Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"We're all kind of screwed and life is going to be hard. Like, frontiersman hard."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "We're all kind of screwed and life is going to be hard. Like, frontiersman hard."

    So, what did you think of Obama's inauguration speech? What are your hopes for his Presidency? Or your fears? Or your "Meh, I don't care so long as I don't lose my job"s?

    For those who weren't satisfied with the speech, you could create your own:

    http://www.atom.com/spotlights/inaug...ech_generator/


    -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

  • #2
    I liked some stuff and didn't like other stuff. Never feel comfortable when someone talks up how essential reliance on the government is. And it was awfully pessimistic in general.

    As speeches go, it's not his best. Election night was *much* stronger. Probably the amount of hype made it impossible to live up to.

    I did like the foreign policy parts of it, at least most of them.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Obama
      We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.
      Originally posted by Obama
      This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
      Contradiction much?


      But as much as I found the references to "God" (which one?), and some God-given destiny rather annoying, he's just a politician talking and trying to please the crowd, so whatever.

      He didn't say anything of substance about his stances that we didn't know already.

      Comment


      • #4
        I loved the old guy who did the benediction. Can he be president? And can the woman with the poem never return on my tv?


        Obama's speech was okay, not close to his best. It probably has to do with him being president now. No longer it's a 'vote for me' speech. But okay, let's see what happens now.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by EvilVampire View Post
          Contradiction much?


          But as much as I found the references to "God" (which one?), and some God-given destiny rather annoying, he's just a politician talking and trying to please the crowd, so whatever.

          He didn't say anything of substance about his stances that we didn't know already.
          I did object to being called a non-believer. I'm not defined by my non-belief! I believe in stuff. Just not God. I believe in me. Yoko and me. No, wait, that's John Lennon. But still, substitute "Yoko" with "People" and it works.

          But, as you say, it's a political move.

          The sombre tone made me think "he's been taking lessons from Gordon Brown", and the oratory wasn't his best (cf lessons from Gordon Brown) in terms of being inspiring. But I think being inspiring isn't actually the right tone for the current climate. The speech was pitched as if it's wartime, comparing our situation to the civil war, to being in a battle where everything except hope seems lost - it's "keep calm and carry on" for the 21st century.

          It was, I felt, a very clever speech rather than a heartfelt one. Various points seemed to address particular criticisms that have been levelled at him or at democrats in general (eg stressing that he wasn't automatically for big government, that he was willing to cut programs that aren't working, ie he's not a commie).

          The part I didn't like much was towards the start, where he seemed to be crowing too much about having beaten back the evol forces of republican old men - all that stuff about choosing change over...whatever the other thing was. That felt more in place in an election victory speech. The election was a while ago now, it just felt a bit mean somehow! I'll have to watch it again though - no one else I've talked to seems to have felt that so perhaps I misunderstood him there.


          -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
            I did object to being called a non-believer. I'm not defined by my non-belief! I believe in stuff. Just not God. I believe in me. Yoko and me. No, wait, that's John Lennon. But still, substitute "Yoko" with "People" and it works.
            You know, I read the posts of some American non...err...people who don't believe in Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, etc., somewhere else, and none of them objected to that part - on the contrary, they found that to be a bit of a counterbalance to the allusions to God (not enough for some, good enough for others).

            I guess he can't please everyone.

            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
            But, as you say, it's a political move.
            Yes, it seems he was trying to appear inclusive - i.e.. to please almost everyone.

            References to God are inevitable - many people would get angry if he didn't bring that up, so it's understandable. A reference to "non-believers" was probably a way to appeal to agnostics and even to atheists without saying the A-word (many Christians might take offense if he'd said "atheists"; I'm not sure how they'll react to the reference to "non-believers", but I don't think there's nearly as much potential for trouble).

