If you are Atheist, in court do you still have to swear a Oath Under god

Originally posted by Gregory
Rot. Maybe we should establish Christianity as a the official state religion? I mean, there are a lot of people who want that, aren't there? And we wouldn't want to "violate their rights," would we?[b]

So, we should agree with you and to hell with everybody else. So, Christians, Jews and Muslims shouldn't have the same rights as you? You're just being contrary. There is no substance behind your argument.

[b]What about them? They're both speaches--one delivered by writing, one spoken--and have no legal value. They did not "found this country." And if I had my way, the money would not have that written on it.

Excuse me, but the Delclaration of Independence DID "found" this country.

Yeh, and White people make up a majority of the country, too. So why should we have endeed segregation? Why bother fighting descrimination? The majority rules and to hell with everyone else!

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
So, we should agree with you and to hell with everybody else. So, Christians, Jews and Muslims shouldn't have the same rights as you? You're just being contrary. There is no substance behind your argument.

I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell are you talking about? What "right" are we denying Christians, Muslims, and Jews? The right to force others to swear by their God? They never had that right.

Excuse me, but the Delclaration of Independence DID "found" this country.

No, it damn well didn't. We gained independance with the Treaty of Paris. But this country didn't really come into existance until the Constitution was ratified; the entity that was governed under the Articles of Confederation has since ceased to exist.

So we should cater to the minority and to hell with the majority. That's what you're saying, right?

When the will of the majority violates people's civil rights, yes. Not only am I saying it, I'm proud of saying it. Look, I'll do it again: The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.

that last part is certainly true gregory (hey we agree on somerhing)

the independence and the founding of a country can be heavily debated most countries proclaim themself a country before most of the world accepts it

Originally posted by Gregory
I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell are you talking about? What "right" are we denying Christians, Muslims, and Jews? The right to force others to swear by their God? They never had that right.

Tell me, where do you live that it is a crime to NOT swear by someone else's God?

No, it damn well didn't. We gained independance with the Treaty of Paris. But this country didn't really come into existance until the Constitution was ratified; the entity that was governed under the Articles of Confederation has since ceased to exist.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The Declaration of Independence created the soveriegn state. The Treaty of Paris only put in writing that Britain recognized America's right to exist. We were a functioning sovernty during the Revolutionary War.

When the will of the majority violates people's civil rights, yes. Not only am I saying it, I'm proud of saying it. Look, I'll do it again: The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.

How are yor civil rights being violated by the words "under God" in the PLedge of Allegiance? You are not required to say them.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Tell me, where do you live that it is a crime to NOT swear by someone else's God?

Well, the original issue was whether atheists had (or should have) to swear upon the Bible.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The Declaration of Independence created the soveriegn state. The Treaty of Paris only put in writing that Britain recognized America's right to exist. We were a functioning sovernty during the Revolutionary War.

No, because we had no authority to declaire ourselves a soverign state. It would be like me telling the United States that my home is now a seperate country; saying it doesn't make it so.

How are yor civil rights being violated by the words "under God" in the PLedge of Allegiance? You are not required to say them.

I do unless I want the world to know that I'm an atheist. I don't care, but in certain very religious parts of the country, the social consequences of this could be extreme. For example, I could get beaten up.

And wasn't it President Bush who said that atheists shouldn't be treated as citizens because "this is one nation under God"? Don't you think that not being able to pledge allegience to America in the same way as everyone else might give atheists the impression that they are unwelcome?

Originally posted by Gregory
Well, the original issue was whether atheists had (or should have) to swear upon the Bible.

And in most courts, an atheist is not required to swear on a Bible. The person is informed by the court that they are considered under oath by the laws of the court. In fact, the last court I was in Again, where are rights being violated?

No, because we had no authority to declaire ourselves a soverign state. It would be like me telling the United States that my home is now a seperate country; saying it doesn't make it so.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence was our proclamation that we were breaking off from Britain to form our own sovereignty. You don't need anybody's permission to be a sovereignty. Most of the Middle Eastern countries do not recognize Israel's right to exist, but it is a sovereign nation. In theory, you could work out an agreement with the government to declare your area an independent nation. You would be subject to taxes and tariffs like a foreign country. You would lose all of the rights given to you under the Constitution.

