Current Events > Woman sues to have 'So Help Me God' removed from oath of U.S. citizenship.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/woman_sues_to_remove_so_help_y.html
---

This falls into my growing bucket of I guess thats fair but even as an atheist I cant imagine ever being bothered enough by this things.
---

Another anti Christian who has too much time on her hands.
---

I don't disagree, but....

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

It sounds like she more just wants to start shit.
---

How about anyone who is in favor of having it removed not become a US Citizen then?
---

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

We should also remove swearing oath on bibles in court as well.
---

It never should have been there.

DemonBuffet posted...

How about anyone who is in favor of having it removed not become a US Citizen then?

If America is a secular country.
---

People can be dismissive all they want but she's absolutely right and I'm surprised it hasn't been addressed before now
---

I'll take "Who gives a shit" for 600 Alex
---

I mean... She has a case, but... *Shrug*
---

Ugh, she is already learning how to make everything a problem, the American way.
---

Even if the courts remove it Trump would just place an Executive Order bringing it back.
---

She's right. Anyone who disagrees should lose their citizenship. We're supposed to have a separation of church and state.
---

Good.
---

Duncanwii posted...

Even if the courts remove it Trump would just place an Executive Order bringing it back.

He doesn't have the authority to do that.

It wasn't there originally but everyone wanted to copy George Washington.
---

eston posted...

People can be dismissive all they want but she's absolutely right and I'm surprised it hasn't been addressed before now

---

JE19426 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Even if the courts remove it Trump would just place an Executive Order bringing it back.

He doesn't have the authority to do that.

Trump doesn't care about what he's allowed to do. He's a wanna be dictator.
---

I'm more by bothered by the fact that apparently you have to swear on the bible in court and actually put your hand on it, though I hope that's just an American TV thing.

Because seriously that's just awful, to have any trace of the word god on important things that matter like this
---

Go back to France. We don't want you here.
---

Grindcorp9000 posted...

Go back to France. We don't want you here.

Says someone defending an Anti-American, anti-freedom rule.
---

Freshly American and already suing. She was destined to come here.
---

saspa posted...

I'm more by bothered by the fact that apparently you have to swear on the bible in court and actually put your hand on it, though I hope that's just an American TV thing.

Because seriously that's just awful, to have any trace of the word god on important things that matter like this

There's oaths, where you swear on the bible, or affirmations, which do not require such, but are essentially the same thing, just minus the religious bit.
---

I mean, she isn't wrong.

America isn't meant to have those religious things in government
---

I generally hate when people come here to bitch.
---

Chaosmaster00 posted...

We should also remove swearing oath on bibles in court as well.

someone should replaced it with the Qu'ran and see who notices
---

Xatrion posted...

saspa posted...

I'm more by bothered by the fact that apparently you have to swear on the bible in court and actually put your hand on it, though I hope that's just an American TV thing.

Because seriously that's just awful, to have any trace of the word god on important things that matter like this

There's oaths, where you swear on the bible, or affirmations, which do not require such, but are essentially the same thing, just minus the religious bit.

And what is the difference/when are each used?

Plus it's not just that. The fact that american money now says in god we trust is such a travesty, makes you wish it said e pluribus unum or something
---

If we're going to pride ourselves as a truly free country, then we should embrace total separation of church and state. Any and all references to any god should be removed from all government branches and proceedings.
---

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.
---

Laserion posted...

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.

I mean, she's not wrong.
---

Laserion posted...

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.

But that would just remove it for her. That wouldn't eradicate all mentions of a specific religion from the government like what needs to happen.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Laserion posted...

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.

I mean, she's not wrong.

Nope, but if it goes through, expect even more Religious people to use the legal door for their "beliefs"
---

Honestly she (and anyone who agrees with her) just sounds like a little bitch
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Laserion posted...

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.

But that would just remove it for her. That wouldn't eradicate all mentions of a specific religion from the government like what needs to happen.

Yeah. And then religious people can just add it themselves when they recite it. Can't force it but can't forbid it either.
---

southcoast09 posted...

Another anti Christian who has too much time on her hands.

No this is just a person looking for a reason to sue and get money.
---

Laserion posted...

Yeah. And then religious people can just add it themselves when they recite it.

Okay? Then let them. The government shouldn't be endorsing any religion, so the official oath should have no mention of any god.
---

I actually agree with her. But at the same time this is something very minor and not really worth the resources to go to court over. She was offered the option of not saying it. I feel if I was in her position I would have been satisfied with that.
---

Howl posted...

No this is just a person looking for a reason to sue and get money.

Lolwat? She isn't going to get money even if she wins.

Laserion posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Laserion posted...

If I was an atheist, I would just skip that part of the pledge...

And although Perrier-Bilbo was offered the chance to use a modified oath or participate in a private citizenship ceremony, she claims the presence of "so help me God" is still an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion -- and that the alternatives offered to her by the government place an illegal burden on her for her beliefs.

...but I guess that's too hard.

But that would just remove it for her. That wouldn't eradicate all mentions of a specific religion from the government like what needs to happen.

Yeah. And then religious people can just add it themselves when they recite it. Can't force it but can't forbid it either.

Okay? I just want God out of the government. Individual people can say whatever the bell they want.
---

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

SamuelHayden posted...

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

Who needs cash in the age of the debit/credit card?
---

Chaosmaster00 posted...

SamuelHayden posted...

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

Who needs cash in the age of the debit/credit card?

if she has enough time to waste on her petty stuff, I doubt she has either of those

SamuelHayden posted...

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

Of course not, just like she didn't decline citizenship. That doesn't change the fact that God shouldn't be anywhere near either of those things
---

SamuelHayden posted...

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

SamuelHayden posted...

if she has enough time to waste on her petty stuff, I doubt she has either of those

Is she triggering you?
---

DemonBuffet posted...

How about anyone who is in favor of having it removed not become a US Citizen then?

This nation is/was not founded on faith, you goober.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

This falls into my growing bucket of I guess thats fair but even as an atheist I cant imagine ever being bothered enough by this things.

Same. Hope she wins... but really don't care. Good for her, I guess?
---

Eh, if this is so minor then removing it shouldn't be an issue no?
---

SamuelHayden posted...

So will this dumb woman refrain from using cash ever because the bills and coins say 'in God we trust?'

It should be removed from currency too. Nothing connected to the government should have any religious ties. Not that I expect it will be removed.

Maybe it sounds inconsequential, and on one level it is, but all these little toeholds add up and help religion stick to US politics. We'll never have a real separation of church and state until they're really, you know, separated.
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

She's right. Anyone who disagrees should lose their citizenship. We're supposed to have a separation of church and state.

Separation of Church and state does not appear in the Constitution or any of the main founding documents
---

Callixtus posted...

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

She's right. Anyone who disagrees should lose their citizenship. We're supposed to have a separation of church and state.

Separation of Church and state does not appear in the Constitution or any of the main founding documents

Um... that quote was just Jefferson explaining the First Amendment. So Yeah, it is in there.
---