they dont believe in god.. its just a word to them, like merry christmas, or how are you today?... most people are just doing what they can to fit into the group of sheep we call society...they have no real thoughts or belief...they are simple creatures that live in a fantasy dellusion.. go into a room of idiots and ask for only idiots to stand up...i bet nobody stands at first, then theyll start looking around and seeing what everyone else is doing.. if they start standing, theyll all join in
Penn looks like Satan. I can almost see the baby horns poking out his forehead. Hey Penn, Fuck you, Pal. Fuck La Raza. Fuck the Quran and Fuck your mute friend. Fuck you you fucking fat fucker.
Penn hasn't violated the 1st amendment. He is only giving his opinion that god should be removed from the inauguration and Obama shouldn't use religion in his speeches. How is that against free speech? Please, this double talk is annoying enough from politicians.
If he had a gun to Obama's head, or blackmailed him in some way (all hypothetical), then he is trying to impose his will on him, and that is not okay. That would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
I am not an Obama supporter. I did not vote for him, but if you and your friend are against him mentioning God then where is the freedom of speech you are so proud to support. I don't know how strong of a Christian Obama is, if he is at all, but if he wants to mention God, play Christian music or whatever, that is his right. And by the way, Separation of Church and State was more about keeping the gov't out of the churches not keeping God out of the Gov't.
"Separation of Church and State was more about keeping the gov't out of the churches not keeping God out of the Gov't."
I did some research on this out of curiosity. You just never know exactly in what spirit and circumstances laws/ideals were written in until you do the research.
In this case, you are wrong. You are repeating a common but incorrect myth. The original idea was exactly as it states: Separate - no connection. There's no asterisk giving A visiting rights that B doesn't get.
I love seeing that people are out there fighting to actually preserve the wall between church and state, but then I get so depressed to see that it is like Penn said, "Pissing up a rope." I'm betting we will have a cure for cancer, AIDS, and diabetes before we have religion out of government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's SO, So important to remove this reference to God huh? We really have an America today beliving that the founding fathers of this country were simply atheist before atheism was accepable. Read the words of these men. I'll show you books of their quotes...their own words refering to God and their relationship with Him. Step up to the plate and show me the books of their words/quotes showing their supposid lack of belief. All these liers have are a few misquotes compared to the booksIgot
As I see it: Any president or leader that has some kind of belief tends to follow that first and foremost.. It´s depressing to think about, since religious beliefs tend to make people blind to sides of reality they don´t want to handle or see, and even bring bad or not thought through decisions.
The difference is that science tries to evolve and go further while religious beliefs try to confine and keep it narrow.
Personally I prefer people using their eyes and brains, but I also understand that if one isn´t awake enough to notice when one´s stopped thinking or questioning and turned to just swallow whatever he or she hears, they´re pretty much lost. Science atleast tries to challenge itself.
Separation of church and state was implemented to prevent the government from interfering in the church, not the opposite. It's completely irrelevant in the sense of the inauguration or any other premise involving politics. You can believe what you want, but again I say, this nation was founded under the belief that there is a creator, and quite frankly, still holds true today. It doesn't matter if we evolved or not, something had to create something in the beginning.
Like it or not, our nation was founded under the belief that there is and was a "creator" being, of which we refer to as God. This does not mean we are or ever were a "christian" nation at all. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean our nation's founding under the belief of a creator should be changed. You still have the freedom to believe whatever you want. To me it doesn't matter if it's 95%, it shouldn't change the foundation.
Hey prrolg... Maybe if the man has faith in an invisible,omni-present, all knowing, all seeing old guy that watches where you put your hands-- he is not mentally fit for office. Cliff's notes on the Bible would only have to be " Love me...or go to hell." Get real...if he had faith in...hmmm...let's say Peter Pan would you vote for him? P.P. is far more believable...maybe faith in Science would "SAVE" even you.
But you're as ignorant as you could possibly be so there is no place really to begin to answer you. A wall would be more suitable to answering than you and that is not a joke of the absurd. I mean it.
How is Obama mentioning God in the inauguration a violation of separation of church and state ( a law that doesn't exist)? If you were honest shouldn't you advocate a law that calls for separation of a man and his faith if he is in a public office?
It's actually not Obama mentioning God that's a first amendment violation, but the presiding judge appending 'so help me God' to the end of the oath of office. It is argued that the judge including this ending to the oath is effectively a religious test - clearly unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter a great deal what the president-elect himself says at his inauguration or if he even has one, he becomes president even if he stays in bed. So it's fine for Obama himself to add it.
The Constitution specifies the Presidential oath of office (art 2. sec 1. cl 8) and does not include the words 'So help me God.'
Newdow's contention was that by having a federal employee, namely a judge, prompt the President to take his oath in the name of God (as it is generally understood that this would refer to the Christian deity) that this constitutes a tacit endorsement of a theistic worldview by the government and therefore would violate the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights.
I think Newdow is a crackpot. I will look it up so thank you for the reference. As an aside what is your thinking along these lines if the words were left out of the oath and the President were to say them anyway. If he were to say them on his own. Is there a constitutional conflict?
well.....your not our leader now are bud. To bad your just going to have to deal with what our leader does and should maybe even follow him don't ya think.
I think it would be more appropriate in every way if Presidents were sworn into office with their hand NOT on the Bible, but on THE CONSTITUTION, since THAT is the document that their job is to uphold.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Becarefully and think before you open your mouth. There's POWER IN THE TONGUE AND DON'T PLAY WITH GOD BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES. 48 YRS DR.KING DELCARED THAT AMERICA SHALL AND HE BELIEVED IN THE AMERICAN DREAM. GOD IS AMIGHTY AND GOD HE PAY HIM A VISIT ON HIS TIME
he's not saying that Obama does'nt have the right to prayer or right to worship Lunos or whoever.
He is saying that in a logical and modern society it just is'nt wise to have the most powerfull person in it get his ideas for the good of the world from an unknowable.
For over 40 years I've called myself an atheist. Now I think the word atheist is meaningless, because the concept of God is so fuzzy that it really has no meaning. Ask a believer to define or describe god; they can't! So believers believe in a thing - they don't know what it is and they don't know why they believe in it! To call oneself an atheist is to accept that the concept of god has some valid meaning it just hasn't. Atheists are too goddam tolerant!!!
Penn has shown himself to be the most opinionated person in the media eye. and he is certainly convinced that he is correct about everything. when you listen to him he sounds like he is preaching.
I wonder how many who attack the americans atheist who is trying to get god out of the inauguration ,Would themselves tolerate and defend a future president saying "so help me Allah" .
If there is discrimination against someone in America its the atheists, Some states actually have bylaws blocking atheists from running for public office.
every time i listen to teller. i get a sudden impulse to clear my throat. but it doesnt help... i wish teller would just go AAAHHHEEEMMM!!! but i dont think that would help either.
"Everything we see, and everything we cant see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory."
Nice try MLK, and Malcolm X; this is God's victory.
"Everything we see, and everything we cant see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory."
