Enigma: ^^^ I don't recall anybody on this thread arguing or saying the US government should be based on "religion".

I must have misunderstood. But Religion can impinge on government, is that more accurate?

Religious bodies can make their view points known. The "secularists" and the evangelical atheist mumus are trying to prevent "religion" from having any voice ----- and ensuring that the only voice that is heard or that is relevant is that of secularism and, to be explicit, of atheism.

Even in the UK where there is an established church the UK government is "not based on religion". Rather, constitutionally and institutionally, the voice of the Church can be heard through among other things representation in the House of Lords and the recognition of such important offices as Archbishops and Bishops. Nowadays voices of other, i.e. non-Christian, religions are given hearing as well.

None of these makes the UK government to be based on religion; not even the fact of an established Church does that.

And about temporal/secular, it is not in this instant an important issue for me other than its use in the article as part of demonstration of the intent of Jefferson's letter and his use of the expression "wall of separation between Church and State".

Nevertheless the distinction between Lords Temporal (i.e. secular) and Lords Spiritual (i.e. Church) is expressed here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Lords Temporal are secular members of the House of Lords. The term is used to differentiate lords—who are either life peers or hereditary peers, although the hereditary right to the House of Lords was abolished for all but ninety-two peers in 1999—from the Lords Spiritual, who sit in the House as bishops in the Church of England.

thehomer:

The errors in your statements above are as follows:
1. Christianity is separated from the state by law. (Hint: that is one of the reasons why gay people cannot be killed by the state despite whatever your Bible says.)
2. Atheism isn't a religion.
3. Humanism isn't atheism.

It's the other way round. Christianity should be protected from Government and not separated from it. Science separates the supernatural but evolutionists impose it's own beliefs, naturalism, on the Government and the nation. That's the religion of the atheists that says everything can be explained by natural processess. They even call themselves Secular humanists, that's your religion because it is based on blind faith and not on empirical tests. Below is an excerpt of what the article says about Separation of Church and State:

“Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.

This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!

The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):

Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.2
In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!

Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/separation-of-christianity-and-state

OLAADEGBU:

To be informed is good but that only reduces you to agreeing intellectually. It is like reading about the Queen of England who is about to celebrate its Jubilee. You can read all you want to read about her but that doesn't give you a personal relationship or connection with her.

When you squeeze a lemon you get lemon juice and when you squeeze a Christian you get Christ.

Similarly, you read about Obama without knowing. You think about Obama, as you can review the Queen of England or the upcoming Disney film studio.
You feel with authority to define who is Christian and who is not.
Is wrong.
Obama is not only creistiano, but represents all Christians around the world in his capacity as chairman of the most powerful country in the world.
Obama is an example of Christendom.
I insist with Guantanamo, the murder of civilians in Iraq, the embargo on Cuba ...
Excuse me if I say something as sharp, but you have no authority to decide who is Christian and who is not.
Obama is a Christian, a Christian landmark!

Ptolomeus:

Similarly, you read about Obama without knowing. You think about Obama, as you can review the Queen of England or the upcoming Disney film studio.
You feel with authority to define who is Christian and who is not.
Is wrong.
Obama is not only creistiano, but represents all Christians around the world in his capacity as chairman of the most powerful country in the world.
Obama is an example of Christendom.
I insist with Guantanamo, the murder of civilians in Iraq, the embargo on Cuba ...
Excuse me if I say something as sharp, but you have no authority to decide who is Christian and who is not.
Obama is a Christian, a Christian landmark!

If you want to know who a Christian should be study the life of Christ.

Enigma: Religious bodies can make their view points known. The "secularists" and the evangelical atheist mumus are trying to prevent "religion" from having any voice ----- and ensuring that the only voice that is heard or that is relevant is that of secularism and, to be explicit, of atheism.

Even in the UK where there is an established church the UK government is "not based on religion". Rather, constitutionally and institutionally, the voice of the Church can be heard through among other things representation in the House of Lords and the recognition of such important offices as Archbishops and Bishops. Nowadays voices of other, i.e. non-Christian, religions are given hearing as well.

None of these makes the UK government to be based on religion; not even the fact of an established Church does that.

And about temporal/secular, it is not in this instant an important issue for me other than its use in the article as part of demonstration of the intent of Jefferson's letter and his use of the expression "wall of separation between Church and State".

Nevertheless the distinction between Lords Temporal (i.e. secular) and Lords Spiritual (i.e. Church) is expressed here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

I agree that religious bodies and any other lobbyists can make their viewpoints known and, even further, attempt to to get them implemented and there is nothing wrong with that. They can also use the vote and any other means that is allowed in their democratic system. However I do not see where 'atheist mumus' are trying to stop religions from having any voice. Or how Obama telling religious people to pray at home makes him an atheist?

