Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 448 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Obama Supports Forcing Atheists’ Kids To Pledge Oaths To God

This week, 85 percent of House Democrats voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 13, a Republican resolution promoting the idea that the USA is a Christian nation and reaffirming the theocratic notion that American government is founded upon trust in the Christian deity, God. At almost the same time as that vote, Joshua DuBois, Director of Barack Obama’s White House Office Of Faith-Based initiatives, issued an official statement declaring Obama’s opposition to a request, signed by tens of thousands of Americans, that the Pledge of Allegiance be made religiously neutral.

President Obama, Dubois explained, supports the McCarthyist revision of the Pledge of Allegiance, adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Across the country, millions of public school children are forced by their teachers to take the religious oath, regardless of whether the children are being raised in Christian homes.

obama opposes separation of church and stateBarack Obama has stated his support for a policy of forcing all children to swear their allegiance to the Christian deity, even if the children involved in the ritual are being raised by atheists. Obama supports the use of public schools as arenas for the promotion of his own religion, using government money. Those schools are funded in large part through acts of the U.S. Congress, and that makes the daily practice of religious worship unconstitutional.

Americans who support freedom of religion believe that it ought to be the decision of parents whether to introduce their children into religious rituals. Barack Obama doesn’t agree with that. Obama believes that the federal government, not parents, should decide when American children will proclaim religious oaths.

Barack Obama started out his presidency by embracing the extremist theocratic politics of preacher Rick Warren. Obama broke his promise to reform George W. Bush’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives, expanding it without taking any action to protect Americans’ religious freedoms. Obama has been an opponent of the separation of church and state, like Bush before him.

In Congress and in the White House, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party has joined the Republican Party as an institution dedicated to giving special perks to Christian Americans, and according second class citizenship to everybody else. For the 2012 election, non-Christian Americans don’t have any reason to believe that their rights will be better protected if they vote Democrat than if they vote Republican.

7 comments to Obama Supports Forcing Atheists’ Kids To Pledge Oaths To God

  • I am very dissapointed with President Obama about this, and it just shows how far credulity and indocrination have come
    . I dont at all place him in either of these camps, that right is reserved for the mouthy bigots who use their “faith” to withhold rights from other peopke while forcing their religion into the political domain, and of course down peoples throats. I think he, like so many others, is riding the tide of servility and willful ignorance that I both feel and hope is coming to an end. No one, religious or not, could be that blind to the making nice between folks imaginary friends to not see they are being taken for a ride.
    “God bless America!”, Now, can I have my Presidency now? Seemingly that is all that it takes. I thought President Obama was more mature than this.

  • Nate

    Yip, this joker told an Atheist who was refused a job with a Church based on her religion that even though the church is funded by Federal Faith-Based Funding that discrimination was okay because they are religious, despite that Federal Funding is requires compliance with non-discriminatory hiring practices.
    This guy said all the right things to get him into office, now that he’s there, he seems to be another republican puppet.

  • Nate

    CORRECTION
    “…an Atheist who WAS refused a job BY a Church based on her religion…”

  • Tom

    TAX THEM TOO! Why do paedaphilic churches get tax breaks? They don’t keep their noses out of politics so they should pay the same as everyone else. Corporations also better start carrying their share of the burden or they can forget about road repairs (along which they move their products), police and fire protection, etc.

  • Bill

    With some regularity Republicans lay out land mines such as this resolution, which are intended only to trip up Democrats. If Dems oppose it, they lose points among the rather large number of independents who do in fact view America as a nation ‘under God.’ This is, obviously, great for Republicans. If, on the other hand, Dems support it (or even just fail to oppose it) they lose points with the liberal ‘base,’ who can be counted on to trot out hyperbole such as “Barack Obama has stated his support for a policy of forcing all children to swear their allegiance to the Christian deity.” It’s a ‘head I win, tails you lose’ proposition for the Republicans, and liberal critiques such as this one only reinforce their strategy by playing right into it.

    Speaking as one who is unaffiliated with any organized religion, and who is a life-long supporter of the separation of church and state, I would certainly like to see all references to a diety removed from official government materials. But in politics, as in the rest of life, the wise man picks his battles. Is this a battle which Obama should have chosen to jump into, right now? Is it the most important battle he could choose to spend his waning political capital on, with an election upcoming? Is it one of our most serious problems at this point in history? Would it make a damn bit of difference if the resolution had been overturned? No, no, no, and no. The resolution — which is without any force of law — was merely a sucker’s bet put up by the Republicans to trip up Democrats. Liberals who take the bait by excoriating Democrats for not opposing it are, unwittingly, playing right into the Republicans’ odious game.

    I can’t fault…in fact, I applaud…the instinct to defend the separation of church and state. But life is all about choosing your battles (or, at least, long lives are all about choosing your battles). Let’s not play into the Republicans’ game by getting our panties all in a wad about a meaningless resolution designed only to split the Left.

    • Bill, I’m not “taking the bait” when Barack Obama uses his power to encourage the nasty right wing religious appropriation of the government for Christianity. I’m pointing out that Barack Obama is doing what he’s doing.

      Obama is only entitled to the support of liberals to the extent that he supports liberal ideals. Obama doesn’t support liberal ideals. He doesn’t deserve our support.

      Barack Obama is the one taking the bait, and guess who the bait is. We’re the bait. He’s putting non-Christians on the hook, and I’m not about to accept your idea that I ought to feel guilty about holding Obama accountable for these actions.

    • Split the Left? SPLIT?!? Obama is not the Left. He left the Left. He’s the one who’s split.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>