Compare:
Non nobis, Domine, Domine, non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam.
He didn't even write it himself -- he just paraphrased the Latin text.
If he prays for guidance, if he looks at tea leaves for guidance, if he tosses bones for guidance, who cares? The country was based on being able to worship, how, where, or what you may. We've stepped away from that when we tell a person in office that he has to hang his personal beliefs on the door. Now, as long as he isn't forcing everyone else to throw bones, or look at tea leaves or whatever, then who cares? I think the only people who care are the ones trying to force their beliefs on us..
we care because he has the ability to throw the country to the wolves. He was voted for because, supposedly, people trust his intelligence and that's what they want to be used to make decisions important, not superstition.
whoa wilbur!!! just because you dont attend Church does not mean you are an unbeliever..talk about spin..i see a job for you in the rep.or dems party...
Why do people want to take god out of everything? It's not hurting anyone, it's just a word. Athiests say "Oh my god" all the time. Whats the difference?
It's not taking god out of "everything". It's when government or anything involving tax dollars are involved are the instances. If tax dollars are taken indiscriminately, ( and they obviously are), they should be used indiscriminately. IOW's I am being forced to pay for religious institutions , activities, events etc that I would not freely do so if given the choice.
I think that the idea that non-believers are somehow being "disenfranchised" because Obama said "so help me God" is ludricous. It's not as though he established some kind of state religion or something. During the prayer, for example, there were plenty of folks who kept their heads up and eyes open and didn't join in. That's fine. That's their right as an America. Similarly, if Obama wants to say "so help me God" or says he'll pray in office, that's his right as an American.
when muslims out number christians in this country- say 20 years from now, and when they change the dollar to say "in allah we trust"... THEN these christians will understand why we need separation of church and state.
If an atheist can get the name of God taken out of something because they are offended, then why can't a christian get the name of God put back into something. Why is this country so 1 sided for people that disagree what this country was built upon?
I'm just saying you have to have faith no matter what you believe. Such as you have nothing to prove that God isn''t real, you just believe (faith) that he isn't. I wasn't wanting to argue with anyone, I was just stating an opinion.
Not believing in god requires no faith. There is no proof for the proposition. No reason to believe. Assuming there is no god in a universe that offers no indication such a being exists isn't faith. It is waiting for evidence.
Wow. I thought this country had freedom of religion but here Penn is basically saying that Obama shouldn't have his freedom of religion. The same Bill of Rights that let you make this video is the Bill of Rights that lets Obama say he's going to pray. Get over it.
where did the universe come from? I had a hard time understanding that question in relation to atheism. Heres what I came up with: God= An extension of man's ego on to the impersonal forces of the nature. In attempt to control everything, man makes god in his own image. God can do whatever the hell "he" wants. "He" is the Id.
Creating Force/Balance Factor: An unknown force that created existence. Most likely has no human features, def does not wear sandals or sports a beard; The big "Just Is"
penn is a certified looney tune... who is also brilliant and insightful. i'd love nothing more than to smoke a truckload and sit around talking with him for a day. well, there are a few things i'd like more, such as naked twister with monica bellucci, but nonetheless a day with penn would be awesome.
Atheist: The knowledge there is no God, gods, angels, demons, spirits, Satan, heaven & hell or anything supernatural.
But then again, I'm not smart enough to have this kind of knowledge right? Wrong ! We're all smart enough to know it. Just like we are all smart enough to know there is no Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
"Atheist: belief there's no god" ????
To say atheism is a belief is like saying, not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair color.
Wow, your answer to 9/11 and Katrina is god did it because he was angry at us? First off, isn't anger a human emotion...then why does god experience it? You would think a being of his caliber would be above that...but then again whatever, god just hates us all and he is going to kill us...because he is a pissy spoiled 8 year old. Your argument holds no ground, and makes you seem unintelligent.
Hmm... I'm pretty sure that the bible mentions God getting angry at his people several times. I'm not agreeing with anyone, but I guess if the bible says it then it must be true (according to Christian belief, of course. Gatta be politically correct, wouldn't want to offend anyone. That would be terrible!). :p
Kid ,if you dont read God's Word,then how do you know God Feels?He gave you the emotions you have.You say"you would think a being of his caliber would be above that"there goes that word "think." if you read His word,you would KNOW.you say I seem unintellegent, but you ARE unintellegent.
hmm you're right i guess...you aren't unintellegent...your not intellegent, just not stupid. The reason i say this is you don't need to think, god has explained all you need to know in his little boy scout manual, and all you have to do is follow it unquestioningly...no thinking required...hooray ignorance. Oh and by the way i was raised a christian, i have read the bible...this is why i am atheist, it didn't make sense to me, and it defied logic and reason...so i quit.
...i was baptized, and i went to church every sunday...didn't have to, i wanted to. I was a defender of Christianity, You can question my faith all you want to i really don't care, it isn't important to me anymore. However when i grew up, and started to think for myself...no more ministers telling me how to think...i read the bible critically and with a more logical mind, and realized there is no evidence outside the bible for these claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
yes, but this does not change anything about my first statement...hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, it was a random occurrence, with a natural cause, no hand of god punishing us for disbelief. As for 9/11, it was Religious extremest. How about this. The bible also preaches a loving god...in the new testament that is, not the old one...in the old one he was a prick, but in the new one. Why would a loving god kill people, for any reason? I thought killing was wrong.
There is a huge differencse between someone who doesn't go to church on Sunday and avowed atheists. Agnostics fall within that category, and stupid fuck atheists like you keep trying to "claim" them for your ranks. Most of my friends are agnostics, and they hate atheists like this big-haired hippy who lump them together with atheists. Agnostics aren't atheists. Deists aren't atheists. Quit trying to lump us in with you, shit head!
markp64 - Read the history of the First Amendment, or the Treaty of Tripoli. The Founders intended a secular government - a government not supportive of any religion. You seem not to understand the words of Jefferson you quote.
You hold your position because you assume YOUR religion will always be "in charge". Imagine for a moment a future election where Muslims obtain a majority in Congress as well as the presidency. How wide a seperation of "church and state" might you wish for then?
As an avowed atheist, I couldn't care less whether or not Obama muttered "so help me god" during his oath - it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg - to borrow a phrase.
But when my tax dollars and or the power of government are used to advance a particular religion or religion in general - that is unconstitutional!
I was looking for someone with that exact view. I could care less if Obama practices a certain religion...as long as he doesn't practice on or with me or my money. He's entitled to freedom of religion as much as we are. Thank you sir for being a voice of reason.
.......I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
The true meaning in the constitution with regard to church and state was that the governing authority could NOT establish a national religion.
No such thing as "separation of church and state".
Before you stick up a video spewing your beliefs, you might want to know something about what your talking about.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists mentions it in passing.