            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
            The sombre tone made me think "he's been taking lessons from Gordon Brown", and the oratory wasn't his best (cf lessons from Gordon Brown) in terms of being inspiring.
            I admit I only read it (I don't exactly like listening to politicians), so probably some nuances are lost to me. I didn't find it any worse than the others. Then again, I never find speeches inspiring , so not good at assessing that.

            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
            But I think being inspiring isn't actually the right tone for the current climate. The speech was pitched as if it's wartime, comparing our situation to the civil war, to being in a battle where everything except hope seems lost - it's "keep calm and carry on" for the 21st century.
            That's a good point.

            I don't think your situation is nearly as bad, though , but I can see that there are plenty of `problems haunting his administration, the US economy, etc., so being to positive could have been negative.


            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
            The part I didn't like much was towards the start, where he seemed to be crowing too much about having beaten back the evol forces of republican old men - all that stuff about choosing change over...whatever the other thing was. That felt more in place in an election victory speech. The election was a while ago now, it just felt a bit mean somehow! I'll have to watch it again though - no one else I've talked to seems to have felt that so perhaps I misunderstood him there.
            I suppose he's trying to distant himself from the previous administration and insist that there will be significant change; that he's not more of the same, so that despite the difficulties, he has a shot.

            I'm not too optimistic about the future of his administration: he inherits such a bad situation, that his popularity might drop quickly if he fails to resolve some serious problems in a relatively short time and begins making more or less big mistakes.
            Last edited by EvilVampire; 21-01-09, 01:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Is it a political move? Barack Obama is, himself, a Christian. Why assume he's being insincere and just referencing God for expedience? Aren't I supposed to be the guy who doesn't like him?

              I actually was a little upset by the closing prayer -- it basically said white people are jerks.

              "Black won't have to get back
              Brown can stick around
              Yellow can be mellow
              The red man can get ahead, man
              And white will embrace what's right"

              So the first four are basically all about hope and encouraging... and then tells all the white people they're the screw-ups. Although I have heard at least a few reports that Obama winced when Lowry said that.

              The worst part of the inauguration was actually that poem. Best part was Aretha
              Last edited by KingofCretins; 21-01-09, 02:34 PM.
              sigpic
              Banner by LRae12

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by EvilVampire View Post
                I guess he can't please everyone.
                It’s quite a small criticism really. It’s just part of my kneejerk frustration with the religious nature of public discourse in US politics, but possibly because I don’t understand the nuanced nature of their separation of church and state. I’m more familiar with the French take on this, ie that the state is aggressively secular, not just that you’re not allowed prayers in schools etc.

                Yes, it seems he was trying to appear inclusive - i.e.. to please almost everyone.
                Which is impossible, but yes, I think that was a fairly good effort.

                A reference to "non-believers" was probably a way to appeal to agnostics and even to atheists without saying the A-word (many Christians might take offense if he'd said "atheists"; I'm not sure how they'll react to the reference to "non-believers", but I don't think there's nearly as much potential for trouble).
                He could’ve gone with people of all faiths and belief systems, so as to cover humanists etc, and people who don’t define themselves by a lack of belief in god, but by their positive beliefs, if you know what I mean.

                I admit I only read it (I don't exactly like listening to politicians), so probably some nuances are lost to me. I didn't find it any worse than the others. Then again, I never find speeches inspiring , so not good at assessing that.
                I did find the acceptance speech inspiring in a way that this one wasn’t. But he’s now in a different game, so it’s understandable. Mind you, there are acceptance speeches that are inspiring – JFK, for example.


                I don't think your situation is nearly as bad, though , but I can see that there are plenty of `problems haunting his administration, the US economy, etc., so being to positive could have been negative.
                Yes. If you say “everything’s gravy, we can do everything,” then you’re only going to disappoint in the current climate.

                I suppose he's trying to distant himself from the previous administration and insist that there will be significant change; that he's not more of the same, so that despite the difficulties, he has a shot.
                Yeah. It was just something about the way he phrased it that bugged me. I really must watch again because I may have got the wrong end of the stick! Talked to my gf about it and she didn’t think he was being bitchy like I did.