I would understand if Obama got voted in by a lobby of christians because he said that he was a christian and they now find that they have been hoodwinked. However a lot of the things in the videos such as his supposed 'mocking' of the Sermon on the Mount or other parts of the bible were said before he was president. And I already know too many christians who do not even consider the Sermon on the Mount as that essential to their christianity. I even recall someone here on Nairaland saying that Jesus just taught those things to show how impossible it would be to keep the law and he didn't really expect us to adopt the teachings. Such an attitude is extremely common.

I personally do not see how christianity can be mixed with politics and remain christianity. But then that would just be my own understanding of christianity and not another man's understanding of it.

OLAADEGBU:

It's the other way round. Christianity should be protected from Government and not separated from it. Science separates the supernatural but evolutionists impose it's own beliefs, naturalism, on the Government and the nation. That's the religion of the atheists that says everything can be explained by natural processess. They even call themselves Secular humanists, that's your religion because it is based on blind faith and not on empirical tests. Below is an excerpt of what the article says about Separation of Church and State:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/separation-of-christianity-and-state

I think that it would be dangerous to conflate Atheism with Naturalism though most Atheist have their atheism based on Naturalism. There are many atheists who are not Naturalists. Buddhism is an entire Atheist religion that recognises a supernatural realm.

I don't think it is good for christianity to be involved in worldly politics.

Pastor AIO: I agree that religious bodies and any other lobbyists can make their viewpoints known and, even further, attempt to to get them implemented and there is nothing wrong with that. They can also use the vote and any other means that is allowed in their democratic system. However I do not see where 'atheist mumus' are trying to stop religions from having any voice. Or how Obama telling religious people to pray at home makes him an atheist?

Well, if you are familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence and litigation as well as the activities of the evangelical atheist mumus in America, you will understand the statement that they are trying to prevent the Church from having any voice in American politics and policies.

Pastor AIO: I would understand if Obama got voted in by a lobby of christians because he said that he was a christian and they now find that they have been hoodwinked. However a lot of the things in the videos such as his supposed 'mocking' of the Sermon on the Mount or other parts of the bible were said before he was president.

Well, you may have noticed that I have not particularly concerned myself with whether Obama is a Christian or not

Pastor AIO: And I already know too many christians who do not even consider the Sermon on the Mount as that essential to their christianity. I even recall someone here on Nairaland saying that Jesus just taught those things to show how impossible it would be to keep the law and he didn't really expect us to adopt the teachings. Such an attitude is extremely common.

Again, I am sorry this is not an issue in which I have been involved.

Pastor AIO: I personally do not see how christianity can be mixed with politics and remain christianity. But then that would just be my own understanding of christianity and not another man's understanding of it.

Again, my involvement on this thread is no suggestion that Christianity should be "mixed" with politics. Afterall I am the same person who previously posted this (second point on link): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason#6869388

and this (penultimate point of post): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason/1#6872310

and this (point 9 or so in link): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason/2#6875916



EDITED - Links

Pastor AIO:

I think that it would be dangerous to conflate Atheism with Naturalism though most Atheist have their atheism based on Naturalism. There are many atheists who are not Naturalists. Buddhism is an entire Atheist religion that recognises a supernatural realm.

I don't think it is good for christianity to be involved in worldly politics.

The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as a

"a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"

We know that science can be defined as

"the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena"

If this is the case, why would the Secular humanists qualify as a scientific theory, especially when scientists cannot reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If naturalism, humanism or evolutionism cannot qualify as science then you should know that it is a belief system practised by atheists who would not allow God into the equation.

OLAADEGBU:

If you want to know who a Christian should be study the life of Christ.

Olaadegbu. Your response is pathetic.
If you want to know how to behave as a Christian, ask Obama, he will teach you what the moral level of a true Christian.

Ptolomeus:

Olaadegbu. Your response is pathetic.
If you want to know how to behave as a Christian, ask Obama, he will teach you what the moral level of a true Christian.

Your conscience will teach you what the moral level of a true Christian is. And while you are still at it answer the following question conscientously and see where you stand. And this goes for all non-Christians on this thread who are still struggling to understand what it means to be a Christian.

With a tender conscience, check this list of the Ten Commandments:

Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength? ____YES ___NO
Have I made a god in my own image? a god to suit myself? ____YES ___NO
Have I ever used God's name in vain? ____YES ___NO
Have I kept the Sabbath holy? ____YES ___NO
Have I always honoured my parents implicitly? ____YES ___NO
Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)? ____YES ___NO
Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)? ____YES ___NO
Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)? ____YES ___NO
Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)? ____YES ___NO
Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)? ____YES ___NO

If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48 ), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be the evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2,000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us[i]—

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."[/i]

His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God, as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible

daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Peace.

