UP! UP I SAY!

my president doesn't need the FSM's blessing to take office, thank you very much, and he certainly doesn't need the avatar of said deity to be some gay-hating megachurch-running self-help peddling asshat like rick warren

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?

Aaaand, a big ol' upvote for this one.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 8:01pm PST - promote requested by Kuga.

>> ^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?)

Separation 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."
Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina's State Constitution
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
Article 1 Section 4 of Pennsylvania's State Constitution
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."
Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina's State Constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.
Article 9 Section 2 of Tennessee's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Article 1 Section 4 of Texas' State Constitution
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

^"...provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Whew... I thought for a moment that us Invisible Pink Unicorn worshipers were going to be left out in the cold.

In the rest of that clip Rick Warren turns out to be Q. Picard's hair was never seen again.

>> ^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.

What exactly does it violate?

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.

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.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 9:17pm PST - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

the irony is the fact that the UK has/had an official state church of england, and is now in fact more secular in practice than america could even hope to be any time soon.

while we are supposedly a secular nation according to the constitution and yet are probably the most religious you can get, short of a theocratic state.

>> ^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.

^ Wah? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I thought what NR was saying is that all those clauses are flying in direct opposition of the first amendment? Which they certainly seem to be, how can it possibly be ok in anyone's mind, to deny people who don't believe in a supreme being office?

It's truly disgusting that those clauses exist, (If they do, I'm taking it on faith (he he) that they are quoted correctly.) I don't know how even someone of strong faith could agree that it's just to preclude people based on their religious views from a job that should be judged based on actions and merit, not personal religious views.

The point is that the first amendment is very nearly ignored. There are a few standout cases where the separation of church and state was upheld, but for the most part state and local governments discriminate the hell out of atheists. And Muslims. And occasionally still Jews.

Aaaaand black people. And Hispanics. And... aw fuck it.

Let us beam down and BONE THEM ALL!

I'll let wikipedia do the talking.

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion"."

I love the juxtaposition *comedy.

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by Krupo.

>> ^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.

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

>> ^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.

From the venrible sifters post. Arkansas 19
"No person who denies the being of a God shall... nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Now, a lot of the shit in that post was messed up but that. That just scares me. I ain't never going to Maha Farking Arkansaw

>> ^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?

Yes, the things in EDD's comment violate the First Amendment. I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that having an opening prayer is more of a tradition now than anything.

^So?

It's a tradition that should be abolished from any modern secular government. But the politicians are more afraid of looking "irreligious" than doing their jobs properly.

And some Christians still have the balls to say they're being oppressed. Let's see how long it is before an openly non-religious President is elected.

Oh, and *nochannel, *religion, *scifi, *comedy, *politics.

This video has been removed from all channels (Religion, Scifi, Election08, Comedy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by nibiyabi. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Comedy, Politics, Religion, Scifi) - requested by nibiyabi.

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.

Christians gang up all the time, no worries there?

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

^ To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem

I'm with shimfish in general, but seriously... These "invocations" were not invocations. They're always puff-piece sermonettes disguised as prayer. 5% aimed at God, 70% aimed at audience education, and 25% aimed at just sounding wise. This is just another reason why churches should stay the hell away from political podiums; it pisses off those who don't believe, and it isn't even very christian to begin with.

Get the church out of the state, for the church's sake even more than the state's! The inauguration of a president is a fitting time for lots of prayer for the country and the new administration. But that should be done in homes and churches and quiet places, not on podiums in front of massive crowds in D.C. It's just wrong from almost every angle.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 1:57pm PST - promote requested by gwiz665.

You know I've been thinking about the Establishment Clause for a while now, and I'm really starting to wonder if it means what we think it does.

We assume that it means that the Federal government can't form a national religion, but I'm thinking it's a lot more simple than that. The words "respecting an establishment of religion" could mean exactly that. I think it might have meant that the government should not endorse any actions or tenets of any religion, and that in doing so they are in violation of the constitution. Making federal funding of faith based programs, bans on stem cell research/human cloning, abstinence only sex ed, "in god we trust" & "one nation under god", the whole myriad of things that are only based on religious dogma unconstitutional.

And yeah, by my interpretation, having an invocation prior to the inauguration would only violate the first amendment if it was a requirement of the ceremony. Which to my knowledge it is not.

I've never minded the invocation before, the choice of Rick Warren though infuriated me. It was blatant pandering to evangelical Christianity, a group that after the last 8 years doesn't need any more encouragement from our Presidents. And sadly it made me think less of Obama for it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Picard, Star Trek, Rick Warren, Barack Obama, inauguration, next generation' to 'Picard, Star Trek, Rick Warren, Barack Obama, inauguration, tng, supershort' - edited by gwiz665

*length=6

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6 secs - length declared by Norsuelefantti.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Grimm.

eric3579 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because eric3579's points are already fully charged.