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
The founding fathers didn't just write the constitution and then kick back, throwing down mai tais on the beach while jerking eachother off. They kept putting in constitution-writing-quality work (E.G. separation of church and state)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now that means there is a separation between church and state. You can not have state sponsored prayer in school, but any student can pray on their own or with other like minded people. The is ON THEIR OWN. No school teacher or admin forcing a student to pray.
im not sure how gay marriage was brought up in the comments here...but if gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of the married people...have at it...and for you bible thumping super religions dumb asses leaving stupid comments...go to church and pray for that answer that will never come....jesus doesnt love you...its all a lie...oh yeah..this audio preview thing is pretty funny
"Atheist before darwin"!? Penn, I've lost what little respect I may have had for you! you've shown yourself to be a verbose idiot. lots of words, little or no thought. Read the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independance. These are the words of men who understood that liberty was at once a gift from God and a responsiblity to man in order that we use our "free will" to either accept or reject Christ. Liberty for it's own sake is empty.
Yeah, but it's that way because you say its that way, you have no evidence to support your ideas, you just make a claim and suddenly you think it has validity.
Also, as Richard Dawkins says, it makes atheists look like "fusspots". They look like petulant children who are concerned only with the superficial details of public life that have been influenced by religion, rather than the major elements of government policy (e.g., the war on drugs, the pro-life movement, the curtailment of scientific advancement) that religion influences.
If you really wanted the separation of church and state, why would you spend -any- time trying to get the word "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and whatnot, rather than actually combating the philosophy at the root of religion--i.e., the belief in God itself?
It's a waste of time. Whether or not Obama says, "so help me God," in his inauguration, isn't going to affect any of the decisions he makes in office. If he believes in God, all of his decisions will ultimately be based on that.
Rieeeeeese, you're practically famous now! All these haters are jealous of your intelligence and perception and artistic skills. Keep it up and have fun in LA!
dude, I am an atheist, and even I think prayer should be allowed in school.
And, removing god from the inaugural ceremony, so as to not disenfranchise 20%, by disenfranchising 80%? Penn is right, he did surprise me, I didn't think such backwards logic to come out of him.
and Gay marriage, you can't legislate religion. What happens if a priest doesn't want to do the ceremony because it is against his beliefs? Can he be arrested? Sued? Does someone come by and put a gun to his head? what?
Federally lifting the ban on gay marriage would not force any priest/church to marry any couple. They can already deny any couple marriage for any reason at all. However, you have to remember that marriages do not have to be done by a priest in a church; they can be done in a courthouse. This is the problem. People (mostly religious people) won't even allow "secular" marriages for homosexuals. Nobody wants to force churches to marry anybody.
As it stands now, the benefits of a civil union do not match those of marriage (in terms of health benefits, tax benefits, hospital visit rights, etc.). That would be another problem.
Another is the idea that giving homosexuals equal benefits/rights in civil unions , but barring them from actually being labeled as a "married couple" is still completely unequal (I believe he touched on this and brought up the old point of "separate but equal is inherently unequal.")
I don't know if it is quite the same though, I mean, it isn't like people with civil unions will have to go to different schools, and different hospitals, all it would be is difference of terms.
There wouldn't be any separation, it would just be a term that distinguishes specific types of marriage.
I mean, are we really so hard up for things to argue about in this society, that we have to argue about that?
It's still an issue of equality and it's still a denial of specific civil rights based on something people can't really help. It's also a case of majority oppressing minority (one of the problems that can arise in a democratically based system). There would be separation. You can't tell me that saying "well, you're gay so you can have civil unions, but you CANNOT under any circumstance be labeled a married couple because we don't like it" is not separate.
The gay marriage issue is not about denying gays to marry (to marry means to pair, they do that already) The issue is about forcing Pastors to do the honors against their faith, using tax status' and other leveraging tools to do it.
Not really. Most proponents of gay marriage have absolutely no desire to force the church to marry any couple. That would be a clear violation of church and state; some people actually respect that. Most gay couples wouldn't want their marriage done by an organization that despises them and thinks they're lesser people anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a problem. The issue continues to be people barring gays from the label of "married couple" even if it's done only by a civil servant.
not true pay closer attention to what's happening in the church, the government is already using bureaucratic leverage to influence what pastors are allowed to say or do. and my pastor has had Gays try to shame him into performing the ceremony. the violation against gays comes when people forget their own iniquities and point hate at them. this is not Gods law, but mans law. Also it's not the label, but the sanctity of marriage as God intended that has been under attack for many years.
If your marriage is supposedly diminished by a gay couple being married, what sanctity did it have to begin with? If we're going to whine over the "sanctity of marriage," perhaps you should be more concerned with the divorce rate rather than gays.
Furthermore, I don't think this is a petty issue at all. It's another case of the dozens upon dozens of how oppression of other people's rights and freedoms is constantly popping up in our supposed "free society." It's another case of the religious right in the US mandating that civil rights be denied to specific groups of people because a voice in their head or a 2000 year old book said to do it. It's simply another case of inequality, and it's still unacceptable.
Furthermore, gay marriage ceremonies are not protected under the constitution. Gays are free to marry and have it recognized in civil society, but it is an offront to God and to force ME to accept it is wrong. I love Gay people as much as I love anyone else. But i don't condone homosexuality. Since our "rights" were endowed by our creator, It's our responsibility to maintain the conditions of that creator, God. And it's freedom to let the minority dictate to the majority? isn't that a problem?
No, they're not free to marry. If they were free to marry, there certainly wouldn't be a debate over it.
I don't intend to get into your religious stuff; it's fairly irrelevant. The only thing I will say on that subject is that your God created homosexuality. He is also omniscient, which means he created these individuals fully knowing they would become gay. Who's problem is it really?
The minority is not to dictate, the minority is to be protected by majority oppression and prejudice.
Enough of the religious right thing, the left denies rights too, they just deny different ones. The right in your opinion denies human rights, the left in my opinion denies economic and property rights.
And as all rights are derived from property, I'd say those on the left are a better example of denying rights.
Obama is a Christian so if he wants to swear an oath under God or pray in office then I have no problem with that. I mean in his inaugural speech he mentioned non-believers with a bit of emphasis. I don't think he's disenfranchised non-believers. That's already a generous consideration from him to mention non-believers, and remember, Obama does write his own speeches. That's rare for a politician to include non-believers. It would be pretty rare that non-believers are mentioned in speeches.
I wouldn't make a big deal out of this and neither should Penn. Obama is a Christian, and he mentioned God in his oath. So what? Before you people should make judgments, learn about the man. Obama's mother was an atheist, and he spoke highly of her. It's not as if this guy is completely alienated from a non-believer's point of view. I think he's rational enough.
Have some patience. There will come a time when a non-believer sits on the White House once again, and it's not too far away.
the issue is not so much about obama mentioning god, its about the fact that there is so much christian ceremony in our government. the inauguration was almost 50 % church service, and participation was manditory in an underlying context. for any non christian this is a problem, and some like athiests or wiccans like myself find it offensive that this christian discourse dominates our ruling body. not to mention it culturally contradicts the first amendment.