OLAADEGBU:

Your conscience will teach you what the moral level of a true Christian is. And while you are still at it answer the following question conscientously and see where you stand. And this goes for all non-Christians on this thread who are still struggling to understand what it means to be a Christian.

With a tender conscience, check this list of the Ten Commandments:

Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength? ____YES ___NO
Have I made a god in my own image? a god to suit myself? ____YES ___NO
Have I ever used God's name in vain? ____YES ___NO
Have I kept the Sabbath holy? ____YES ___NO
Have I always honoured my parents implicitly? ____YES ___NO
Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)? ____YES ___NO
Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)? ____YES ___NO
Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)? ____YES ___NO
Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)? ____YES ___NO
Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)? ____YES ___NO

If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48 ), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be the evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2,000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us[i]—

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."[/i]

His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God, as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible

daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Peace.

They are very general guidelines. Obama meets with them perfectly. Your post just confirms that Obama is a Christian by God's law.

Olaadegbu is absolutely crazy!
Copy and paste the same in all the threads!
Dementia senile hahahahaha
Look at this!

https://www.nairaland.com/898276/gods-perfect-moral-law-explained/2

He has no less serious.

OLAADEGBU:

It's the other way round. Christianity should be protected from Government and not separated from it.


How do you protect Christianity from the government without separating it?


Science separates the supernatural but evolutionists impose it's own beliefs, naturalism, on the Government and the nation. That's the religion of the atheists that says everything can be explained by natural processess. They even call themselves Secular humanists, that's your religion because it is based on blind faith and not on empirical tests. Below is an excerpt of what the article says about Separation of Church and State:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/separation-of-christianity-and-state

Do physicists (gravitationalists) impose their beliefs (naturalism) on the government and the nation?
I wonder what you think a religion is.
Again, secular humanism is not a religion neither is atheism a religion in the way Christianity is a religion. I hope you realize that when you say something is a religion because it is based on blind faith, you're implying that Christianity which actually is a religion is in fact based on blind faith. You have effectively shot yourself in the head.

The article is simply misinformation piled upon misinformation. The very first paragraph there is wrong because there is no religious test for public office. Simply take a look at this.

The other paragraphs too contain various errors but I'm sure you already know that.

OLAADEGBU:

The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as a

"a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"

We know that science can be defined as

"the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena"

If this is the case, why would the Secular humanists qualify as a scientific theory, especially when scientists cannot reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If naturalism, humanism or evolutionism cannot qualify as science then you should know that it is a belief system practised by atheists who would not allow God into the equation.

I'm not arguing with you. I never said naturalism was a scientific theory. It is a philosophical position. It can influence how a scientist pursues his science but it is not the science itself. Likewise there are christian scientists but christianity is not science.

My post that you quoted said simply that one should not conflate atheism with naturalism. It is an easy mistake to make. Many people who are atheists are more naturalists, and their arguments to support their atheism are actually arguments to support Naturalism.

thehomer:

Do physicists (gravitationalists) impose their beliefs (naturalism) on the government and the nation?
I wonder what you think a religion is.
Again, secular humanism is not a religion neither is atheism a religion in the way Christianity is a religion. I hope you realize that when you say something is a religion because it is based on blind faith, you're implying that Christianity which actually is a religion is in fact based on blind faith. You have effectively shot yourself in the head.

The article is simply misinformation piled upon misinformation. The very first paragraph there is wrong because there is no religious test for public office. Simply take a look at this.

The other paragraphs too contain various errors but I'm sure you already know that.

What is the Government doing by withdrawing prayers from public institutions and places, stopping or prohibiting preaching or praying on Government properties, saying creation cannot be taught in schools except the religion of evolution? Obama's Government has only succeeded in preventing Christianity from the State replacing it with other religions,especially the ones that are anti-God in nature, i.e. Secular humanism or liberalism.

Christianity is based on faith that has a solid foundation, that is confirmed by science. The theory of evolution is not backed up by science, it is based on blind faith that has no foundation. That is the difference. You now know that you've been playing the Russian roulette with a loaded gun.

Pastor AIO:

I'm not arguing with you. I never said naturalism was a scientific theory. It is a philosophical position. It can influence how a scientist pursues his science but it is not the science itself. Likewise there are christian scientists but christianity is not science.

My post that you quoted said simply that one should not conflate atheism with naturalism. It is an easy mistake to make. Many people who are atheists are more naturalists, and their arguments to support their atheism are actually arguments to support Naturalism.

Naturalism is not a scientific theory and yet the federal Government has imposed it on the educational, health and scientific institutions, persecuting those who believe in creation. Evolution theory is the religion of atheism. Naturalists believe that all that exists can be explained by natural processess and chance.

Ptolomeus:

They are very general guidelines. Obama meets with them perfectly. Your post just confirms that Obama is a Christian by God's law.

