I was just getting ready to kill this and you beat me to it.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-Obama-sworn-in-as-44th-President-of-the-United-States

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Barack, Obama, 44th President, Inauguration' to 'Barack, Obama, 44th President, Inauguration, oath, of, office' - edited by rasch187

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Obama-Oath-of-Office

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

>> ^joedirt:
Technically trying to usurp and violate the Constitution used to be considered at the least a violation of Oath of Office, and more likely an attempt at treason.

In that case, I suggest that protesters start arresting riot cops for treason, no-violently of course.

The only rights you have are those in the US Constitution and your state's constitution and decided by supreme courts. Over the last decade these rights have been stolen and abused and it is because people elect the same assholes over and over again. Pelosi, Reid, Cheney and Bush should all be appearing in front of criminal courts. Technically trying to usurp and violate the Constitution used to be considered at the least a violation of Oath of Office, and more likely an attempt at treason.

freedom of speech does not mean freedom to interrupt someone's speech.

however...

democracy means you are allowed to shout at leaders who break their oath of office. in fact, democracy COMPELS you to shout at leaders who break their oath of office.

The ONLY logical time to do this is when they are trying to spew more lies from a pulpit.

this isn't freedom of speech, this is CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

go look it up, retards. Google Rosa Parks or something, or maybe you think she should have sat quietly in the correct place on the bus and written a strongly worded letter to her representative in congress?

>> ^jimnms:

The presidential oath of office is the only oath detailed in the Constitution, and it does not contain the phrase "so help me god" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause .


There isn't even a requirement that a person "swears" - they can "affirm." That's how concerned the founding fathers were about religious tests for office (de jure or de facto).

This man should not qualify to be president when he clearly doesn't even know the history of his own country.

The U.S. Constitution begins with "We the people," and never mentions a god, the Bible, Jesus or Christianity. The only references to religion are exclusionary; "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office is the only oath detailed in the Constitution, and it does not contain the phrase "so help me god" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause .

>> ^Names:
Somebody needs to go look up the word "theocracy". The governing church in an American theocracy would be who, the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?


Theocracy is a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. Nothing about that definition requires choosing a specific sect of Christianity.

The USA has:
1. "In god we trust" on the currency
2. "under god" in the pledge of allegiance
3. Government-funded monotheistic prayers before every session of congress
4. Monotheistic oaths of office ("so help me god")
5. The declaration "god save the united states and this honorable court" before every session of the supreme court
6. Monotheistic oaths in court administered with a Bible.
7. Government-funded christmas decorations.
8. Government-funded stone engravings of the ten commandments displayed prominently in government buildings.
9. Zero openly atheist people in national elected offices because of bigotry and dispite the fact that American atheists are similar in number to African Americans.
10. Candidates who feel the need to wear their religion on their sleeve to get elected.
11. Rednecks who think this is a "Christian Nation" and atheists should GTFO.
12. Government funding for religious organizations to "rehabilitate" criminals by brainwashing them with right-wing fundamentalist Christianity.
13. A sitting president who said atheists are neither citizens nor patriots
14. Preachers who control how millions of people vote

Woah, okay. I don't like "pandering." All the candidates do it, but I don't like it. They all want to do whatever they can to make themselves look good. Whatever they think will help them get elected. Romney's no exception.

It does bother me that Romney doesn't even mention Atheists, that he lifts up Christians above any other Religion, and that some of his statements don't employ sound logic.

I can pick out 5 specific things that I don't like/agree with that any candidate has said in his/her last speech without having to think very hard.

But, there were a lot of things I really appreciated about Romney's speech, as well.

"I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."




"...Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."




These statements are important to me. I'm glad he said them, because I agree that this is how all the candidates should feel.

Romney's Pandering Speech
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/romneyspeech.php

Romney needs a fact-checker. He misleadingly stated that the nation's founders "sought the blessings of the Creator." There was indeed prayer at the First Continental Congress, which adopted the failed Articles of Confederation. Romney piously concluded his talk with a prayer attributed to Sam Adams from that event. But he failed to mention that there was no prayer at the constitutional convention that crafted our living and godless constitution.

After promising not to "confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution," Romney immediately vowed: "When I place my hand on the bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God." Art. II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, providing the presidential oath of office, contains no reference to a god or the bible. But, of course, Romney was signaling to fundamentalists that he would use their book, not the Book of Mormon.

As the difference between JFK's and Romney's speeches reveal, in recent years the notion of the separation between church and state has been debased, disrespected and routinely dissed. The deterioration since 1960 in respect for this pinnacle constitutional precept is mind-boggling.

Instead of affirming the constitution's prohibition of a religious test for public office, Romney's speech pandered to the notion that candidates must be publicly pious, and fed the myth that good citizenship requires religious faith.

qruel wrote:

from your quote about Kennedy, he spoke directly to the issue of separation of church and state, even offering his resignation if they came into conflict (not that I could ever see him "really" resigning). Notice how Romney only mentions that he won't take orders from Salt Lake, a vastly different proposition.

Actually the main reason JFK gave that speech in 1960 was that as weird as it sounds today there was a common fear at the time that Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican dictate U.S. policy. At this point Romney has not given a "JFK Speech" but he has referenced it by saying he would not be taking orders from Salt Lake City and has addressed the question of the separation between church and state by saying "we have a separation of church and state in this country, and we should and it's served us well" and "if I'm lucky enough to be elected president of this country and I take that oath of office, there will be no higher promise than to abide by the Constitution and the rule of law".

So the issue has been addressed...just not in a JFK style speech.

I think if Romney gets elected it would give unprecidented credentials and validation to the mormon religion which i find rediculious.

And the thought right now is that Romney is being told not to give a JFK style speech exactly because of people opinions like yours. That the speech would only draw more attention to the issue and have little effect on people like you who have already made up their mind that they aren't going to vote for a Mormon because that would somehow give some validity to the religion.

Since his oath of office, Bush has never sought the truth about anything, because he knew full well that the truth was always against him.

"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up"

Dude.. ask any Iraqi which was better. Hell ask any foreign policy wonk that isn't a neocon, which is better. A secular Iraq or a soon to be extremist religious state torn apart by civil unrest. Just look at northeastern India or Pakistan (who have advanced armies and police states and stable economies) how fun it is.

The statement about Saddam killing millions is false, because in all instances it was condoned by the US and weapons (biological and other) were provided by the US, so it's kind of odd to be running around saying what a monster he was without first condemning the foreign policy that created it.

And just so you are up to speed with the rest of America, people want troops out of Iraq, which the Decider refuses to even think about. The impeachment has nothing to do with ending war. The impeachment issue is about "high crimes and misdemeanors".. which entail violation of FISA, other illegal domestic spying programs, misleading Congress with known false information, (in Cheney's case) disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, violations of oath of office in particular perversion of DOJ regarding Congressional appointments, violations of PRA and using partisan email to conduct official govt business, using official govt meeting places and speakers to conduct campaign activities, such as Drug Czar (Surgeon General?) and DOJ to make visits to announce local federal program which just happen to coincide with campaign stops and speeches... Oh yeah, advising staff and WH chief legal counsel that they do not have to adhere to Congress subpoena power (it is absolute), refusing to testify to Congressional committee without stating a valid reason (like Fifth Amendment, executive privileged, Gonzo "i-cannot-remember" defense)... You can show up and say nothing, but you cannot refuse to show up. Likewise WH counsel cannot actively advise people not to adhere to subpoenas.

Trust me there is a ton more, but Munchound won't address or even hear what the rest of us have come to realize in this massive grab of power.