I do unless I want the world to know that I'm an atheist. I don't care, but in certain very religious parts of the country, the social consequences of this could be extreme. For example, I could get beaten up.

Yes, and the US governement would classify that as a hate crime. The offenders could be prosecuted. That isn't being oppressed by the institution, is the work of a few individuals.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
And in most courts, an atheist is not required to swear on a Bible. The person is informed by the court that they are considered under oath by the laws of the court. In fact, the last court I was in Again, where are rights being violated?

They're not; this thread is about two distinct issues (the Pledge and swearing in court), and it confused me for a moment,

In theory, you could work out an agreement with the government to declare your area an independent nation. You would be subject to taxes and tariffs like a foreign country. You would lose all of the rights given to you under the Constitution.

But I can't become my own country just by saying I am; I'd need the governent's permission. And the rebel's did not have their government's permission.

Yes, and the US governement would classify that as a hate crime. The offenders could be prosecuted. That isn't being oppressed by the institution, is the work of a few individuals.

Whether the government condones it or not, they are creating an environment conducive to it. And no, school children will probably not be prosecuted for beating up other school children--maybe suspended or something.

And Bush uses that blasted Pledge to explain why we atheists shouldn't be treated as citizens; do you think that that sort of thinking is rare?

Originally posted by Gregory
But I can't become my own country just by saying I am; I'd need the governent's permission. And the rebel's did not have their government's permission.

The problem is land and nothing else. You would more than likely have to purchase the land from the government. You do not need permission to function as a sovereignty.

Whether the government condones it or not, they are creating an environment conducive to it. And no, school children will probably not be prosecuted for beating up other school children--maybe suspended or something.

If parents press charges and can prove in court that you were beaten up for being an atheist, the kids would be prosecuted. I don't agree that the government is creating any environment of the kind.

And Bush uses that blasted Pledge to explain why we atheists shouldn't be treated as citizens; do you think that that sort of thinking is rare?

I don't think it has anything to do with the pledge, but I agree with you that Bush is ramming religion (more to the point, Christianity) down the throats of the "non-believers." I will also agree that religious groups get their way much more than non-religious groups in this country. That MUST stop. But I don't believe the institution of government creates an evironment of religious intolerance.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The problem is land and nothing else. You would more than likely have to purchase the land from the government. You do not need permission to function as a sovereignty.

So you do need permission, in the sense that the government can refuse to sell you the land.

If parents press charges and can prove in court that you were beaten up for being an atheist, the kids would be prosecuted. I don't agree that the government is creating any environment of the kind.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but I'll give it one more try before agreeing to disagree. The kids who are picked on the most are the ones who are different. Whether it's your hair, your clothes, your accent, or just about anything else, being different is a sure way to be picked on (at least it was in my school). If atheist children don't want to say the "under God" part of the pledge, they don't have to, but they will set themselves apart. So they either must set aside their religious beliefs or be conspiculously different from everyone else, and thus be picked on. By having "under God" in the Pledge, the government is creating this situation.

I don't think it has anything to do with the pledge, but I agree with you that Bush is ramming religion (more to the point, Christianity) down the throats of the "non-believers." I will also agree that religious groups get their way much more than non-religious groups in this country. That MUST stop. But I don't believe the institution of government creates an evironment of religious intolerance.

I agree with almost everything you say in this paragraph. But I look at it this way: many Christians I have run into think that it's okay to persecute non-Christians because "this is a Christian nation." I believe that having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance fosters this belief, and it gives these Christians something to point to and say, "here is proof that this is a Christian nation; we invoke our God in the Pledge!"

Wow, you two really go at it.........

Well here's my response to all your bickering 😛

This counrty, regardless of what sort of men were part of it's founders, was built on the idealism of the separation of church and state. This means that in government issues, the church cannot have a say. This applies to same-sex marriage, oaths, pledges, and everything of the sort

And another thing: America was also built on equality. To oppress a minority is against the very foundation of our country.