It is purely ceremonial. I'm an atheist but I'm not offended by it. The fact that he mentioned non-believers in his speech is a sign of progress. I understand that the separation of church and state should strictly be observed, and I agree with that but we should be more prudent about voicing our protests for it.
perhaps as an athiest it doesnt offend you, but to others of a non christian religous background, it is. you may not care if your own children are christian or not, but i would. consider for me to raise my children on my wiccan values while the discourse and culture of my country undermines my desire to at pass on my wiccan values to my children.
btw, obama mentioning "non believers" in his speech has nothing to do progress. its political appeasement aimed at shutting up politically active atheists who threaten to undermine their precious christian ceremonies (which are more important than you seem to think in all of this) its the same shit thats been going on for years.
It may be political appeasement, since non-believers are increasingly becoming more vocal and make up a significant percentage of the country's population. What politician wouldn't pander to a significant number of the population?
Anyway, I don't share your pessimism. If all atheists thought as you there wouldn't be any progress at all.
im not pessimistic, and im not saying progress hasnt been made. religious intolerance is the oldest and most "acceptable" form of discrimination the world has ever known. to believe that any significant progress will be made in the near distant future, let alone in this country is laughable. im just realistic.
Oh really. You know it's funny that in any argument that I have with people I'm the one who is always the realist.
I offered my opinion on why I don't fully agree with Penn in this vid. It's just wishful thinking to fully expect everyone, especially in this overreligious country of ours to suddenly
This has been flagged as spam show
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate 1
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, 2
the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, 3
the Master of the Day of Doom. 4
Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succour. 5
Guide us in the straight path, 6
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. 7
akeello5 3 months ago
but most likely, theyll just sit and say "im no idiot!.....hey, HES THE IDIOT!....that guy that called us idiots! hes the damn idiot!!!"
longfootbuddy 7 months ago
they dont believe in god.. its just a word to them, like merry christmas, or how are you today?... most people are just doing what they can to fit into the group of sheep we call society...they have no real thoughts or belief...they are simple creatures that live in a fantasy dellusion.. go into a room of idiots and ask for only idiots to stand up...i bet nobody stands at first, then theyll start looking around and seeing what everyone else is doing.. if they start standing, theyll all join in
longfootbuddy 7 months ago
'so help me god' is not actually in the oath...it is merely in a custom that presidents say
Kahless5018 1 year ago
religion = epic fail mixed with aids
kenmabie 2 years ago 3
@kenmabie The disease?
pennsays 1 year ago
yes the disease, its an internet saying , i dont wish aids apon anybody, but religion is deff fail mixed with aids, thats how bad it fails
kenmabie 1 year ago
@pennsays i would belive so
littlegrimmie1 1 year ago
i like politics and religion being seperate
Jkelquedi 2 years ago
redtide2012: the consensus says you suck. And with a youtube name like that, you most soon go off to your armageddon. Buh-bye. see ya.
Illyria23alyssa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Penn looks like Satan. I can almost see the baby horns poking out his forehead. Hey Penn, Fuck you, Pal. Fuck La Raza. Fuck the Quran and Fuck your mute friend. Fuck you you fucking fat fucker.
redtide2012 2 years ago
Penn hasn't violated the 1st amendment. He is only giving his opinion that god should be removed from the inauguration and Obama shouldn't use religion in his speeches. How is that against free speech? Please, this double talk is annoying enough from politicians.
If he had a gun to Obama's head, or blackmailed him in some way (all hypothetical), then he is trying to impose his will on him, and that is not okay. That would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
ThatGuy623 2 years ago 2
I am not an Obama supporter. I did not vote for him, but if you and your friend are against him mentioning God then where is the freedom of speech you are so proud to support. I don't know how strong of a Christian Obama is, if he is at all, but if he wants to mention God, play Christian music or whatever, that is his right. And by the way, Separation of Church and State was more about keeping the gov't out of the churches not keeping God out of the Gov't.
TonyHawkInASock 2 years ago
"Separation of Church and State was more about keeping the gov't out of the churches not keeping God out of the Gov't."
I did some research on this out of curiosity. You just never know exactly in what spirit and circumstances laws/ideals were written in until you do the research.
In this case, you are wrong. You are repeating a common but incorrect myth. The original idea was exactly as it states: Separate - no connection. There's no asterisk giving A visiting rights that B doesn't get.
HintOfLime2 2 years ago 2
bwahaha. i love it.
violetvengeance9 1 year ago
Forcing people to take "so help me god" out, is just about the same as forcing people to insert x entity into it.
Zwerchhau 2 years ago
Atheism FTW!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 18
Penn getting trolled is my favorite thing on youtube now.
Keep up the good work dude, the big swollen eyes stare on blankly!
trsdos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your so fat there is enough for 3 people..ha ha ha lol..hey moron read any good books ...oh wait you dont read .... you fat turd loser
flimflamman53 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the bad part is you have no clue.. a monkey with a mic is all you are ha ha ha hey yjay will be your new name MWM
flimflamman53 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ask him how many books he has read he is do full of shit but never has read a book..just a wanna be full of shit and hot air..lol...ha, ha, ha
flimflamman53 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is so full of shit
flimflamman53 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is dumbest fool on youtube
flimflamman53 2 years ago
Stop speaking in the third person.
InvertedHorizon 2 years ago
I'm actually going to start referring to other people in First person...
I suck.
MVLynch 2 years ago 4
I love seeing that people are out there fighting to actually preserve the wall between church and state, but then I get so depressed to see that it is like Penn said, "Pissing up a rope." I'm betting we will have a cure for cancer, AIDS, and diabetes before we have religion out of government.
nisocrew 2 years ago
hey yeah i want a president that gets shit done, not one that preys that things happen
gerbodis 2 years ago 3
use spell check dumbass
flimflamman53 2 years ago
get a life dickhead
matthewfaustin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
still haven't use a spell check. Are you retarded?
flimflamman53 2 years ago
ofacu spell chech that Richard Cranium
matthewfaustin 2 years ago
you really can't speak unscripted.
burntfacemanfan 2 years ago
Neither can you, so oh well.
LafinJack 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's SO, So important to remove this reference to God huh? We really have an America today beliving that the founding fathers of this country were simply atheist before atheism was accepable. Read the words of these men. I'll show you books of their quotes...their own words refering to God and their relationship with Him. Step up to the plate and show me the books of their words/quotes showing their supposid lack of belief. All these liers have are a few misquotes compared to the booksIgot
okpillpusher 2 years ago
whats up with the red finger nail?
papageorgio123123 2 years ago
Watch one of his more recent videos: "Penn Says: Painting My Fingernail".
MinishMoosen 2 years ago
As I see it: Any president or leader that has some kind of belief tends to follow that first and foremost.. It´s depressing to think about, since religious beliefs tend to make people blind to sides of reality they don´t want to handle or see, and even bring bad or not thought through decisions.
Jentzi1 2 years ago
So does science.
eisenhorn123456 2 years ago
The difference is that science tries to evolve and go further while religious beliefs try to confine and keep it narrow.
