"So Help Me God . . . "
Article: www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html
So, a lawsuit is being presented to take all references of God and Religion out of the inaugural.
Now, I understand the necessities of a separation of Church and State, and advocate strongly for it.
However, I am against people telling people what they can or cannot believe.
So how, to I remedy this conflict of interests, because I believe that it is Barrack Obama's inaugural, and he should take the Oath of Office in the way he is most comfortable with.
Obama is an open man of faith, and he needs to make a vow. From his perspective, that involves making an oath to his God. Why should we deny him his faith. (Of course if his faith becomes in direct conflict with his administration of government policies, that is a different issue)
Why must we ask a person to sacrifice their faith for the sake of an autonomous state?
Such would be the case if the President were an Atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc . . .
I would want them to take an oath upon something that would have the power of an oath in their own way.
Freedom is a double edged sword, and Yes, there should be a Freedom of Religion, but also the Freedom to express one's faith the way they see fit, AS LONG AS that expression does not interfere with the well being of others.
I do not see how the use of the term God in an inauguration for a President that does have faith should be vilified, but rather acknowledged and respected in a relative sense from the perspective of they who is taking office.
Yes, there should be a separation of Church and State in terms of making the Laws of Equality that we all live by, but to force some one to outright have to deny their faith is, in an opposite respect, denying them their Freedoms for which we stand, and that is the Freedom to express themselves naturally, and for many, that DOES involve their Relative faiths.
To ask someone to deny their faith is like asking someone not to smile.
If we truly wish to be the Free Society we seek, we are going to have to live with each others Humanity, and that, for most of us, involves a Religion of some sort.
We need to stop seeing each Faith's motives as being an attack on other Faith's but rather, simply, just each faith seeking validation, acceptance, and tolerance from the others.
This will not be done by forcing each other to have to hide that aspect of our humanity in a Public face, but rather embrace our society as a DELICIOUS STEW OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY including atheists and science as Fatihs as well.
If you want to be accepted, learn to accept others first.
Love you all.
Shine On and Express yourselves.
Keith
So, a lawsuit is being presented to take all references of God and Religion out of the inaugural.
Now, I understand the necessities of a separation of Church and State, and advocate strongly for it.
However, I am against people telling people what they can or cannot believe.
So how, to I remedy this conflict of interests, because I believe that it is Barrack Obama's inaugural, and he should take the Oath of Office in the way he is most comfortable with.
Obama is an open man of faith, and he needs to make a vow. From his perspective, that involves making an oath to his God. Why should we deny him his faith. (Of course if his faith becomes in direct conflict with his administration of government policies, that is a different issue)
Why must we ask a person to sacrifice their faith for the sake of an autonomous state?
Such would be the case if the President were an Atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc . . .
I would want them to take an oath upon something that would have the power of an oath in their own way.
Freedom is a double edged sword, and Yes, there should be a Freedom of Religion, but also the Freedom to express one's faith the way they see fit, AS LONG AS that expression does not interfere with the well being of others.
I do not see how the use of the term God in an inauguration for a President that does have faith should be vilified, but rather acknowledged and respected in a relative sense from the perspective of they who is taking office.
Yes, there should be a separation of Church and State in terms of making the Laws of Equality that we all live by, but to force some one to outright have to deny their faith is, in an opposite respect, denying them their Freedoms for which we stand, and that is the Freedom to express themselves naturally, and for many, that DOES involve their Relative faiths.
To ask someone to deny their faith is like asking someone not to smile.
If we truly wish to be the Free Society we seek, we are going to have to live with each others Humanity, and that, for most of us, involves a Religion of some sort.
We need to stop seeing each Faith's motives as being an attack on other Faith's but rather, simply, just each faith seeking validation, acceptance, and tolerance from the others.
This will not be done by forcing each other to have to hide that aspect of our humanity in a Public face, but rather embrace our society as a DELICIOUS STEW OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY including atheists and science as Fatihs as well.
If you want to be accepted, learn to accept others first.
Love you all.
Shine On and Express yourselves.
Keith