Not allow Atheists to graduate from HS? GOP says yes!

[Dyakovo]

Does the fact that people do it make it any less silly?

No, but it's to highlight how silly it is to point out that it's silly.

I don't think it is at all silly to get "riled up" over violations of the constitution or wastes of tax-payer money.

[Condunum]

Why? Because if I want to make that oath, id join the fucking army.

If you joined the military you wouldn't have to swear to 'God'...

Being that I am a Jedi, no I would not.

About time someone stepped up to the plate. The balance between the extreme right and the moderate right in America is at stake!

Immediately replace the GOP with the GNP! (And no, that's not Gross National Product to you.)

(Sad story sad, yes, that Lincoln's boys are dishonoring him and the Republicans, but they're just... typical American Republicans. Or politicians. Or... whatever, you name it.)

Are the GNP at all like the BNP or the EDL?

Like for instance, focus on actually important things in the education system.

Umm.... Yes?

I'm not sure what the point of your comment to me was in the first place.

[Condunum]

No, but it's to highlight how silly it is to point out that it's silly.

I don't think it is at all silly to get "riled up" over violations of the constitution or wastes of tax-payer money.

Or using a non-issue to distract from real issues. Especially ones related to the very system they're trying to put this in.

[Dyakovo]

If you joined the military you wouldn't have to swear to 'God'...

Being that I am a Jedi, no I would not.

Even if you were a Christian you wouldn't have to, though I imagine most do.

[Indig0]

Swearing an oath by something they don't actually believe in kind of defeats the purpose though.

Other people do. Making it binding for those people.
You know, by this same logic, we could say that atheists shouldn't say "Oh My God!"

they shouldn't. and christians shouldn't say "oh my god" either because that's using god's name in vain.

[Panshu]

The United States is primarily a Christian country, but that doesn't mean we have to limit others' faiths or nonfaiths. "So help me God" does not infringe on anyone's beliefs. The word "God" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean any deity or moral obligation. For example, while reciting that oath, a Hindu might be thinking "So help me Krishna" or an atheist might be thinking "So help me moral scruples". The word "God" just reflects the U.S.'s commitment to religion or morals.

I agree with the "ceremonial deism" idea, and I see nothing wrong with the oath to uphold the Constitution. It's the law of the land, and we're bound to obey it, oath or not.

[Great Nepal]

The United States is primarily a Christian country, but that doesn't mean we have to limit others' faiths or nonfaiths. "So help me God" does not infringe on anyone's beliefs. The word "God" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean any deity or moral obligation. For example, while reciting that oath, a Hindu might be thinking "So help me Krishna" or an atheist might be thinking "So help me moral scruples". The word "God" just reflects the U.S.'s commitment to religion or morals.

I agree with the "ceremonial deism" idea, and I see nothing wrong with the oath to uphold the Constitution. It's the law of the land, and we're bound to obey it, oath or not.

Why is "g" of god capitalized if it is not referring to god in monotheistic religion?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The United States is primarily a Christian country, but that doesn't mean we have to limit others' faiths or nonfaiths. "So help me God" does not infringe on anyone's beliefs. The word "God" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean any deity or moral obligation. For example, while reciting that oath, a Hindu might be thinking "So help me Krishna" or an atheist might be thinking "So help me moral scruples". The word "God" just reflects the U.S.'s commitment to religion or morals.

I agree with the "ceremonial deism" idea, and I see nothing wrong with the oath to uphold the Constitution. It's the law of the land, and we're bound to obey it, oath or not.

Why is "g" of god capitalized if it is not referring to god in monotheistic religion?

It's reffering to the Christian God, but for the ones who recite it it could mean any god.

[Dyakovo]

Other people do. Making it binding for those people.
You know, by this same logic, we could say that atheists shouldn't say "Oh My God!"

they shouldn't. and christians shouldn't say "oh my god" either because that's using god's name in vain.

Actually, it isn't... His name isn't 'God' its Yahweh.

[Great Nepal]

Why is "g" of god capitalized if it is not referring to god in monotheistic religion?

It's reffering to the Christian God, but for the ones who recite it it could mean any god.

Why should government or institution taking government money officially refer to Christian god?

[Divair]

It's reffering to the Christian God, but for the ones who recite it it could mean any god.

Why should government or institution taking government money officially refer to Christian god?

Or any gods at all.

[Dyakovo]

The United States is primarily a Christian country, but that doesn't mean we have to limit others' faiths or nonfaiths. "So help me God" does not infringe on anyone's beliefs. The word "God" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean any deity or moral obligation. For example, while reciting that oath, a Hindu might be thinking "So help me Krishna" or an atheist might be thinking "So help me moral scruples". The word "God" just reflects the U.S.'s commitment to religion or morals.

I agree with the "ceremonial deism" idea, and I see nothing wrong with the oath to uphold the Constitution. It's the law of the land, and we're bound to obey it, oath or not.

The US has no commitment to religion.

[Ethel mermania]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130122arizona-bills-push-patriotic-oaths-schools.html

according to a less biased source, the legislators in question realize wjat they proposed probqbly will not pass constitutional muster, and will amend the bill to have an opt out.

i would agree it is still a bad bill, and hopefully will not pass.