Personally I prefer people using their eyes and brains, but I also understand that if one isn´t awake enough to notice when one´s stopped thinking or questioning and turned to just swallow whatever he or she hears, they´re pretty much lost. Science atleast tries to challenge itself.
Jentzi1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
perhaps you are the one thats blind
flimflamman53 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this nation was founded under god.
idiots.
dalkass 2 years ago
You need to do some fact checking.
bigboy9153 2 years ago 6
you need to go back to school and take history.
dalkass 2 years ago
personally, i dont see what difference that makes.
BreathingTheDark 2 years ago
Separation of church and state was implemented to prevent the government from interfering in the church, not the opposite. It's completely irrelevant in the sense of the inauguration or any other premise involving politics. You can believe what you want, but again I say, this nation was founded under the belief that there is a creator, and quite frankly, still holds true today. It doesn't matter if we evolved or not, something had to create something in the beginning.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
Like it or not, our nation was founded under the belief that there is and was a "creator" being, of which we refer to as God. This does not mean we are or ever were a "christian" nation at all. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean our nation's founding under the belief of a creator should be changed. You still have the freedom to believe whatever you want. To me it doesn't matter if it's 95%, it shouldn't change the foundation.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
Barack Obama should respect his father and not believe in God either.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Hey prrolg... Maybe if the man has faith in an invisible,omni-present, all knowing, all seeing old guy that watches where you put your hands-- he is not mentally fit for office. Cliff's notes on the Bible would only have to be " Love me...or go to hell." Get real...if he had faith in...hmmm...let's say Peter Pan would you vote for him? P.P. is far more believable...maybe faith in Science would "SAVE" even you.
baddalbatross42 2 years ago
But you're as ignorant as you could possibly be so there is no place really to begin to answer you. A wall would be more suitable to answering than you and that is not a joke of the absurd. I mean it.
prrolg 2 years ago
HolyJumpinJeezuz: Yes, yes, yes!
AzhiDahaki9 2 years ago
How is Obama mentioning God in the inauguration a violation of separation of church and state ( a law that doesn't exist)? If you were honest shouldn't you advocate a law that calls for separation of a man and his faith if he is in a public office?
prrolg 2 years ago
It's actually not Obama mentioning God that's a first amendment violation, but the presiding judge appending 'so help me God' to the end of the oath of office. It is argued that the judge including this ending to the oath is effectively a religious test - clearly unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter a great deal what the president-elect himself says at his inauguration or if he even has one, he becomes president even if he stays in bed. So it's fine for Obama himself to add it.
BfndrGnrl 2 years ago
What part of the Cons does it violate? And why?
prrolg 2 years ago
The Constitution specifies the Presidential oath of office (art 2. sec 1. cl 8) and does not include the words 'So help me God.'
Newdow's contention was that by having a federal employee, namely a judge, prompt the President to take his oath in the name of God (as it is generally understood that this would refer to the Christian deity) that this constitutes a tacit endorsement of a theistic worldview by the government and therefore would violate the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights.
BfndrGnrl 2 years ago
I think Newdow is a crackpot. I will look it up so thank you for the reference. As an aside what is your thinking along these lines if the words were left out of the oath and the President were to say them anyway. If he were to say them on his own. Is there a constitutional conflict?
prrolg 2 years ago
Nope. I'd prefer that he skip it, but to require that he do so would (imo) constitute an abridgment of his First Amendment rights as an individual.
So it's fine for the President to add 'so help me God' himself but not for him to be lead into it by a Federal judge.
BfndrGnrl 2 years ago 3
well.....your not our leader now are bud. To bad your just going to have to deal with what our leader does and should maybe even follow him don't ya think.
arkboy03 2 years ago
I think it would be more appropriate in every way if Presidents were sworn into office with their hand NOT on the Bible, but on THE CONSTITUTION, since THAT is the document that their job is to uphold.
HolyJumpinJeezuz 2 years ago 35
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Becarefully and think before you open your mouth. There's POWER IN THE TONGUE AND DON'T PLAY WITH GOD BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES. 48 YRS DR.KING DELCARED THAT AMERICA SHALL AND HE BELIEVED IN THE AMERICAN DREAM. GOD IS AMIGHTY AND GOD HE PAY HIM A VISIT ON HIS TIME
Kingsugo7 2 years ago
English?
castletriglav 2 years ago 2
Have fun being scared! =D
AtheistBrad 2 years ago
he's not saying that Obama does'nt have the right to prayer or right to worship Lunos or whoever.
He is saying that in a logical and modern society it just is'nt wise to have the most powerfull person in it get his ideas for the good of the world from an unknowable.
donvitor 2 years ago
For over 40 years I've called myself an atheist. Now I think the word atheist is meaningless, because the concept of God is so fuzzy that it really has no meaning. Ask a believer to define or describe god; they can't! So believers believe in a thing - they don't know what it is and they don't know why they believe in it! To call oneself an atheist is to accept that the concept of god has some valid meaning it just hasn't. Atheists are too goddam tolerant!!!
017524062 2 years ago
Hey, Penn. Mike Newdow wants to add you to his lawsuit now (Feb 15). Contact him or Freedom from Religion Foundation. Regards, Mike's helper
satanhimself 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Penn has shown himself to be the most opinionated person in the media eye. and he is certainly convinced that he is correct about everything. when you listen to him he sounds like he is preaching.
saladl0ver 2 years ago
I wonder how many who attack the americans atheist who is trying to get god out of the inauguration ,Would themselves tolerate and defend a future president saying "so help me Allah" .
If there is discrimination against someone in America its the atheists, Some states actually have bylaws blocking atheists from running for public office.
Jizuschrist 3 years ago 2
every time i listen to teller. i get a sudden impulse to clear my throat. but it doesnt help... i wish teller would just go AAAHHHEEEMMM!!! but i dont think that would help either.
thabooger 3 years ago
PENN!!!!!! wtf my friend is gay....
thabooger 3 years ago
note to all make sure u dont let anyone use ur profile to make comments..
thabooger 3 years ago 2
The pastors invocation was ridiculous:
"Everything we see, and everything we cant see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory."
Nice try MLK, and Malcolm X; this is God's victory.
bornonmybday 3 years ago 2
"Everything we see, and everything we cant see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory."
Compare:
Non nobis, Domine, Domine, non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam.