                I'm not too optimistic about the future of his administration: he inherits such a bad situation, that his popularity might drop quickly if he fails to resolve some serious problems in a relatively short time and begins making more or less big mistakes.
                I’ll be impressed if he can do anything helpful to be honest. The role of world leaders at the moment has to be one of economic damage control most of the time I imagine. Though sometimes a time of turbulence is good for social change, so even if he can’t help the country’s economy in a dramatic fashion, he could push through changes in favour of equality. Though, if you can’t promote financial equality, it is rather harder to push the other stuff.


                Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                Is it a political move? Barack Obama is, himself, a Christian. Why assume he's being insincere and just referencing God for expedience? Aren't I supposed to be the guy who doesn't like him?
                Heh. Well, I like him most of the time (though initially I was for Hilary in the campaigns, but I’ll have to be honest and say that was something that was symbolically important for me personally, so I was basically being sexist in the preference).

                I don’t think he’s necessarily being insincere in referencing God. I just think that he HAD to include that, not to alienate Christians, even if he didn’t want to. It’s a political hot potato, so whatever one’s personal beliefs, it’s hard to leave out. Though, if he had been an atheist, I imagine that would have posed problems! Not sure they’d elect an atheist/non-Christian at the moment though?

                Apparently Aretha had a fine hat on? Or did I mishear? I missed her, and the poem.


                -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingofCretins

                  Is it a political move? Barack Obama is, himself, a Christian. Why assume he's being insincere and just referencing God for expedience?
                  I was talking about the speech in general (he's a politician, so he'll likely try to explain his position, but spinning it in a way that different people will (hopefully, from his perspective) understand as in line with their position), and reading the contradiction in that light.

                  If he actually believes that "This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny", and he believes "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.", then he has contradictory beliefs on the subject.

                  But I don't think he does. I think he's knows many Americans do not believe that God (whatever that is) calls on them to do anything at all, and still have confidence, whereas others are theists, and have little confidence; but saying that wouldn't be an effective tool in a speech, so he'd rather say something else. I'm not sure he saw the contradiction, though.

                  Originally posted by KingofCretins
                  Aren't I supposed to be the guy who doesn't like him?

                  You're the one who dislikes him for very different reasons than the ones I might dislike him for.

                  However, I don't particularly dislike him, even if I'm cynical as I'm usually cynical when I analyze the actions and/or words of any successful politician, not just Obama.

                  So, for me to say "a successful politician is making a political a political move, trying to say what everyone wants to hear" is like for me to say "a successful politician is acting as a successful politician usually act"; it's not a particular criticism.

                  In other words, I wasn't being too critical of his speech, other than pointing out the fact that he seems to have contradicted himself.

                  I also expressed my dislike of the theistic references, the God-given destiny/call, etc., but actually found it understandable in context, for a politician in his position. Not making those references would have had a negative impact on the populations' morale more than making them, so I have to grudgingly concede that he has a point making them.


                  Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
                  He could’ve gone with people of all faiths and belief systems, so as to cover humanists etc, and people who don’t define themselves by a lack of belief in god, but by their positive beliefs, if you know what I mean.
                  True, though I have the impression that most atheists and other non-theists (however they define themselves, if at all) would not have taken that as a reference to them for two reasons:

                  1) Atheism is neither a faith nor a belief system, according to most atheists.

                  2) His claim that "This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny" would have informed the interpretation of " people of all faiths and belief systems", excluding not only atheists but all non-theists (though he probably didn't realize that).

                  Granted, he could have eschewed any reference to the source of their confidence, etc.; but that might have had a negative effect on many people, so it's a trade-off.

                  Still, I'm pretty sure he could have done better than a contradiction.

                  Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
                  I did find the acceptance speech inspiring in a way that this one wasn’t. But he’s now in a different game, so it’s understandable. Mind you, there are acceptance speeches that are inspiring – JFK, for example.
                  I'm probably incapable of finding any speeches inspirational, but that's just my evil weirdness.

