Okay, apparently a group of atheists and agnostics in California are suing Chief Justice Roberts, Senator Diane Feinstien of California and the two ministers that will preside over President-Elect Obama’s inauguration next week, trying to prevent Obama from speaking the words “so help me God” at the end of the Oath of the Office of the President. They also want to prevent any praying at the event. Link to the Yahoo article here—>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god
Now, my question is, the words “so help me God” are not part of the official oath, but are spoken, from what I gather, as a personal choice. A choice, as I see it, that is protected by the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Isn’t what these people in California are doing a violation of Obama’s First Amendment rights? Or are they just trying to get their fifteen minutes?
Attempting to deny the First Amendment is not a good way to make friends… or a good way to be a conscientious American, for that matter. If Obama wants to exercise his religion, that’s his right. I think we atheists will be able to stomach four religious words if they’re important to him.
I’m not religious, but I can’t say I object to ancient religious traditions. For example, we have religious aspects to our state, some of which I don’t care about, others of which I disapprove of. I disapprove of bishops being present in the House of Lords; I think it’s nice that we still preserve our ancient ceremony’s. The God bit may be important to some people and to others, well, it can carry on being merrily meaningless.
And amusingly it’s been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority who must decide whether its claims are reasonable, in which case the Watchdog is actually being required to decide whether or not God does actually exist.
I was in D.C. last weekend, and saw ads for Christianity with pretty damning Bible passages. If they get to do that, atheists get to have signs, too. That’s the way freedom of speech works.
I see. So what you are saying is, it is okay that they have put up with the loudmouth minority shooting their mouths off about how they should not be allowed to put up Bible-based ads for decades now, but it is not okay now that those wanting to post up atheist ads have to put up with any amount of protest. Typical atheistic double standard - I’m not surprised at it. It’s a lot like the whole “tolerance” issue - be tolerant of everyone … unless it’s Christians.
My question would have to be,what exactly do they hope to gain? Christians are hoping to snatch away souls from the pit of Hell - warning someone of the danger of a continued life of sin is anything but hateful. If I know you are walking toward a cliff and I hate you, I won’t warn you … I want to see something terrible happen to you. If on the other hand I care about you at all, I’m going to warn you. For an atheist to post ads when there is no return to it seems to me to be nothing more than an immature attempt to say, “Nyahh nyahh, we can do it too…” What benefit is there to it?[/quote]
Yes, yes. This is what I’m getting at. What exactly would an atheist advertisement even say?
"Bowls:
Bad for haircuts
Good for not believing in a higher power"
It feels rather garish when any religion does it, honestly. And atheism isn’t so much a religion as a straight belief. Now, if it was advocating atheist rights in an unfair work environment, sure. Workplaces shouldn’t discriminate on that sort of thing. Well… unless you were trying to get a main position at a church. That’s just conflict of interest right there.
Also, I haven’t really read any of the other replies, so it might just echo what someone else said. Also, if someone could please tell me why my inner monologue is English, I would be very interested.
Firstly, I see it as equally objectionable for either group to advertise.
Secondly, I’m not actually criticising the people objecting (though I am laughing at them). I brought up those people complaining because you asked the question
lol Who’s saying you can’t?
It was factual. Nothing more.
And then, as for what the advert would offer? If you look at what inspired the campaign in the first place, you can see that it was an objection to fire and brimstone adverts. They say ‘Stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ It’s offering you a chance to stop feeling guilty about being an inadequate member of any religion, or indeed, to stop worrying about the meaning of life etc. and just live it.
RSI: should you expect it to be another language or are you wondering why it’s in any language at all?
No, it had an accent. I suppose I could have described it as British, despite the fact Britain is a combination of England, Scotland and Wales. It could have gotten my point across easier though.
Of course, then there are the regional accents of England, but, I did say “an” not “the”. Or really, in the original context I didn’t say either. Though, by declaring my inner monologue as “English”, that might have generalized it just the same. Not very many people would understand if I called it a Somerset accent.
Of course, calling something an English accent may just trigger the generalization of an accent from an area that speaks English. Australia for example, or South Africa.
I also find that my thoughts vary in accent depending on the kind of thing I’m thinking. I find I think in characters or in the style, sometimes, of narrations to which I’ve recently been exposed. If I’m used to hearing something on TV or in a film in a Southern American accent I’m likely to think that kind of thing in said accent and so on and so forth.
Yes, there has to be a word or phrase for it. Like… Homalalia. Although, I guess it’s not spoken… Well, occasionally I do speak like things I’ve seen recently so… maybe?