The question is, have you personally met those standards? If not why not?

OLAADEGBU:

The question is, have you personally met those standards? If not why not?

Tsk, Tsk ...
Ola, I'm not asking that you be consistent. But you could at least be somewhat original, and not posting the same thing a hundred times in different threads. That's not serious.
You want it to Obama were not a Christian, and I understand your desire ... But Obama is a Christian ... that neither you nor I can help it.
Now ... the method you're using, paste the same in all the threads is not the way to express your anger.
I appreciate you ... you're a nice person ... so I'll do to you this comment.

OLAADEGBU:

What is the Government doing by withdrawing prayers from public institutions and places, stopping or prohibiting preaching or praying on Government properties, saying creation cannot be taught in schools except the religion of evolution? Obama's Government has only succeeded in preventing Christianity from the State replacing it with other religions,especially the ones that are anti-God in nature, i.e. Secular humanism or liberalism.

The government by doing that is simply not picking one religion over the other which is one of the points of the constitution.
The government is saying that creationism cannot be taught in the science classes because it isn't science just as geocetrism isn't taught in science classes as factual though they may be taught in religion classes.
Not just Obama's administration, but Bush's administration and the courts of the land.
All you seem to be whining about is that Christianity is not privileged by the government. This simply shows your inability to understand that the fact that you're a Christian doesn't mean all must bow to your whims. Oh and neither secular humanism nor liberalism are religions. And liberalism is what is keeping your religion safe from the government. Just so you know.

OLAADEGBU:
Christianity is based on faith that has a solid foundation, that is confirmed by science. The theory of evolution is not backed up by science, it is based on blind faith that has no foundation. That is the difference. You now know that you've been playing the Russian roulette with a loaded gun.

You said Christianity is based on religious faith. Do you agree with this or not? Actually, Christianity hasn't been confirmed by science unless you're willing to show me scientifically where people were raised from the dead or female virgins giving birth to people.
Saying the theory of evolution isn't scientific doesn't make it unscientific. Simply take the time to read.
Also, I notice that like many religious people, you don't actually address what I say but simply post whatever sounds good to you. You need to put some effort into what you're doing.

Ah, let me play with my student a little.

My student says there is no "legal requirement" for an oath or, to be more charitable, that the phrase "so help me God" is not a "legal requirement" for American public officials intending to take office.

But then my same confused student then says the following:

thehomer: . . .
Also, an affirmation is synonymous with an oath. They have an equal validity so the legal requirement is for an oath or an affirmation. . .

Unfortunately my student is unable to recognise the implication of his statement and implicit illogic of his position.

OK here goes:

1. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an affirmation -------- ok I agree with my student to the extent that this is an alternative legal requirement.

2. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an oath ------- of course this was always my point from the onset and I will return to this after dealing with point 3.

3. Since my student says there is a legal requirement for an oath, a natural question to ask is "what oath exactly and using what words"? The wording of the oath, which my student himself says is a legal requirement, mandatorily includes the words "so help me God" ------ the very words which my student has been arguing "is not a legal requirement"!

4. My student fails to realise or dishonestly fails to acknowledge that if an intended public official does not choose to make an affirmation that official must say the words "So help me God" ---- because it is a legal requirement that s/he says those words, otherwise the person cannot validly/legally take office. And of course my student also fails to address the question of how many such public officials choose to make an affirmation and how many in fact choose the oath which includes the legal requirement of saying "So help me God".

5. Now let me return to point no 2 here because this is a most important point that my student has been missing or has deliberately turned a blind eye to: Why did the concept of "separation of Church and State" not prevent the inclusion of "so help me God" in a statutory prescription, in a federal law for that matter (and even more strongly in some states laws). This question is posed and remains valid even if I agree arguendo with my student that the phrase "so help me God" is not a legal requirement.

Enigma: Ah, let me play with my student a little.

Please be content playing with yourself.

Enigma:
My student says there is no "legal requirement" for an oath or, to be more charitable, that the phrase "so help me God" is not a "legal requirement" for American public officials intending to take office.

And here, you proceed to introduce your own straw-man and correct it claiming you're being charitable? This is just disingenuous.

Enigma:
But then my same confused student then says the following:

Enigma:
Unfortunately my student is unable to recognise the implication of his statement and implicit illogic of his position.

OK here goes:

1. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an affirmation -------- ok I agree with my student to the extent that this is an alternative legal requirement.

Ah so you agree.

Enigma:
2. According to my student: There is a legal requirement for an oath ------- of course this was always my point from the onset and I will return to this after dealing with point 3.

Don't take my word for it, read the document.

