0
   

America's Individual Rights Zealots must be Stopped

 
 
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.


President-elect Barack Obama will use the Bible Abraham Lincoln used for his inauguration.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.

In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion.

An advance copy of the lawsuit was posted online by Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.

Joining Newdow in the suit are groups advocating religious freedom or atheism, including the American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Florida.

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion.

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

"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.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html

The Civil Rights movement was a good thing, the Feminist movement was for a long time a good thing, but this has gotten out of hand. When a small minority claims offense and feels that they have to power in the courts to shut down the will of the majority, then we have a problem. We know where this train goes, it goes to the lowest common denominator, at goes to eating the society alive from the inside out. I am not sure where to draw the line, as I have claimed in the prop 8 thread it might be at Homosexual marriage, but regardless it is clear that the individual rights movement is on the verge of becoming an ill. Corrective action in the form of limiting individual rights is called for. The good of the many out weights the good of the few, and we have forgotten this.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 704 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 02:12 pm
<snork>

This from the guy who thinks having sex with kids should be an individual right!?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 02:22 pm
@boomerang,
this coming from the guy who thinks that older teens should have more rights than they do, they are the only class that is in this boat. There is also the problem of individual sexual rights of the sexual deviants who operate consensually yet are increasingly denied the right to consent on grounds either that it does not conform to the concept of informed consent or because one can not consent to an illegal act. For instance much of BDSM is illegal in many/most places.....it should not be. We are still sexual prudes, and those who rebel get rung up by the majority, and this should be fixed.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 04:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
Like I snorked...

<snork>

Individuals should have the rights that you think they should have but not the rights someone else thinks they should have.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:48 pm
@boomerang,
the line between the rights of the collective and the rights of the individual is always a work in progress.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 07:29 am
"collective" includes minorities hawkeye10. Perhaps you forget. You aren't trying to consensus build here, you are saying majority rules, and what the majority wants is the wants of the "collective."

You're so full of ****.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » America's Individual Rights Zealots must be Stopped
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 11:41:27