Wow!!! So you can come to an agreement with the US government, and gain independence, and be treated like a foreign country! Wait... didn't the Confederacy try that? They called it seccession... and the US came to an agreement with them... it agreed to invade and whoop their asses! Mind you, I suppose that IS how America treats foreign countries....

could be wrong here, need to check but didn't the confederacy start the war? with an attack on a union fortress?

the fortress Fort Sumtner was situated outside Charleston South Carolina, a state that secceded the union thus making the Fort an enemy fort to the Confederation. Brigadier General Beauregard of the confederate forces demanded the fort to surrender to with the fort/garison commander Anderson refused.

thx finti

Originally posted by Gregory
So you do need permission, in the sense that the government can refuse to sell you the land.

Or you could take it by force. If you successfully held off the US military, you could negotiate a treaty with the US to recognize your sovereignty.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but I'll give it one more try before agreeing to disagree. The kids who are picked on the most are the ones who are different. Whether it's your hair, your clothes, your accent, or just about anything else, being different is a sure way to be picked on (at least it was in my school). If atheist children don't want to say the "under God" part of the pledge, they don't have to, but they will set themselves apart. So they either must set aside their religious beliefs or be conspiculously different from everyone else, and thus be picked on. By having "under God" in the Pledge, the government is creating this situation.

I've said it before, the Pledge of Allegiance should be exactly as it was originally written. I don't believe it had the words "under God" in it.

I agree with almost everything you say in this paragraph. But I look at it this way: many Christians I have run into think that it's okay to persecute non-Christians because "this is a Christian nation." I believe that having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance fosters this belief, and it gives these Christians something to point to and say, "here is proof that this is a Christian nation; we invoke our God in the Pledge!"

I don't know where you live that you are seeing this, but these people are total assholes. The United States is NOT and never has been a "Christian nation." The United States is a place where peoples of all races, creeds, religions, etc. should be able to practice their beliefs without worry of prosecution or condemnation. This is what the Declaration of Independence is all about. If you are experiencing what you said above, it goes against everything that this country is supposed to stand for.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
I've said it before, the Pledge of Allegiance should be exactly as it was originally written. I don't believe it had the words "under God" in it.

You said that the words "under God" should stay in if the majority wants them in. If you believe they should be taken out, I'm not sure why we're arguing about it.

Because it's become such a national issue. I truly believe that those like yourself that don't want it in, combined with those that don't care either way far outnumber the people that do. Put it to a vote of the people and let's see. I think you'd be surprised by the results.

I don't agree with some of the things you're saying. You never asked if I thought it should be in or not. 🙂

I'll put it to you this way, I'm a Christian and I don't care either way. The country's not going to hell if it's removed and it's not getting better if it's kept.

Wow... I hope you two (Gregory and Kenobi) never meet in RL, I think you'd strangle each other... O_o But, really, intelligent debates, with substance... I haven't seen that very often.

Anyway... on to the actual topic: I wasn't raised in a remotely Christian school, nor was I raised in a Christian household, so the pledge of allegiance didn't really hold more to me than the teacher made me look at a flag and talk. I didn't believe in God in kindergarten - all I knew was that God was... just God, I didn't know what he was, and therefore I couldn't believe in him (Forgive me Christians for not capitalizing the pronouns... I never understood that ^_^). It was never talked about. Anyway... I have no objections to the pledge-- it doesn't hold any meaning in the sense that you aren't swearing under it. But the oath in court... I believe there should be an option, if you are atheist, to affirm as opposed to swear, but that Christians or whoever else swears to God should be allowed to. I don't think that "under God" should be mandatory. And from what you're all saying, it seems like some courts are realizing that.

I was raised in a Catholic household, and I actually believed until shortly before I was confirmed. As I got older, I realized how little sense all of it made. And then, as I looked into it more, I found out all of the things that the 'righteous' did in the name of these so-called 'deities.' Horrific things: mass murders, propoganda, destroying whole groups of people (much like the things the Nazis did, I thought to my own horror). And then I realized that they do things like that to protect themselves, from their own fear of people's loss of faith.

So, shortly after I was confirmed (a little late, I know, damn it), I became a closet athiest. My parents still don't know. My dad is a hyper-religious, close-minded, bigoted, control freak of a bastard, so he wouldn't take it well.

There's my story!