Jean-Luc Picard's response to Rick Warren
tags:
Stumble ThisWhy should we?
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Picard,Star Trek,Rick Warren,Barack Obama,inauguration,tng,supershort Jean-Luc Picard's response to Rick Warren
Comments  playlists with this video sweet blasphemy by my15minutes
• Absolute best of likable folks by EDD
who voted for this video poolcleaner
- Ornthoron
- Gratefulmom
- NetRunner
- kronosposeidon
- EDD
- alien_concept
- gourmetemu
- my15minutes
- gwiz665
- siftbot
x180 - blahpook
- JAPR
- RhesusMonk
- Almanildo
- chrisyf
- Krupo
- BoneyD
- fissionchips
- chtierna
- jacobrecker
- Haldaug
- Crake
- Throbbin
- EndAll
- demon_ix
- dingens
- ant
- notarobot
who has this post bookmarked 9633
- SpaceOddity
- 12511
- MarineGunrock
- youmakekittymad
- 14163
Jean-Luc Picard's Response To Rick Warren Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 12. dan00108
(171 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
my president doesn't need the FSM's blessing to take office, thank you very much, and he certainly doesn't need the avatar of said deity to be some gay-hating megachurch-running self-help peddling asshat like rick warren
Upvote this all the way to the top? Please?
Brilliant... I mean really, all well and good if you're Christian, Muslim, whatever... but keep it OUT of a swearing in of a president... MAN, PLEASE... can we get rid of this singular belief crap from these ceremonies?
Upvote this all the way to the top? Please?
I gotta say this felt so out of place during the ceremony. I don't understand, the US, being supposedly secular by design, has these VERY religious bits during the swearing in of its president (seperation of church and state anyone?)
>> ^qruel:
Article 19 Miscellaneous provisions Arkansas's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina's State Constitution
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
Article 1 Section 4 of Pennsylvania's State Constitution
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."
Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina's State Constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.
Article 9 Section 2 of Tennessee's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Article 1 Section 4 of Texas' State Constitution
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Whew... I thought for a moment that us Invisible Pink Unicorn worshipers were going to be left out in the cold.
>> ^spoco2:
Brilliant... I mean really, all well and good if you're Christian, Muslim, whatever... but keep it OUT of a swearing in of a president... MAN, PLEASE... can we get rid of this singular belief crap from these ceremonies?
Upvote this all the way to the top? Please?
I gotta say this felt so out of place during the ceremony. I don't understand, the US, being supposedly secular by design, has these VERY religious bits during the swearing in of its president (seperation of church and state anyone?)
On the same principle as a judge not being allowed to put up a monument to the ten commandments in his courtroom, religious content in the inauguration could not not withstand legal challenge. The president can believe whatever privately and worship however he wants privately, but he can't use his position of governmental power to grandstand for a religion during official government ceremonies. It violates the establishment clause in the same way as a Judge putting up a monument to the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The way the inauguration has been conducted violates at least two prongs of the Lemon test.
>> ^EDD:
Seperation of church and state? In America? Ha ha, you gotta be kidding:
>> ^qruel:
Article 19 Miscellaneous provisions Arkansas's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
...et al.
EDD here is your case:
No congress, legislature or executive power may legislate a law promoting or degrading the first amendment. Every citizen who wishes to run for office in states that have no atheist provisions need only file civil suit against that state in the venue of the United States Supreme Court. On the premise that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the bill of rights therefore: guaranteed freedom to believe or to not believe.
Or if you want to run for office, just lie. Like ever other politician. I would just tell them I believe in FSM.
Picard owns.
*promote the bald goodness.
while we are supposedly a secular nation according to the constitution and yet are probably the most religious you can get, short of a theocratic state.
Violates the 1st amendment, all of those things in EDD's comment. Every single one of them discriminate against people who have the freedom to not believe.
