Bacon Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 It's that time again. Similar suits were filed in 2001 and 2005, but came to nothing. Just curious to hear your collective take on all of this. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office. In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion. An advance copy of the lawsuit was posted online by Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005. Joining Newdow in the suit are groups advocating religious freedom or atheism, including the American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Florida. The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists." Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion. Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized. "Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit. Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr. The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. The document includes a quotation from Warren on atheists: "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God.' " Newdow told CNN that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs. "If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him," Newdow said. "I think it's unwise." Newdow said that as a member of a racial minority, Obama should have respect for atheists, who also are members of a minority. Newdow said religious references in the inauguration ceremony send a message to non-believers. "The message here is, we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans," he said. Newdow said it's unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good. He acknowledged that his suit is unlikely to be successful. "I have no doubt I'll lose," he said, adding that he hoped to eventually succeed through appeals and hoped future inauguration ceremonies would exclude religious references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Won't win, but I understand why he's upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 These people feel so strongly that deleting "so help me God" from the oath would actually mean something? What's going to change if they get rid of the four words? Oh, now suddenly we're all better because Barack Obama isn't going to mention God! What a bunch of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 But, I thought it was all going to be in Arabic, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I guess this is one of those "vocal minority" and they arent the real athiests who just want to "live and let live".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 This is what I don't really get. If you believe in God, than those particular words have meaning and are nice. If you don't believe in God... they're harmless. Why would people fight and sue to rid themselves of some quaint harmless expression. It makes me think the atheists protest to much. I could understand it if it were a Bhuddist or Taoist lawsuit, since "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian God and might sort of leave them out, but that's never the case. More, if the person swearing believes in God than having one more string tying them to their duty isn't a bad thing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 It should be removed. I don't know what is so hard about the term "separation of church and state". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 i love your remarks burgold....that pretty much sums up how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (Edit: Just to be difficult or to do the flip of the coin) Now, some of the prayers I can sort of see the other side. I was part of the Inaugural Prayer Breakfast because of the work I do with our injured troops. It was a very nice ceremony for the most part and I felt at ease with most of the prayers and pastors. Now, there were some who demanded/asked that we recite with them and raise our hands, pray "In Jesus' name" and participate in some rituals or repeat some stuff that I felt a little weird about. I took a "when in Rome" attitude and no lightning struck me so I guess it turned out okay (meaning I repeated sometimes and kept my head bowed in silent respect in others), but there was a part of me that occassionally felt very out of place and an interloper at that Breakfast. Thing is, I know that wasn't their intent, but I also know there was little they could have done about it other than inviting speakers of different religions (everyone was a Christian priest, minister, pastor) So, I can understand the fish out of water thing. Regardless, I don't think those four words would cause much harm or lasting dissonance. Even three hours of it didn't damage me in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 The only thing about "under God" being in the Oath is that if America one day elects an atheist they may have objections to saying it (but like Burgold said they might not care one way or the other). But as long as the President-elect has no problem saying them, I have no problem with them being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 But, I thought it was all going to be in Arabic, anyway. Aaaaaaand, it continues to hold true. :applause: * Moving on, if someone can explain to me how that phrase constitutes Congress establishing a state religion, I'll gladly jump onboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcnativenerd Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 This is what I don't really get. If you believe in God, than those particular words have meaning and are nice. If you don't believe in God... they're harmless. Why would people fight and sue to rid themselves of some quaint harmless expression. It makes me think the atheists protest to much.I could understand it if it were a Bhuddist or Taoist lawsuit, since "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian God and might sort of leave them out, but that's never the case. More, if the person swearing believes in God than having one more string tying them to their duty isn't a bad thing either. What this fellow said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Atheist here: When did someone's acceptance speech matter to anyone else? Be it the President of the United States or the Validictorian of a school. You won, say what you want to whom you want about what you want. If the paper says do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth say YES. I would say i don't believe in God but will do my best so as not to go to jail. IF Obama