Enigma:
3. Since my student says there is a legal requirement for an oath, a natural question to ask is "what oath exactly and using what words"? The wording of the oath, which my student himself says is a legal requirement, mandatorily includes the words "so help me God" ------ the very words which my student has been arguing "is not a legal requirement"!

What is wrong with you? You were doing a bit better but you just have to go back to your books. Those words do not have to be said. Just do yourself a favour and read the very first sentence at this link.

Enigma:
4. My student fails to realise or dishonestly fails to acknowledge that if an intended public official does not choose to make an affirmation that official must say the words "So help me God" ---- because it is a legal requirement that s/he says those words, otherwise the person cannot validly/legally take office. And of course my student also fails to address the question of how many such public officials choose to make an affirmation and how many in fact choose the oath which includes the legal requirement of saying "So help me God".

No he doesn't and it isn't a legal requirement. Merely asserting that it is a legal requirement doesn't make it so.
The number that choose to do whatever they do for political reasons or otherwise is irrelevant because that wouldn't make that phrase "so help me God" a legal requirement. What you just did is a nice fallacious appeal to popularity.

Enigma:
5. Now let me return to point no 2 here because this is a most important point that my student has been missing or has deliberately turned a blind eye to: Why did the concept of "separation of Church and State" not prevent the inclusion of "so help me God" in a statutory prescription, in a federal law for that matter (and even more strongly in some states laws). This question is posed and remains valid even if I agree arguendo with my student that the phrase "so help me God" is not a legal requirement.

Whether you agree arguendo or whatever else, that phrase isn't a legal requirement merely saying so doesn't make it so.
Saying so help me God doesn't endorse a particular religion but e.g Jesus, the Ten Commandments or Mohammed do. Also, I hope you understand that an oath is something personal and is part of the oath taker's freedom of expression showing how seriously they take their statements. If the person feels invoking God shows they're serious, then they're free to but they cannot make those who do not need God do this.

You need to give better reasons for thinking that the phrase "so help me God" is a legal requirement. And tell me what you understand by the phrase "separation of church and state". Let that be your homework. Also expect a quiz anytime next week.

Class dismissed.

Enigma has no idea what "secular state".
As he is a religious fanatic, he fears that the case of an atheist state ...
Enigma does not know what secularism means ...
His neuron is not sufficient to understand that.
It is a dialogue of the deaf.
It is easier to argue with a donkey ...

Expected.

Now my student earlier (and now again) showed some industry by linking to his sole font of knowledge --- Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

First of all let me demonstrate that my student is either too poor, lazy, thick or dishonest for failing to note what his own link says.

The first Congress explicitly prescribed the phrase "So help me God" in oaths under the Judiciary Act of 1789 for all U.S. judges and officers other than the President. It was prescribed even earlier under the various first state constitutions as well as by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.

So my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is explicitly prescribed by Congress and by statute & constitutions, by law!

Although the phrase is mandatory in these oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."

So again, my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory --- unless a person chooses to make an affirmation instead of the oath.

As I have asked: how many people choose to make an affirmation and how many stick with the oath?

For those who stick with the oath is it mandatory or not that they say "so help me God"? In other words, for those sticking with the oath, is it a legal requirement or not that they say "so help me God"?

Now my student refers to the first line of his link but is too thick to appreciate that the line only refers to the President. For all other officials, the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory as part of the oath.

Now, I will recommend my student to go back and read all my posts on this point starting with the one that kickstarted the whole issue.

Oh, and by the way, my student is of course avoiding the question: why is the phrase "so help me God" even prescribed in statute at all considering all the noise he has been making about "separation of Church and State"?

I've said ... he does not understand ...
He does not understand that every person, in a secular state can swear by whatever you want ... and that does not mean that the state has an official religion.
He never tires of exposing phrases and sentences is not, but a state organization, that no religious position takes precedence over another.
Not so complicated ... I have already explained, also Pastor AIO has done ... I have set examples ... But Enigma neuron has no fuel.

Are you done playing with yourself?

Enigma: Expected.

Now my student earlier (and now again) showed some industry by linking to his sole font of knowledge --- Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

First of all let me demonstrate that my student is either too poor, lazy, thick or dishonest for failing to note what his own link says.


So my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is explicitly prescribed by Congress and by statute & constitutions, by law!

I see that you've realized that the phrase isn't actually a legal requirement so you've shifted to saying it is must to say it in an oath. That is a slight improvement. I'm happy that you've learned you first lesson though you're failing another one here.
Well, unless you're dyslexic or something? I have told you that they do not need to say that phrase. Not saying it wouldn't stop someone from assuming a post.

Enigma:
So again, my student fails to note that the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory --- unless a person chooses to make an affirmation instead of the oath.

What do you think differentiates an oath from an affirmation? Do you think it is the phrase "so help me God" or saying "I [...] do solemnly swear"? Take your time in answering this.