He didn't even write it himself -- he just paraphrased the Latin text.
jjuran 3 years ago
If he prays for guidance, if he looks at tea leaves for guidance, if he tosses bones for guidance, who cares? The country was based on being able to worship, how, where, or what you may. We've stepped away from that when we tell a person in office that he has to hang his personal beliefs on the door. Now, as long as he isn't forcing everyone else to throw bones, or look at tea leaves or whatever, then who cares? I think the only people who care are the ones trying to force their beliefs on us..
twoheadstalking 3 years ago
we care because he has the ability to throw the country to the wolves. He was voted for because, supposedly, people trust his intelligence and that's what they want to be used to make decisions important, not superstition.
nazgulpenguin 3 years ago 2
whoa wilbur!!! just because you dont attend Church does not mean you are an unbeliever..talk about spin..i see a job for you in the rep.or dems party...
flimflamman53 3 years ago
Why do people want to take god out of everything? It's not hurting anyone, it's just a word. Athiests say "Oh my god" all the time. Whats the difference?
greenday050 3 years ago
It's not taking god out of "everything". It's when government or anything involving tax dollars are involved are the instances. If tax dollars are taken indiscriminately, ( and they obviously are), they should be used indiscriminately. IOW's I am being forced to pay for religious institutions , activities, events etc that I would not freely do so if given the choice.
j3rdog 3 years ago
I think that the idea that non-believers are somehow being "disenfranchised" because Obama said "so help me God" is ludricous. It's not as though he established some kind of state religion or something. During the prayer, for example, there were plenty of folks who kept their heads up and eyes open and didn't join in. That's fine. That's their right as an America. Similarly, if Obama wants to say "so help me God" or says he'll pray in office, that's his right as an American.
captainadam1 3 years ago
Sorry about the missing "n" in the 5th sentence.
captainadam1 3 years ago
Good point...as others have said, though, inaugurations shouldn't have the judges prompting candidates to say the words. But good point.
NvrTryNvrFail 2 years ago
now with the recession tho more people will be picking up their bibles (everyone has one) and reading it
Piglatinsuperstar 3 years ago
seriously i have a bible too! well.. half of it. when my toilet paper ran out i started using my grandma's old bible to wipe my ass.
yamimakaiz 3 years ago
you are a complete fool.. no room left in your wee mind for anything else...FOOL!!!!
flimflamman53 3 years ago
in your profile says you are 55 years old. and the best you can come up with is name-calling :D
thx, you made my day xD
yamimakaiz 3 years ago 2
when muslims out number christians in this country- say 20 years from now, and when they change the dollar to say "in allah we trust"... THEN these christians will understand why we need separation of church and state.
onlywhenprovoked 3 years ago 7
right on
j3rdog 3 years ago
If an atheist can get the name of God taken out of something because they are offended, then why can't a christian get the name of God put back into something. Why is this country so 1 sided for people that disagree what this country was built upon?
kungfupanduh 3 years ago
The country was not built upon god. This was the first country in the history of the world that government was made to be secular.
j3rdog 3 years ago 6
I'm just saying you have to have faith no matter what you believe. Such as you have nothing to prove that God isn''t real, you just believe (faith) that he isn't. I wasn't wanting to argue with anyone, I was just stating an opinion.
kungfupanduh 3 years ago
so then it takes faith to not believe in the tooth fairy or Zeus or Poseidon ?
j3rdog 3 years ago 3
Not believing in god requires no faith. There is no proof for the proposition. No reason to believe. Assuming there is no god in a universe that offers no indication such a being exists isn't faith. It is waiting for evidence.
Godsmasher22 2 years ago 4
Has nothing to do with being offended, but rather that it is unconstitutional and terrible for the country.
Godsmasher22 2 years ago 2
Wow. I thought this country had freedom of religion but here Penn is basically saying that Obama shouldn't have his freedom of religion. The same Bill of Rights that let you make this video is the Bill of Rights that lets Obama say he's going to pray. Get over it.
xericbushuex 3 years ago
where did the universe come from? I had a hard time understanding that question in relation to atheism. Heres what I came up with: God= An extension of man's ego on to the impersonal forces of the nature. In attempt to control everything, man makes god in his own image. God can do whatever the hell "he" wants. "He" is the Id.
Creating Force/Balance Factor: An unknown force that created existence. Most likely has no human features, def does not wear sandals or sports a beard; The big "Just Is"
evrithnguneed 3 years ago
why the fuck is there only selected finger nails painted. are you trying to set a trend
xsint 3 years ago
Google is your friend, just don't ask Penn.
badmf13 3 years ago
penn is a certified looney tune... who is also brilliant and insightful. i'd love nothing more than to smoke a truckload and sit around talking with him for a day. well, there are a few things i'd like more, such as naked twister with monica bellucci, but nonetheless a day with penn would be awesome.
steelcouch97 3 years ago
I disagree with everything he said
dundermifflin158 3 years ago
because?
Do explain?
Give an expanded opinion?
Show some intelligence?
draagon66 3 years ago
Atheist: The knowledge there is no God, gods, angels, demons, spirits, Satan, heaven & hell or anything supernatural.
But then again, I'm not smart enough to have this kind of knowledge right? Wrong ! We're all smart enough to know it. Just like we are all smart enough to know there is no Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
"Atheist: belief there's no god" ????
To say atheism is a belief is like saying, not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair color.
nogogma 3 years ago
put an atheist and a talaban together, how far will you get?
i'm sorry but you have to at least have some respect for peoples religion.
rowlodge 3 years ago
this kind of shit is why the U.S. is going
under.9/11,katrina,GET A CLUE!take God out of schools,mock God,give Him the finger? Keep it up penn.you ain't seen nothing yet!
gittahfiend 3 years ago
Right...
MrBragg 3 years ago
Wow, your answer to 9/11 and Katrina is god did it because he was angry at us? First off, isn't anger a human emotion...then why does god experience it? You would think a being of his caliber would be above that...but then again whatever, god just hates us all and he is going to kill us...because he is a pissy spoiled 8 year old. Your argument holds no ground, and makes you seem unintelligent.
grimjoker1 3 years ago
Hmm... I'm pretty sure that the bible mentions God getting angry at his people several times. I'm not agreeing with anyone, but I guess if the bible says it then it must be true (according to Christian belief, of course. Gatta be politically correct, wouldn't want to offend anyone. That would be terrible!). :p
davewilber 3 years ago
Kid ,if you dont read God's Word,then how do you know God Feels?He gave you the emotions you have.You say"you would think a being of his caliber would be above that"there goes that word "think." if you read His word,you would KNOW.you say I seem unintellegent, but you ARE unintellegent.
gittahfiend 3 years ago
Thumb's up, Soldier.
dannyVulture 3 years ago
Thank you,brother
gittahfiend 3 years ago
hmm you're right i guess...you aren't unintellegent...your not intellegent, just not stupid. The reason i say this is you don't need to think, god has explained all you need to know in his little boy scout manual, and all you have to do is follow it unquestioningly...no thinking required...hooray ignorance. Oh and by the way i was raised a christian, i have read the bible...this is why i am atheist, it didn't make sense to me, and it defied logic and reason...so i quit.
grimjoker1 3 years ago
You ever tried just following the red letters? That's where the magic is.
slokoon 3 years ago
1st corinthians2:14 may explain why it made no sense to you.you may have been raised in a christian home, but did you BECIME a christian?
gittahfiend 3 years ago
...i was baptized, and i went to church every sunday...didn't have to, i wanted to. I was a defender of Christianity, You can question my faith all you want to i really don't care, it isn't important to me anymore. However when i grew up, and started to think for myself...no more ministers telling me how to think...i read the bible critically and with a more logical mind, and realized there is no evidence outside the bible for these claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
grimjoker1 3 years ago
did you read the scripture I just sent you ?
gittahfiend 3 years ago
scripture was created by man, so why should we take that as the truth?
ritban 3 years ago
read 2nd timothy 3:16
gittahfiend 3 years ago
yes, but this does not change anything about my first statement...hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, it was a random occurrence, with a natural cause, no hand of god punishing us for disbelief. As for 9/11, it was Religious extremest. How about this. The bible also preaches a loving god...in the new testament that is, not the old one...in the old one he was a prick, but in the new one. Why would a loving god kill people, for any reason? I thought killing was wrong.
grimjoker1 3 years ago
Read John 10:10 it will tell you who does what.
gittahfiend 3 years ago
Funny how the bible changes from one page to the next, typical of fiction, they couldn't keep the story straight!
