I'm confused. Since when has Sine claimed to know the will of god?

It was a minor exaggeration for emphasis (though in fact you did suggest such a thing by saying "everyone" without qualification, so your point is mute), but again you are completely missing the point; that it is the swearing by anyone of an oath to a political document which is the absurd thing. It ensures that the document is treated not as a thesis, as any political document essentially is, but as a holy relic. It's the blind, pathetic and potentially damaging assumption that the status quo is perfect, when clearly no political system (and hence no political document upon which that system is based) is or can be.




A timeless document is one "unaffected by time". The very idea of ammendments negates that.

And of course ammendments in themselves are not timeless and are merely the products of the prejudices and whims of the time, which may or may not pan out in the long run. What if something which infringed on personal freedoms was added (pick your own example if you want) because it was the current social/moral topic of the time? How on earth can that be considered "timeless"?

I'm certain that's false. Every list I've seen has had countries such as Sweden and even Canada above the USA for standard of living.

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

We're ranked #5. Still damn good, in my opinion.

Not quite. "Scandinavia" isn't a single country.

roflmao

Well, it was some good political retoric, but since he offered little actual evidence of his claims, I'm not too impressed with his writing. Even if I do agree with some of it.

Well, the obvious implication in "If everyone took the oath seriously our government would be far better." is that if those who serve in our government took their oaths seriously, then the government would be better. I could care less if somebody who never took it takes it seriously since they are non-factors anyway.

Not the same France. Since our Constitution was ratified, there have been 5 different Frances(and I'm only counting the Republics).

Anyway, I am for a secularist government. But that does not mean atheist. An atheist government still promotes an agenda concerning religion. I'm talking about a government apathetic towards religion.

That's ridiculous. Swearing to defend the Constitution doesn't mean you can't question it - there are, after all, provisions in it for making changes. It means whatever your personal beliefs, you don't circumvent or disregard the law of the land just because it suits you. You try to have it changed through the democratic process outlined in the Constitution.



I think what you just described is called democracy in most circles. Losing an election does not mean you're being oppressed..it..means you lost an election.



Whoa ho ho, back the **** up. First of all, whether or not Hitler was Christian is at the very least a controversial question, and certainly one that cannot be boiled down to an answer so flippantly simple as "yes".

Let me frame your "ideal" government in a different light so that you might better understand why I find it so utterly repugnant. It does not, as you claim, protect people from being subject to a belief system they don't subscribe to. It merely exchanges one for another - you throw out religion and replace it with hardline atheism.

The beauty of the US Constitution is that it protects minorities from being stamped out by the majority. As far as the First Amendment is concerned, it's secular. The government is neither for nor against religion - that is quite simply the only way to ensure freedom of belief, given that people can come up with most anything to believe in. Secularism - hands the **** off - not some foolish and illiberal insistence that people in government must see things as you do - is the only way to protect people from religious tyranny.

Sadly, like the French, you seem to have atheism and secularism confused. When, as you suggest, you ban government officials from drawing on their faith to make decisions, or as in France, you ban religious symbols in schools under the pretense of integration, you may very well call Atheism a religion.



... Pardon my language, but what in the motherloving **** are you talking about? Do I have to believe in God to think banning religious people from government is ridiculous? I AM AN ATHEIST. christ

You're essentially just saying "if everyone obeyed the law the government would be better". The oath itself has nothing to do with the actual law.



Then why have an oath in the first place? If, by your own admission, it is not something taken seriously by all, what possible purpose does it serve other than to elevate the document above that of "mere" political treatise (c.f. swearing allegiance to a monarch because of their "divine right") which gives it a potentially damaging (to the political process) angle?




What if it's the specific democratic process outlined in the constitution which you disagree with and want to change (and for sake of the thought experiment let's say you want to do this because there's some new, better democratic process, and not because you've got a grudge against democracy)?

<3 haggis

The constitution should be elevated above all else.

I'm an Atheist too, thank God!

The Constitution is the law of the land. What you're basically asking is why we have to obey it if we don't like it, which..well..you're not in jail, so I think you know the answer.

And that's exactly the point.

"It's the law"
"why?"
"Because... it is."

Similar to before that point is not valid against the US constitution. It is designed to limit government infringement of the people's rights.

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, nor have I read through everything but...
It's a foundational document, upon which all laws are based. It gives structure to our government to prohibit one branch from overpowering another, and to allow for lawmaking. It's law because it was signed into effect by our forefathers.

Do I think it needs revised? Heck yes. It's over 200 years old. Things are way different now than they were when it was put into effect.



Ok, I will now go back to posting in random threads.