that state in the venue of the United States Supreme Court. On the premise that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the bill of rights therefore: guaranteed freedom to believe or to not believe.
Or if you want to run for office, just lie. Like ever other politician. I would just tell them I believe in FSM.
Picard owns.
promote the bald goodness.


Keep trying. The contents of EDD's comment is actually the opposite of what prayer violates.

Wy would any rational person want to hold office in Arkansas?

>> ^EDD:
Seperation of church and state? In America? Ha ha, you gotta be kidding:
>> ^qruel:
Article 19 Miscellaneous provisions Arkansas's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
...et al.

>> ^BisH0p69:
>> ^spoco2:
Brilliant... I mean really, all well and good if you're Christian, Muslim, whatever... but keep it OUT of a swearing in of a president... MAN, PLEASE... can we get rid of this singular belief crap from these ceremonies?
Upvote this all the way to the top? Please?

I gotta say this felt so out of place during the ceremony. I don't understand, the US, being supposedly secular by design, has these VERY religious bits during the swearing in of its president (seperation of church and state anyone?)


On the same principle as a judge not being allowed to put up a monument to the ten commandments in his courtroom, religious content in the inauguration could not not withstand legal challenge. The president can believe whatever privately and worship however he wants privately, but he can't use his position of governmental power to grandstand for a religion during official government ceremonies. It violates the establishment clause in the same way as a Judge putting up a monument to the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The way the inauguration has been conducted violates at least two prongs of the Lemon test.

related: http://www.videosift.com/video/Jean-Luc-Picard-s-response-to-Rick-Warren

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Kuga:
*promote