Rowdyeh 3 years ago
What god?
Deckardpr 3 years ago
There is a huge differencse between someone who doesn't go to church on Sunday and avowed atheists. Agnostics fall within that category, and stupid fuck atheists like you keep trying to "claim" them for your ranks. Most of my friends are agnostics, and they hate atheists like this big-haired hippy who lump them together with atheists. Agnostics aren't atheists. Deists aren't atheists. Quit trying to lump us in with you, shit head!
ManYtWol 3 years ago
I think he lumped us together because we all reject the supernatural gods. AKA Christianity, Islam, ect...
Websters definitions.
Deist: Belief in god on the evidence of reason and nature w/rejection of supernatural relevation
Agnostic: believes the existance of god is unknown and unknowable
Atheist: belief there's no god.
Runindoe 3 years ago
I am a Deist. We aren't atheists. Dumb fuck.
ManYtWol 3 years ago
markp64 - Read the history of the First Amendment, or the Treaty of Tripoli. The Founders intended a secular government - a government not supportive of any religion. You seem not to understand the words of Jefferson you quote.
You hold your position because you assume YOUR religion will always be "in charge". Imagine for a moment a future election where Muslims obtain a majority in Congress as well as the presidency. How wide a seperation of "church and state" might you wish for then?
johnshuey 3 years ago
As an avowed atheist, I couldn't care less whether or not Obama muttered "so help me god" during his oath - it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg - to borrow a phrase.
But when my tax dollars and or the power of government are used to advance a particular religion or religion in general - that is unconstitutional!
johnshuey 3 years ago
I was looking for someone with that exact view. I could care less if Obama practices a certain religion...as long as he doesn't practice on or with me or my money. He's entitled to freedom of religion as much as we are. Thank you sir for being a voice of reason.
CarolynMary2 3 years ago
.......I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
The true meaning in the constitution with regard to church and state was that the governing authority could NOT establish a national religion.
markp64 3 years ago
No such thing as "separation of church and state".
Before you stick up a video spewing your beliefs, you might want to know something about what your talking about.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists mentions it in passing.
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
markp64 3 years ago
I got pictures and autographs from Penn and Teller after the show when I went to Las Vegas =D
Nick5379 3 years ago
there is NO WHERE in the constitution that says "Seperation of church and state"..
and it's " freedom OF religion" not freedom from religion.
I'm just saying
dimesack65 3 years ago
The founding fathers didn't just write the constitution and then kick back, throwing down mai tais on the beach while jerking eachother off. They kept putting in constitution-writing-quality work (E.G. separation of church and state)
jackkm 3 years ago
1st amendment states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now that means there is a separation between church and state. You can not have state sponsored prayer in school, but any student can pray on their own or with other like minded people. The is ON THEIR OWN. No school teacher or admin forcing a student to pray.
I'm just saying...
jforbe 3 years ago
im not sure how gay marriage was brought up in the comments here...but if gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of the married people...have at it...and for you bible thumping super religions dumb asses leaving stupid comments...go to church and pray for that answer that will never come....jesus doesnt love you...its all a lie...oh yeah..this audio preview thing is pretty funny
sixfootgerbil 3 years ago
So Help Me God is an optional part.
ubergeek2009 3 years ago
penn is so cool
DeeperBlueX16 3 years ago
Right on Penn. Eventually rationality will win out...
thehorseyset 3 years ago
"Atheist before darwin"!? Penn, I've lost what little respect I may have had for you! you've shown yourself to be a verbose idiot. lots of words, little or no thought. Read the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independance. These are the words of men who understood that liberty was at once a gift from God and a responsiblity to man in order that we use our "free will" to either accept or reject Christ. Liberty for it's own sake is empty.
vocalpatriot 3 years ago
Read the rest of it.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
Yeah, but it's that way because you say its that way, you have no evidence to support your ideas, you just make a claim and suddenly you think it has validity.
shuffenhauser 3 years ago
Why does anyone listen to this disgusting man? Honestly?
JoyousinJesus 3 years ago
Sad
rarebasses 3 years ago
Also, as Richard Dawkins says, it makes atheists look like "fusspots". They look like petulant children who are concerned only with the superficial details of public life that have been influenced by religion, rather than the major elements of government policy (e.g., the war on drugs, the pro-life movement, the curtailment of scientific advancement) that religion influences.
UzbekUkuleleist 3 years ago
If you really wanted the separation of church and state, why would you spend -any- time trying to get the word "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and whatnot, rather than actually combating the philosophy at the root of religion--i.e., the belief in God itself?
It's a waste of time. Whether or not Obama says, "so help me God," in his inauguration, isn't going to affect any of the decisions he makes in office. If he believes in God, all of his decisions will ultimately be based on that.
UzbekUkuleleist 3 years ago
Obama is goin to kill the U.S.A.
milesdude1 3 years ago
Rieeeeeese, you're practically famous now! All these haters are jealous of your intelligence and perception and artistic skills. Keep it up and have fun in LA!
chick7489 3 years ago
@onefodderunit:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" - Adolf Hitler
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. " - Adolf Hitler
that door swings both ways... ;)
genocidalmonkey 3 years ago
Aren't you cute. War Presidents, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are 'Christians' as well. What's your point?
A lot of Atheists of European extraction call themselves 'Jews'. They are also delusional.
onefodderunit 3 years ago
thats such a beautiful woman
djwaugust 3 years ago
obama did speak out to me when he said "Non-Believers". I thought that was important
fishinful 3 years ago
dude, I am an atheist, and even I think prayer should be allowed in school.
And, removing god from the inaugural ceremony, so as to not disenfranchise 20%, by disenfranchising 80%? Penn is right, he did surprise me, I didn't think such backwards logic to come out of him.
and Gay marriage, you can't legislate religion. What happens if a priest doesn't want to do the ceremony because it is against his beliefs? Can he be arrested? Sued? Does someone come by and put a gun to his head? what?
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Federally lifting the ban on gay marriage would not force any priest/church to marry any couple. They can already deny any couple marriage for any reason at all. However, you have to remember that marriages do not have to be done by a priest in a church; they can be done in a courthouse. This is the problem. People (mostly religious people) won't even allow "secular" marriages for homosexuals. Nobody wants to force churches to marry anybody.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
Ah, gotya.