Enigma:
As I have asked: how many people choose to make an affirmation and how many stick with the oath?

The number is irrelevant. You really need to learn to read because I pointed out to you that it is a fallacious appeal to popularity.

Enigma:
For those who stick with the oath is it mandatory or not that they say "so help me God"? In other words, for those sticking with the oath, is it a legal requirement or not that they say "so help me God"?

No it isn't mandatory. Please read the link I presented to you. In fact, I'll post it here. Please note the relevant part.

Wikipedia:
It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."

Enigma:
Now my student refers to the first line of his link but is too thick to appreciate that the line only refers to the President. For all other officials, the phrase "so help me God" is mandatory as part of the oath.

Oh? So the president has two heads or what? So other than the president, all others must swear to a God? You must be really dull, unthinking and unable to process ideas that require a slight degree of understanding. It also shows you really don't understand what religious freedom is about. It isn't surprising considering how well you're aligned with characters like OLAADEGBU.

Enigma:
Now, I will recommend my student to go back and read all my posts on this point starting with the one that kickstarted the whole issue.

Oh, and by the way, my student is of course avoiding the question: why is the phrase "so help me God" even prescribed in statute at all considering all the noise he has been making about "separation of Church and State"?

Surely you're dyslexic or suffering from Alzheimer's disease because if you had read my previous response, you would have seen it there.
Now, what do you understand by the phrase "separation of church and state"?

I hope you're preparing for the upcoming quiz because at the rate you're going, you're likely going to fail.

Ptolomeus: I've said ... he does not understand ...
He does not understand that every person, in a secular state can swear by whatever you want ... and that does not mean that the state has an official religion.
He never tires of exposing phrases and sentences is not, but a state organization, that no religious position takes precedence over another.
Not so complicated ... I have already explained, also Pastor AIO has done ... I have set examples ... But Enigma neuron has no fuel.

Of course. Which is why when pinned down, he tries to use ambiguities, logical fallacies, words he doesn't understand or even outright lies but he is about to realize that some people are able to understand simple ideas even if he doesn't understand them.

thehomer: I see that you've realized that the phrase isn't actually a legal requirement so you've shifted to saying it is must to say it in an oath. That is a slight improvement. I'm happy that you've learned you first lesson though you're failing another one here.
Well, unless you're dyslexic or something? I have told you that they do not need to say that phrase. Not saying it wouldn't stop someone from assuming a post.

Are you really this thick? I always said you were obtuse and a dunce but I had not realised it is this bad. A phrase, explicitly prescribed by statute, required by law to be said mandatorily ------- yet you are still daftly saying it is not a legal requirement? Astonishing stupidity!

thehomer: What do you think differentiates an oath from an affirmation? Do you think it is the phrase "so help me God" or saying "I [...] do solemnly swear"? Take your time in answering this.

Again you display your ignorance because of course you are unaware of the constitutional and statutory (more than one) sources of the distinction. Let me pose this to you (which I had deliberately spared you before for my own reason): Find and quote the source of the choice for ALL government officials other than the President to avoid having to say "so help me God". I doubt you can identify the source but if you can perhaps it would start to help your ignorance.

For my part let me post again the law that says ALL officials except the president must say "so help me God"; in other words the law that makes "so help me God" a legal requirement.

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

thehomer: Oh? So the president has two heads or what? So other than the president, all others must swear to a God? You must be really dull, unthinking and unable to process ideas that require a slight degree of understanding. It also shows you really don't understand what religious freedom is about. It isn't surprising considering how well you're aligned with characters like OLAADEGBU.

Another display of breathtaking stupidity and ignorance.

The very point is that the President is the only one not legally required in his oath to say "so help me God". And of course a more intelligent and knowledgeable person would also be aware that even though not legally required, most presidents have opted to say "so help me God".

An even more intelligent person would ask why is the President allowed to make reference to God when performing the official duty of taking an oath ---- considering the popular perception of "separation of Church and State".

Even more importantly for this thread, by law (statutory and constitutional), ALL other officials from Vice President down are explicitly and specifically required i.e. are required by law to say "so help me God" in their oath. The statutorily prescribed oath outlined above says so clearly. The only way to escape it is to choose not to take the oath but to make an affirmation instead.

Again, the important question: why would "so help me God" be prescribed in the first place? Not even merely allowed but prescribed by law, stated to be mandatory if taking the oath and thus a legal requirement if taking the oath?

Again let us even assume arguendo that it is "not a legal requirement", why would/should "so help me God" be prescribed for an official act --- considering the noises being made about "separation of Church and State"?

thehomer: Surely you're dyslexic or suffering from Alzheimer's disease because if you had read my previous response, you would have seen it there.
Now, what do you understand by the phrase "separation of church and state"?