                  Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
                  Yes. If you say “everything’s gravy, we can do everything,” then you’re only going to disappoint in the current climate.
                  True.
                  I think he's going to disappoint many people anyway, mostly in other countries but also in the US. He's doing damage control already.

                  Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
                  I’ll be impressed if he can do anything helpful to be honest. The role of world leaders at the moment has to be one of economic damage control most of the time I imagine. Though sometimes a time of turbulence is good for social change, so even if he can’t help the country’s economy in a dramatic fashion, he could push through changes in favour of equality. Though, if you can’t promote financial equality, it is rather harder to push the other stuff.
                  Yep, I agree.

                  Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore
                  I don’t think he’s necessarily being insincere in referencing God. I just think that he HAD to include that, not to alienate Christians, even if he didn’t want to. It’s a political hot potato, so whatever one’s personal beliefs, it’s hard to leave out. Though, if he had been an atheist, I imagine that would have posed problems! Not sure they’d elect an atheist/non-Christian at the moment though?
                  I think they wouldn't elect anyone who doesn't claim to be a Christian, show a record of church attendance to back that, etc.

                  So, any politician who makes it to the US Presidency has to be widely believed to be a Christian.

                  Still, he went to church before for decades, even if he wasn't planning to run, so I'm not suggesting he was doing so in order to be President.
                  But then again, someone in his position during that time would have a good reason to attend church: the social and community ties linked to his church are of significant importance; leaving them entails becoming a bit of an outcast, at least for a while, and having much less acceptance among the community he was surrounded with.

                  Whatever; I still think his being a Christian is more likely than any alternative, but I wouldn't really bet on it. He does seem to believe in some entity he calls "God", but whether that's Yahweh, or some deistic entity, or some unspecified theistic entity, I don't know - I just find Yahweh more likely than the others based on what I know at the moment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This was the first inaugration that I have ever watched. I watched it for a few reasons. One...the man I voted for won. Second, I had to see with my own eyes that he was going to be sworn in. I kept waiting for something bad to happen. A black President-elect and like 1.2 million people standing in the mall is like a terrorist attack waiting to happen.

                    Anyway, I liked the inaugration. My husband, who was sitting next to me, kept me quite amused. He cracked jokes about the old politicians and stuff the whole time. I hope to never have to listen to the Poem Woman again in this lifetime or any other lifetime. Its poems like that, that strengthen my dislike of poetry. Aretha was my favorite part. That woman can sing. She was the perfect pick for the ceremony. My only question is...where did she get the hat???

                    Obama's speech was a rather good speech. It might not have been his best, but I have to think the man was nervous...really nervous. Did you see all the people? If I had to stand up in front of that many people, I would be praying to be taken out. Public speaking terrifies me. His speech had some good messages and in my opinion, some strength behind it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Risa View Post
                      This was the first inaugration that I have ever watched. I watched it for a few reasons. One...the man I voted for won. Second, I had to see with my own eyes that he was going to be sworn in. I kept waiting for something bad to happen. A black President-elect and like 1.2 million people standing in the mall is like a terrorist attack waiting to happen.
                      I got to admit I was as worried about that as well. I was just hoping that no bloody idiot was going to mess this up. I was so thankful that he got through it and that everything turned out for the best.

                      It was also the first one I had ever watched. I stayed up till 2:30 am over here in Australia and watched it right until I had to go to work at 8am, I was amazed by the entire thing. It's really nice to see so many people in the US so inspired again and things just feel very different over here in Australia. The radios were all interviewing shopkeepers from Washington about their thoughts on the ceremony and all of them were saying how they feel proud again to be American whereas they didn't feel as lucky during the Bush administration. And whilst the US has been easy to jab and make fun of it was a different mood with the Australian media over the last couple of days, they seem to be celebrating the US rather than condemning it, it just seems like the world's viewing the US very differently now, I think it's excellent.