So, is a marriage any different than a civil union, or is it just a terminology thing?
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
As it stands now, the benefits of a civil union do not match those of marriage (in terms of health benefits, tax benefits, hospital visit rights, etc.). That would be another problem.
Another is the idea that giving homosexuals equal benefits/rights in civil unions , but barring them from actually being labeled as a "married couple" is still completely unequal (I believe he touched on this and brought up the old point of "separate but equal is inherently unequal.")
longwayhome617 3 years ago
I don't know if it is quite the same though, I mean, it isn't like people with civil unions will have to go to different schools, and different hospitals, all it would be is difference of terms.
There wouldn't be any separation, it would just be a term that distinguishes specific types of marriage.
I mean, are we really so hard up for things to argue about in this society, that we have to argue about that?
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
It's still an issue of equality and it's still a denial of specific civil rights based on something people can't really help. It's also a case of majority oppressing minority (one of the problems that can arise in a democratically based system). There would be separation. You can't tell me that saying "well, you're gay so you can have civil unions, but you CANNOT under any circumstance be labeled a married couple because we don't like it" is not separate.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
The gay marriage issue is not about denying gays to marry (to marry means to pair, they do that already) The issue is about forcing Pastors to do the honors against their faith, using tax status' and other leveraging tools to do it.
vocalpatriot 3 years ago
Not really. Most proponents of gay marriage have absolutely no desire to force the church to marry any couple. That would be a clear violation of church and state; some people actually respect that. Most gay couples wouldn't want their marriage done by an organization that despises them and thinks they're lesser people anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a problem. The issue continues to be people barring gays from the label of "married couple" even if it's done only by a civil servant.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
not true pay closer attention to what's happening in the church, the government is already using bureaucratic leverage to influence what pastors are allowed to say or do. and my pastor has had Gays try to shame him into performing the ceremony. the violation against gays comes when people forget their own iniquities and point hate at them. this is not Gods law, but mans law. Also it's not the label, but the sanctity of marriage as God intended that has been under attack for many years.
vocalpatriot 3 years ago
If your marriage is supposedly diminished by a gay couple being married, what sanctity did it have to begin with? If we're going to whine over the "sanctity of marriage," perhaps you should be more concerned with the divorce rate rather than gays.
longwayhome617 3 years ago 2
Not true, you can get married in a court, by a judge. It has nothing to do with religiosity.
shuffenhauser 3 years ago
Furthermore, I don't think this is a petty issue at all. It's another case of the dozens upon dozens of how oppression of other people's rights and freedoms is constantly popping up in our supposed "free society." It's another case of the religious right in the US mandating that civil rights be denied to specific groups of people because a voice in their head or a 2000 year old book said to do it. It's simply another case of inequality, and it's still unacceptable.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
Furthermore, gay marriage ceremonies are not protected under the constitution. Gays are free to marry and have it recognized in civil society, but it is an offront to God and to force ME to accept it is wrong. I love Gay people as much as I love anyone else. But i don't condone homosexuality. Since our "rights" were endowed by our creator, It's our responsibility to maintain the conditions of that creator, God. And it's freedom to let the minority dictate to the majority? isn't that a problem?
vocalpatriot 3 years ago
No, they're not free to marry. If they were free to marry, there certainly wouldn't be a debate over it.
I don't intend to get into your religious stuff; it's fairly irrelevant. The only thing I will say on that subject is that your God created homosexuality. He is also omniscient, which means he created these individuals fully knowing they would become gay. Who's problem is it really?
The minority is not to dictate, the minority is to be protected by majority oppression and prejudice.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
Yeah, but those are your looney ideas, don't expect everyone to except them. Religion gets away with too much.
shuffenhauser 3 years ago
Enough of the religious right thing, the left denies rights too, they just deny different ones. The right in your opinion denies human rights, the left in my opinion denies economic and property rights.
And as all rights are derived from property, I'd say those on the left are a better example of denying rights.
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Rights are derived from God and GOD alone.
vocalpatriot 3 years ago
Penn, the 'unchurched 20%' does not translate into '20% are atheist' if you look into what that figure and description really mean.
clay523 3 years ago
Obama is a Christian so if he wants to swear an oath under God or pray in office then I have no problem with that. I mean in his inaugural speech he mentioned non-believers with a bit of emphasis. I don't think he's disenfranchised non-believers. That's already a generous consideration from him to mention non-believers, and remember, Obama does write his own speeches. That's rare for a politician to include non-believers. It would be pretty rare that non-believers are mentioned in speeches.
JCMac777 3 years ago
I wouldn't make a big deal out of this and neither should Penn. Obama is a Christian, and he mentioned God in his oath. So what? Before you people should make judgments, learn about the man. Obama's mother was an atheist, and he spoke highly of her. It's not as if this guy is completely alienated from a non-believer's point of view. I think he's rational enough.
Have some patience. There will come a time when a non-believer sits on the White House once again, and it's not too far away.
JCMac777 3 years ago
the issue is not so much about obama mentioning god, its about the fact that there is so much christian ceremony in our government. the inauguration was almost 50 % church service, and participation was manditory in an underlying context. for any non christian this is a problem, and some like athiests or wiccans like myself find it offensive that this christian discourse dominates our ruling body. not to mention it culturally contradicts the first amendment.
dartrip4 3 years ago
It is purely ceremonial. I'm an atheist but I'm not offended by it. The fact that he mentioned non-believers in his speech is a sign of progress. I understand that the separation of church and state should strictly be observed, and I agree with that but we should be more prudent about voicing our protests for it.
JCMac777 3 years ago
perhaps as an athiest it doesnt offend you, but to others of a non christian religous background, it is. you may not care if your own children are christian or not, but i would. consider for me to raise my children on my wiccan values while the discourse and culture of my country undermines my desire to at pass on my wiccan values to my children.
dartrip4 3 years ago
btw, obama mentioning "non believers" in his speech has nothing to do progress. its political appeasement aimed at shutting up politically active atheists who threaten to undermine their precious christian ceremonies (which are more important than you seem to think in all of this) its the same shit thats been going on for years.
dartrip4 3 years ago
It may be political appeasement, since non-believers are increasingly becoming more vocal and make up a significant percentage of the country's population. What politician wouldn't pander to a significant number of the population?
Anyway, I don't share your pessimism. If all atheists thought as you there wouldn't be any progress at all.
JCMac777 3 years ago
im not pessimistic, and im not saying progress hasnt been made. religious intolerance is the oldest and most "acceptable" form of discrimination the world has ever known. to believe that any significant progress will be made in the near distant future, let alone in this country is laughable. im just realistic.
dartrip4 3 years ago
Oh really. You know it's funny that in any argument that I have with people I'm the one who is always the realist.
I offered my opinion on why I don't fully agree with Penn in this vid. It's just wishful thinking to fully expect everyone, especially in this overreligious country of ours to suddenly