believes in Jesus or God of whomever I WANT him to swear on that as it may help. I'll take anything to hope a politician will do the right thing. And again: Congress shall make no laws FOR a religion or stop Obama from saying he'll obide by his... Militants of any denomination really screw things up for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I would say i don't believe in God but will do my best so as not to go to jail. Most jurisdictions now say, "Do you solemnly swear or affirm," to avoid that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 It should be removed. I don't know what is so hard about the term "separation of church and state". Can you cite for me what part of the Constitution has those words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Can you cite for me what part of the Constitution has those words? Can you cite the part that says "so help me God"? :halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Can you cite the part that says "so help me God"? :halo: You want to play that game??? Can you cite for me the part that says, "I do solemnly swear..." By the way...you don't answer a question with a question. I will eagerly await your answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You want to play that game??? No. You do. I was playing along. Can you cite for me the part that says, "I do solemnly swear..." Article IISection 1. Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." By the way...you don't answer a question with a question. But, apparently, you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 No. You do. I was playing along. Obviously you have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion. Bring some facts and we can revisit this at a later time. The question still stands... Can you name for me where in the constitution it states "separation of church and state"? But, apparently, you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You want to play that game???Can you cite for me the part that says, "I do solemnly swear..." By the way...you don't answer a question with a question. I will eagerly await your answer... Hashed over ad nauseum (sp?) on here many times.Anywho, the Constitution just says the Congress can't make a state church that we all must attend. Neither can they deny somebody the right to worship at a church or wherever. Back on topic...I think this lawsuit is frivolous to say the least. Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian, so what's the problem? I'm sure if an atheist (or somebody who felt uncomfortable with it) were elected, they would not be required to say it. When they are required by law to say it is when the Bill of Rights comes into play. Now, boy and girls, don't change that bat-channel again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Hashed over ad nauseum (sp?) on here many times.Anywho, the Constitution just says the Congress can't make a state church that we all must attend. Neither can they deny somebody the right to worship at a church or wherever. Back on topic...I think this lawsuit is frivolous to say the least. Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian, so what's the problem? I'm sure if an atheist (or somebody who felt uncomfortable with it) were elected, they would not be required to say it. When they are required by law to say it is when the Bill of Rights comes into play. You are right in your post, and I wholeheartedly agree, but when one asks the question I did, nobody is ever willing to give a straight answer, because they can't defend it. It does not exist. I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place unless a previous post hadn't cited it beforehand. Now, boy and girls, don't change that bat-channel again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You are right in your post, and I wholeheartedly agree, but when one asks the question I did, nobody is ever willing to give a straight answer, because they can't defend it. It does not exist. I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place unless a previous post hadn't cited it beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You are right in your post, and I wholeheartedly agree, but when one asks the question I did, nobody is ever willing to give a straight answer, because they can't defend it. It does not exist.I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place unless a previous post hadn't cited it beforehand. If you really want to go down that road, I'd suggest starting a thread. I'll make a suggestion: If you'll actually state your position, instead if trying to hint at it and run away, then it won't take nearly as long for you to utterly lose. (I'd also suggest that simply quoting, in entirety, someone else's post, without a single comment of your own whatsoever, will only delay the inevitable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 My take: He shouldn't be barred from speaking it, and he shouldn't be forced to either. For a man of faith, those four words add emphasis to the oath. For an atheist, it would be a moment. There's an open-minded middle ground in there somewhere, but it won't be reached through frivolous lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis26MVP Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 If you really want to go down that road, I'd suggest starting a thread. I'll make a suggestion: If you'll actually state your position, instead if trying to hint at it and run away, then it won't take nearly as long for you to utterly lose. (I'd also suggest that simply quoting, in entirety, someone else's post, without a single comment of your own whatsoever, will only delay the inevitable.) First of all...no need to start a thread...it already was started (hence our discussion). Second...There is no "hint" in what I wrote; I asked a question and you nor anyone else has been able to cite for me where it exists. A question does not require me to state my position first. But while we are on the subject, you can probably infer from my question alone where I sit on the subject, as I can with you. As I said earlier, I am not going to play your word games and don't think for an instant that you are going to make me stumble with your tricks. If you want to have a discussion on the matter, fine, let's do it. I welcome intelligent debate. But I refuse to waste my time playing tiddly-winks with you when you are not willing to answer a simple question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.