                      I did hear that people tried to have the "so help me god" part taken out of the presidential oath but they lost in court. I can't say I'm that fussed, it's just a part of tradition and I dunno, kinda nice. Who really cares? It isn't hurting anyone.

                      ~ Banner by Nina ~

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EvilVampire View Post
                        But I don't think he does. I think he's knows many Americans do not believe that God (whatever that is) calls on them to do anything at all, and still have confidence, whereas others are theists, and have little confidence; but saying that wouldn't be an effective tool in a speech, so he'd rather say something else. I'm not sure he saw the contradiction, though.
                        The political reality, unfortunate or not, is that something like 90% of Americans claim to believe in a supreme being, and something like 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Further, a Pew study showed that a much larger percentage of Americans consider religion very important in their lives vs. other countries. It's not through some sort of theocratic oppression that Presidents are going to be vetted for their beliefs, it's just the fact that leaders will reflect the basic profile of the population.

                        1) Atheism is neither a faith nor a belief system, according to most atheists.
                        I've always found this statement to be like "Jesus is the Son of God, according to Christians" -- that it's not a faith is, from outside, the first article of faith for atheists

                        Granted, he could have eschewed any reference to the source of their confidence, etc.; but that might have had a negative effect on many people, so it's a trade-off.
                        I know there was some hope that he would have omitted the customary but not mandated "so help me God" from the oath of office. Was that a source of disappointment?

                        Mogs, that part of the oath is not formally part of the oath and, to my knowledge, hasn't been challenged in court. It was something George Washington did and every President since has done as well. There was a fight over the Pledge of Allegiance which includes the phrase "under God", and a federal court found that to be a formal establishment of religion (what religion, they declined to say), but the Supreme Court reversed them because the individual lacked standing to bring the suit.

                        True.
                        I think he's going to disappoint many people anyway, mostly in other countries but also in the US. He's doing damage control already.
                        I don't think people are ever opposed to feeling inspired. I thought he was too pessimistic in his tone.

                        Here's parts of a speech that would have sounded great on Tuesday --

                        (spoilered for length)

                        Spoiler:
                        You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding—we are going to begin to act, beginning today.

                        The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

                        In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.

                        ...

                        If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

                        It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.

                        We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter—and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.

                        I have used the words "they" and "their" in speaking of these heroes. I could say "you" and "your" because I am addressing the heroes of whom I speak—you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.


                        Now that's a speech that could inspire.
                        Last edited by KingofCretins; 22-01-09, 01:07 AM.
                        sigpic
                        Banner by LRae12

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingofCretins
                          Originally posted by EvilVampire
                          But I don't think he does. I think he's knows many Americans do not believe that God (whatever that is) calls on them to do anything at all, and still have confidence, whereas others are theists, and have little confidence; but saying that wouldn't be an effective tool in a speech, so he'd rather say something else. I'm not sure he saw the contradiction, though.
                          The political reality, unfortunate or not, is that something like 90% of Americans claim to believe in a supreme being, and something like 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Further, a Pew study showed that a much larger percentage of Americans consider religion very important in their lives vs. other countries.
                          Of course, no doubt about that (well, unless you consider countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, EUA, Pakistan, etc.), and I'm pretty sure Obama knows that as well.

                          But that doesn't change the fact that if he actually believes that "This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny", and he believes "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.", then he has contradictory beliefs on the subject.

                          But as I mentioned, I don't think he does.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins
                          Originally posted by EvilVampire
                          1) Atheism is neither a faith nor a belief system, according to most atheists.
                          I've always found this statement to be like "Jesus is the Son of God, according to Christians" -- that it's not a faith is, from outside, the first article of faith for atheists
                          You know, I made a point about what atheists say (i.e., "according to most atheists"), rather than make it as a claim, precisely to avoid this kind of reply, as a means of preventing a derail about religion.

                          But since you bring this up, I'm game: (if you prefer to start a new thread for this debate and avoid derails, please go ahead and we'll continue there ).