Now you totally confirm yourself to be dishonest as well as dumb. The only people who have explained "separation of Church and State" on this thread are myself and Olaadegbu. Of course in your dishonesty, you bury your head in the sand and revert to your previous robotic asking of pedantic question mode (as with the Antony Flew thing).


OK here is an assignment for you (and I'll keep it simple): explain what YOU understand by "separation of Church and State"

thehomer:

You do realize that the courts don't render judgement regarding religious expression. If they did, they would have been able to shut down various religions e.g Scientology. What they do is prevent the government from sanctioning religious speech. Do you think the government should be allowed to sanction religious speech?

Another display of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is indeed a dunce!

Going even back to the 18th century and till present, the courts have rendered judgments concerning religious expression.

Enigma:

Are you really this thick? I always said you were obtuse and a dunce but I had not realised it is this bad. A phrase, explicitly prescribed by statute, required by law to be said mandatorily ------- yet you are still daftly saying it is not a legal requirement? Astonishing stupidity!

I'm telling you that it is not required by law. It is not mandatory. You truly are stupid for what you're saying. I shows your deep ignorance and failure to understand what is permissible and impermissible by law in the U.S.

Enigma:
Again you display your ignorance because of course you are unaware of the constitutional and statutory (more than one) sources of the distinction. Let me pose this to you (which I had deliberately spared you before for my own reason): Find and quote the source of the choice for ALL government officials other than the President to avoid having to say "so help me God". I doubt you can identify the source but if you can perhaps it would start to help your ignorance.

For my part let me post again the law that says ALL officials except the president must say "so help me God"; in other words the law that makes "so help me God" a legal requirement.

I don't need to do that because there is no religious test for public office. This means that one doesn't need to refer to God for their oaths or affirmations they may if they want to but they do not have to. You seem to be so enamoured with tradition and this shows your failure to actually think through these simple and obvious issues. On a side note, there have been members of congress who do not believe in a God. Do you think they said "so help me God" in their own oaths? You are truly stupid and simple minded because that simple example tells you that it isn't a legal requirement. It isn't mandatory.

Enigma:
Another display of breathtaking stupidity and ignorance.

The very point is that the President is the only one not legally required in his oath to say "so help me God". And of course a more intelligent and knowledgeable person would also be aware that even though not legally required, most presidents have opted to say "so help me God".

Oh ho. So you've finally realized this too from me haven't you? Well you're almost as trainable as a circus animal because I have to force feed you in order to be successful. Since you've learned these things from me, what stops you from understanding that your regular reference to what most presidents did as some point in time is simply a fallacious appeal? The law is clear on this. I've told you, shown you yet you fail. This is what stops you from getting to the level of a circus animal.

Enigma:
An even more intelligent person would ask why is the President allowed to make reference to God when performing the official duty of taking an oath ---- considering the popular perception of "separation of Church and State".

I've answered this simply read my previous posts. Check the first place you asked this question for my response. If you're dyslexic and need an interpreter, get one. If you're suffering from Alzheimer's disease or damage to your brain affecting your memory, please see your neurologist for invasive tests.

Enigma:
Even more importantly for this thread, by law (statutory and constitutional), ALL other officials from Vice President down are explicitly and specifically required i.e. are required by law to say "so help me God" in their oath. The statutorily prescribed oath outlined above says so clearly. The only way to escape it is to choose not to take the oath but to make an affirmation instead.

Again, the important question: why would "so help me God" be prescribed in the first place? Not even merely allowed but prescribed by law, stated to be mandatory if taking the oath and thus a legal requirement if taking the oath?

Again let us even assume arguendo that it is "not a legal requirement", why would/should "so help me God" be prescribed for an official act --- considering the noises being made about "separation of Church and State"?

You are too stupid to be addressed on these issues that have been addressed. How hard is it to understand that if there is no religious test for public office, then no one can be forced to say "so help me God" in their swearing in ceremonies. Just get your head out of your rectum or get your rectum out of your head if that is the usual direction of flow of the products of your egestion.

Enigma:
Now you totally confirm yourself to be dishonest as well as dumb. The only people who have explained "separation of Church and State" on this thread are myself and Olaadegbu. Of course in your dishonesty, you bury your head in the sand and revert to your previous robotic asking of pedantic question mode (as with the Antony Flew thing).


OK here is an assignment for you (and I'll keep it simple): explain what YOU understand by "separation of Church and State"

You've not explained this in our discussion. You've only tried to correct what others were saying by posting pointless articles. I gave you an assignment on your understanding of the separation of church and state and you ask me the same question. You stupidly lazy student go and read your books and get back to me with your response otherwise you'll fail this course despite the slight improvement you've shown.
So, answer the question I asked you twice already on this separation of church and state.