I'm really sick and tired of all these bills that aren't meant to pass.'

"Hey let's put forward a bill to imprison rape victims!"
"Hey let's propose that high school students have to give a sectarian loyalty oath!"
"There's certainly no actual work that needs getting done, so let's make up a bill to require everyone's household pets to be armed with assault rifles!"

We shouldn't have to have specific laws barring this kind of horseshit, but apparently our legislators can't conduct themselves like professionals. Personally, I think the submission of an obviously-unconstitutional bill should automatically trigger impeachment and a new election, because either the legislator in question is intentionally wasting time or else they are so ignorant of the Constitution that they aren't qualified to serve in government.

quite a few of the current anti gun bills put forth will not pass constitutional muster, should we automaticly impeach those legislators as well?

[Dyakovo]

I'm really sick and tired of all these bills that aren't meant to pass.'

"Hey let's put forward a bill to imprison rape victims!"
"Hey let's propose that high school students have to give a sectarian loyalty oath!"
"There's certainly no actual work that needs getting done, so let's make up a bill to require everyone's household pets to be armed with assault rifles!"

We shouldn't have to have specific laws barring this kind of horseshit, but apparently our legislators can't conduct themselves like professionals. Personally, I think the submission of an obviously-unconstitutional bill should automatically trigger impeachment and a new election, because either the legislator in question is intentionally wasting time or else they are so ignorant of the Constitution that they aren't qualified to serve in government.

quite a few of the current anti gun bills put forth will not pass constitutional muster, should we automaticly impeach those legislators as well?

If their sponsors are on record admitting that their bill is unconstitutional, yes.

[Tekania]

Being that I am a Jedi, no I would not.

Even if you were a Christian you wouldn't have to, though I imagine most do.

Indeed, in fact some of us don't.... I simply affirmed mine.

[Katganistan]

We don't really care if you never outgrew the need for an imaginary friend. What we care about is having your imaginary friend's rules encoded into law.

Here's two letters in alphabetic order for you: the letter F, and the letter U. The law, which incidentally I too oppose, was, of course, NOT written by me. Why would I write a law in real life, that support something I do not support?

Btw, doesn't atheists learn to read?

Apprently you haven't, or you haven't bothered to read the FAQ and The One Stop Rules Shop, because then you would know why you were being *** warned for flaming and trolling ***

If you can't say it civilly, don't.

[Aequalitia]

The United States is primarily a Christian country, but that doesn't mean we have to limit others' faiths or nonfaiths. "So help me God" does not infringe on anyone's beliefs. The word "God" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean any deity or moral obligation. For example, while reciting that oath, a Hindu might be thinking "So help me Krishna" or an atheist might be thinking "So help me moral scruples". The word "God" just reflects the U.S.'s commitment to religion or morals.

I agree with the "ceremonial deism" idea, and I see nothing wrong with the oath to uphold the Constitution. It's the law of the land, and we're bound to obey it, oath or not.

The US has no commitment to religion.

The USA got commitment to religion! Look how much religion traditions there are in the US politics. Look how much religion there is in the US senate. Look how the USA still is by some views still in a religion view. I even read a time ago that religions and even sects got money from the goverment.

My opinion is that the USA still is not really separated from religion.

[Condunum]

The US has no commitment to religion.

The USA got commitment to religion! Look how much religion traditions there are in the US politics. Look how much religion there is in the US senate. Look how the USA still is by some views still in a religion view. I even read a time ago that religions and even sects got money from the goverment.

My opinion is that the USA still is not really separated from religion.

Who gives a fuck if we aren't separated entirely from religion yet? We're working on it. And we ARE seperated from religion. Just not 100%.

[Ethel mermania]

quite a few of the current anti gun bills put forth will not pass constitutional muster, should we automaticly impeach those legislators as well?

If their sponsors are on record admitting that their bill is unconstitutional, yes.

so people who do not support the constitution as it currently stands are not entitled to representation?

[Napkiraly]

Why is "g" of god capitalized if it is not referring to god in monotheistic religion?

It's reffering to the Christian God, but for the ones who recite it it could mean any god.

What if you don't believe in any deities? What then, hmm?

[Condunum]

If their sponsors are on record admitting that their bill is unconstitutional, yes.

so people who do not support the constitution as it currently stands are not entitled to representation?

I'm sorry, I thought this was MURICA

[Manahakatouki]

Though I wouldn't mind that much, as I've been known to lie about several things for silly oaths and such, I can see where the controversy may arise...

[The UK in Exile]

If their sponsors are on record admitting that their bill is unconstitutional, yes.

so people who do not support the constitution as it currently stands are not entitled to representation?

their entitled to smart representation. which passing bills you admit will be overturned Ain't. thats called being a petty shit.

[The Huskar Social Union]

This is stupid, seriously why even submit this? Are the Republicans becoming full time trolls because they lost the election or what? They seem intent on doing even more arrogant and stupid things more and more.

[Dyakovo]

If their sponsors are on record admitting that their bill is unconstitutional, yes.

so people who do not support the constitution as it currently stands are not entitled to representation?

How deep did you have to reach to grab that conclusion?