                          If I believe that there's a keyboard in front of me (rather than, say, my being in a Matrix), that's not an article of faith. Psychologically, it's very different from faith.

                          If I believe that there's no invisible dragon in my garage, that is not an article of faith.

                          If I believe that Thor, Athena, Shiva, or Yahweh do not exist, that is not an article of faith.

                          Rather, I'm using my intuitions to interact with the world as I normally do. I'm not using a standard of evidence that is radically different from what I use in the rest of my daily life.

                          If, on the other hand, I believed that the dragon in my garage, Thor, Athena, Shiva or Yahweh do exist, that would be faith - I would be eschewing my usual standards of evidence, and believing things that I would normally find preposterous at best.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins
                          I know there was some hope that he would have omitted the customary but not mandated "so help me God" from the oath of office. Was that a source of disappointment?
                          If you're asking about me, the answer is no; he can't disappoint me, as I don't expect anything from him (I do in the sense that I can speculate about what he'll probably do, but if he doesn't, I'm not going to feel any different from how I felt if other politicians acted in a way that surprises me).
                          Plus, in this particular case, I thought that that would never happen. No way.

                          If you're asking about American atheists who post somewhere else, the answer is no; the SHMG part wasn't a surprise. But then again, I only know some of them, so I don't know if that is a general trend among American atheists.
                          Originally posted by KingofCretins
                          Mogs, that part of the oath is not formally part of the oath and, to my knowledge, hasn't been challenged in court. It was something George Washington did and every President since has done as well. There was a fight over the Pledge of Allegiance which includes the phrase "under God", and a federal court found that to be a formal establishment of religion (what religion, they declined to say), but the Supreme Court reversed them because the individual lacked standing to bring the suit.
                          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/...ation.lawsuit/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Given that the "so help me God" is entirely voluntary and has no legal role in the oath of office, an injunction upon saying it is an unambiguous violation of the free exercise cause of the First Amendment. So even if he had standing, which he probably doesn't, he has no case on the merits.
                            sigpic
                            Banner by LRae12

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I thought this was pretty interesting;

                              "Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit."

                              Who in their right mind would refuse to watch the inauguration because God is mentioned? I mean really, I just don't understand it. There’s plenty of people who do believe in God, couldn’t the same be said for them if they were forced to “suffer” through an inauguration where all references to God are banned? I mean, it just isn’t a big deal as far as I’m concerned, there’s so much more to that ceremony than that.

                              ~ Banner by Nina ~

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Mogs, it is an absolute garbage claim. There is literally no legal merit to it whatsoever. Honestly, the plaintiff should be fined for bringing it, since he is a habitual plaintiff in similarly meritless claims -- this same plaintiff is the one I mentioned that sued over the Pledge of Allegiance and was dismissed because he lacked standing to bring the case.
                                sigpic
                                Banner by LRae12

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                                  Given that the "so help me God" is entirely voluntary and has no legal role in the oath of office, an injunction upon saying it is an unambiguous violation of the free exercise cause of the First Amendment. So even if he had standing, which he probably doesn't, he has no case on the merits.
                                  To be clear, the case wasn't meant to prevent Obama from saying SHMG, but to prevent John Roberts from saying so (not that there was any remote chance of success, anyway).

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    It's still a nonsense suit -- from the instant the constitutionally mandated oath ends, the Chief Justice and the President turn into just two guys talking, in legal terms. A lawsuit like this would basically void out the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
                                    sigpic
                                    Banner by LRae12

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I *think* that their argument is that the oath including SHMG is making it official. But as I said, I don't think that there's any remote chance of success (and it's probably counterproductive to make that kind of challenge).

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Wolfie, it seems that you weren't the only one who didn't like the "non-believers" remark (though I'm not certain you will like some of the others)

                                        http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-n...047x1201143706
                                        Last edited by EvilVampire; 26-01-09, 04:33 AM.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X