EDD here is your case:
No congress, legislature or executive power may legislate a law promoting or degrading the first amendment. Every citizen who wishes to run for office in states that have no atheist provisions need only file civil suit against that state in the venue of the United States Supreme Court. On the premise that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the bill of rights therefore: guaranteed freedom to believe or to not believe.
Or if you want to run for office, just lie. Like ever other politician. I would just tell them I believe in FSM.
Picard owns.
promote the bald goodness.
Keep trying. The contents of EDD's comment is actually the opposite of what prayer violates.
I thought what NR was saying is that all those clauses are flying in direct opposition of the first amendment? Which they certainly seem to be, how can it possibly be ok in anyone's mind, to deny people who don't believe in a supreme being office?
It's truly disgusting that those clauses exist, (If they do, I'm taking it on faith (he he) that they are quoted correctly.) I don't know how even someone of strong faith could agree that it's just to preclude people based on their religious views from a job that should be judged based on actions and merit, not personal religious views.
Aaaaand black people. And Hispanics. And... aw fuck it.
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion"."
What exactly does it violate?
It violates the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test, which I mentioned in the comment right before yours. Congress spends tax money to hire clergy for these things. Exclusively, Christian clergy. This serves no secular purpose, has the primary effect of promoting Christianity, and results in government entanglement with religion. Nearly every meeting of Congress or of the Supreme Court is punctuated with prayers by official chaplains employed by the state, which give the appearance that the USA is officially Christian. Congress does not have the right under the constitution to spend my tax money on a chaplain.
Wy would any rational person want to hold office
in Arkansas?Fixed.
I'll let wikipedia do the talking.
Of course you will. Sheesh. You really have no clue what the Establishment Clause is or refers to, do you? Just another self-righteous Wiki-jockey. "Keep trying". LOL, that's rich!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That's it (at least the religious portion). Everything else... the Lemon Test, Souter's opinion, etc., are interpretations of the clause and the subsequent laws/decisions based upon them. The contents of EDD's comment violate exactly the same thing as prayer does. The Lemon Test is an Establishment Clause test, as far as it refers to religion. "The opposite of what prayer violates"? Clueless...
Stick to your strengths, hero. Guns, patriotism, toadying, and early release from active duty.
"No person who denies the being of a God shall... nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Now, a lot of the shit in that post was messed up but that. That just scares me. I ain't never going to Maha Farking Arkansaw
>> ^dragonfriend85:
Wy would any rational person want to hold office
in Arkansas?Fixed.
Because if wise men and women don't hold public office, the unwise will?
I am arguing that having an opening prayer is more of a tradition now than anything.
And some Christians still have the balls to say they're being oppressed. Let's see how long it is before an openly non-religious President is elected.
Adding video to channels (Comedy, Politics, Religion, Scifi) - requested by nibiyabi.
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.
Sort of like how Christians make me want to be gay.
Oh, and, for the record, I'm a Scientologist so my post isn't technically part of the gang up.
>> ^rasch187:
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.
Get the church out of the state, for the church's sake even more than the state's! The inauguration of a president is a fitting time for lots of prayer for the country and the new administration. But that should be done in homes and churches and quiet places, not on podiums in front of massive crowds in D.C. It's just wrong from almost every angle.
We assume that it means that the Federal government can't form a national religion, but I'm thinking it's a lot more simple than that. The words "respecting an establishment of religion" could mean exactly that. I think it might have meant that the government should not endorse any actions or tenets of any religion, and that in doing so they are in violation of the constitution. Making federal funding of faith based programs, bans on stem cell research/human cloning, abstinence only sex ed, "in god we trust" & "one nation under god", the whole myriad of things that are only based on religious dogma unconstitutional.
And yeah, by my interpretation, having an invocation prior to the inauguration would only violate the first amendment if it was a requirement of the ceremony. Which to my knowledge it is not.
I've never minded the invocation before, the choice of Rick Warren though infuriated me. It was blatant pandering to evangelical Christianity, a group that after the last 8 years doesn't need any more encouragement from our Presidents. And sadly it made me think less of Obama for it.