Class dismissed. Oh and you failing student, stop playing with yourself and read your books.

Enigma:

Another display of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is indeed a dunce!

Going even back to the 18th century and till present, the courts have rendered judgments concerning religious expression.

You are well and truly idiotic. Please tell me which court judgement tells Muslims when to begin fasting or when to break their fast in the U.S. This is why I say you simply fail to understand simple things. At the rate you're going, you're going to fail this course and have to repeat it.

I've told you to stop playing with yourself and read.
Tutorial dismissed.

thehomer: I'm telling you that it is not required by law. It is not mandatory. You truly are stupid for what you're saying. I shows your deep ignorance and failure to understand what is permissible and impermissible by law in the U.S.

Ah, so you are indeed that thick. Confirmed for all times now.

thehomer: I don't need to do that because there is no religious test for public office. This means that one doesn't need to refer to God for their oaths or affirmations they may if they want to but they do not have to. You seem to be so enamoured with tradition and this shows your failure to actually think through these simple and obvious issues. On a side note, there have been members of congress who do not believe in a God. Do you think they said "so help me God" in their own oaths? You are truly stupid and simple minded because that simple example tells you that it isn't a legal requirement. It isn't mandatory.

1. Of course you cannot say, simply because you don't know. And I knew you didn't know from your display of monumental ignorance.

2. And No, it is not and it is different from, the "no religious test" provision. I could teach you of course but on this occasion I will recommend that you go and ask the likes of Matt Dillahunty and/or the lawyers among your fellow militant atheists. I could recommend your only source of knowledge i.e. Wikipedia, only you will not know what to search for!

thehomer: Oh ho. So you've finally realized this too from me haven't you? Well you're almost as trainable as a circus animal because I have to force feed you in order to be successful. Since you've learned these things from me, what stops you from understanding that your regular reference to what most presidents did as some point in time is simply a fallacious appeal? The law is clear on this. I've told you, shown you yet you fail. This is what stops you from getting to the level of a circus animal.

1. You are a shameless, patent and bold faced LIAR!

2. I was of course the first to make that point; indeed that was the point in my post that you misunderstood idiotically and challenged and which led you to this display of gross idiocy and monumental ignorance. Here is the link, read it again and maybe this time you will understand.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10921743

thehomer: I've answered this simply read my previous posts. Check the first place you asked this question for my response. If you're dyslexic and need an interpreter, get one. If you're suffering from Alzheimer's disease or damage to your brain affecting your memory, please see your neurologist for invasive tests.

NO, you are lying shamelessly, again. Fact is that you have avoided answering the question because it would expose the sham that is your understanding of "separation of Church and State". You know it, I know it, and you know I know it.

thehomer: You are too stupid to be addressed on these issues that have been addressed. How hard is it to understand that if there is no religious test for public office, then no one can be forced to say "so help me God" in their swearing in ceremonies. Just get your head out of your rectum or get your rectum out of your head if that is the usual direction of flow of the products of your egestion.

1. That ignorance again! This is not a religious test and this is not "the religious test" issue.

2. It is not a case of anyone being forced to say "so help me God". That is why there is the alternative of an affirmation. The point which has escaped your thick skull is that any person taking the oath of office is obliged by law, in other words legally required to say "so help me God".

3. I am quite glad about this exchange because it shows just how thick, obtuse, ignorant and daft the militant/evangelical atheists really are despite the misconception that atheists are "intelligent".

thehomer: You've not explained this in our discussion. You've only tried to correct what others were saying by posting pointless articles. I gave you an assignment on your understanding of the separation of church and state and you ask me the same question. You stupidly lazy student go and read your books and get back to me with your response otherwise you'll fail this course despite the slight improvement you've shown.
So, answer the question I asked you twice already on this separation of church and state.

1. Just admit you have no clue about the "separation of Church and State" that you were bandying about. Exactly the same thing about the way you were shouting "for First Amendment purposes" on another occasion that I exposed you as a dunce (remember that was where/when you got the name Mr. Dunce?).

2. At least I have given an explanation of "separation of Church and State" in a number of posts now. If you dare and you are not a coward, set out YOUR understanding of "separation of Church and State" for all to see.

thehomer:

You are well and truly idiotic. Please tell me which court judgement tells Muslims when to begin fasting or when to break their fast in the U.S. This is why I say you simply fail to understand simple things. At the rate you're going, you're going to fail this course and have to repeat it.

I've told you to stop playing with yourself and read.
Tutorial dismissed.

You see that you are a mumu now. You have such poor comprehension skills, you cannot grasp concepts.

As one poster once asked: "where ya brain dey, inside ya yansh"?

Let me give you a teaser (I won't go beyond the teaser because you are both a slow-learning and an ungrateful student).

Here is something the American Supreme Court said as far back as the 19th century.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?