Judge won't order Obama not to use 'God' in oath

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: WP/AP

A federal judge on Thursday refused a refused to order the words "so help me God" taken out of President-elect Barack Obama's oath of office next week or to prevent ministers from praying at the inauguration celebration.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton turned down a request from a group of atheists and agnostics to force Chief Justice John Roberts not to add those words to the 35-word inaugural oath outlined in the Constitution. The group, led by California atheist Michael Newdow, also wanted to prohibit Obama's chosen inaugural ministers, the Revs. Joseph Lowery and Rick Warren, from offering prayers at Tuesday's inauguration....

***

Walton said he didn't have the authority to order Obama not to say the words, saying the president-elect had a right to free speech. The judge also questioned whether he had the authority to give the chief justice an order not to say "so help me God" after the oath.

Newdow argued that the inclusion of those words was an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government. Roberts is acting in his capacity as a constitutional officer in giving the oath, he argued, so it didn't matter that Obama has asked him to alter it to include "so help me God."...

Walton also said he didn't think that prayer at the ceremony "is somehow going to give the impression that the government is endorsing religion."

Walton also complained about the lateness of the filing, saying that there was not enough time to get the case litigated and appealed before next week's inauguration. He did not throw the case out, however, instead only refusing to stop the inauguration.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502783.html?hpid=sec-religion

[bluestateguy]

1. Newdow and Philip Berg should get together and have lunch

They can trade stories of vexatious, frivolous lawsuits.

[kirby]

7. It is not petty to those of us who

think the pendulum has swung to far with religion unconstitutionally creeping into everything government related.

However, if the oath does not include those words, but Obama (or anyone) adds them himself, that is a bit different than forcing children in school to say it or changing the currency to add the words.

[PatrynXX]

12. all inclusive. athiests are not all inclusive

Everyones free to have their religion. I can tolerate just any religion. But some atheists are annoying. If the government were to side with the atheists, they would seem to be supporting an anti religion religion. Which would be counter the make no judgment in respect to religion. I'm not going to get into horseshit about what I don't like. But this particular guy above is just overflowing with hate. I know some atheists and they certainly aren't like the idiot above.

[Merlot]

23. "some atheists are annoying???"

uh, some religious people are annoying to.

Having religion in gov't is annoying when our country was founded on the idea of freedom of and from religion.

[toopers]

38. Yes, but without God you do not have this nation . . .

Our founding fathers understood that we all had rights that were provided by someone/something greater than humans -- namely, God. While the government is not suppose to favor any religion it did not say the government has to be completely devoid of religion.

[Zhade]

41. Um, you're wrong. Paine? Atheist. Franklin? Atheist.

The Constitution explicitly states that government must refrain from any endorsement of religion. Period.

[toopers]

45. Refraining from endorsement is different . . .

than being devoid of religion. For example, the government can fund a religious organization that is providing a service that is recognized as needed. The fact that the organization is affiliated with some religion does not prohibit the organization from receiving funds. As well, the Bill of Rights does not state anything about endorsing, but does not allow for the government to force religious beliefs on the people.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Absense of religion is not anti-religion

The equivalent of having an official request an office holder to state his fear of God like this would be to ask the office holder to say something like "there is no God". Nobody's asking for that in any of those cases. This IS after all a cowering in front of supernatural power: the repeater is promising to toe the line due to the THREAT to his soul, no less.

The opposite of Alabama Ten Commandments statuary isn't a lack of them, it would be something like a crucifix on the wall with a red circle around it and a diagonal slash through it. Nobody's asking for that.

Demanding that everyone else hear godgodgodgodgod all day and night long in governmental situations with public money is tyranny. It's an abusive demand to FORCE others to hear it and to cajole the weak into accepting this guess.

The problem is that religion can't be questioned. A policy advanced with a justification that it springs from God's busom cannot be argued against if this endorsement is accepted, and that's why the founders didn't accept this endorsement.

What's the matter? Don't extremists among the believers have enough? Must all be brought to heel? Must it be heard all day long, everywhere and by everyone and every institution?

We've seen what happens with the steady encroachment. People say that it's just "ceremonial deism", but then the phrase "In God We Trust" is used as "proof" that we're a godly country and cited as a justification for further encroachment.

Extremists among all major religions play for keeps and they mean business. We have now embraced more religion in this party than ever before, and it's dangerous.

Those who claim that they're being oppressed because they can't force their beliefs on others at will WITH PUBLIC MONIES AND ENDORSEMENT are the real enemies of pluralism. I've never heard of any suit asking people for anything than to just not mention the supernatural; there's no request to say this belief is bad or that God doesn't exist, or anything of the sort. If a person's faith is so important that he/she has to shove it down everyone's throats willy-nilly, then THAT person is the intolerant asshole.

[Javaman]

34. LOL you so funny!

so we are annoying? LOL that's a laugh, were have you been for the last 5000 years of religon? shall I even begin to list all the "annoying" behavior that religion has bestowed upon the worlds population?

before you speak next time, check the words before you spill them from your mouth.

[Zhade]

40. Atheism is not a religion. It is the LACK of one.

NT!

[Zynx]

36. Oh, that is so menacing for him to say that. I'm quaking in my boots.

It's a harmless tradition.

[JeanGrey]

14. I bet his daughter cannot stand him.

[fed_up_mother]

35. LOL

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

2. This is the kind of petty crap that gives liberals a bad name

and helps the right wingers get elected and control our Country.:eyes:

[elocs]

3. Absolutely correct. n/t

[Believing Is Art]

4. Very true n/t

[sandnsea]

6. Exactly

and I am one who opposes some of this additional "under god" stuff - but it is much more important to keep god out of my uterus and out of my marriage than out of the inaugural ceremony.

[nini]

10. Where did it say they were liberals?

Are all athiests liberal?


My guess is they're atheist activists. Some may be liberal, some may be moderate, some may be conservative and some may not give a damn about politics in general. The right has taken the charge of being religiously superior, but this doesn't mean anyone who is against the separation of church and state is automatically a liberal and not a conservative.

You're playing right into the fundie nutcase claims that liberals and atheists are synonymous when you say that.

[NJmaverick]

22. Most Americans will assume he is liberal

that's a fact and it's a fact that hurts our influence over much of the Country.

[kestrel91316]

11. Bingo. How do we know Newdow isn't actually a RWer hell bent on

making liberals look awful? He's doing a great job of it.

[jmowreader]

15. More to the point, kestrel...

How do we know Newdow isn't actually a CHRISTIAN?

If I was a fundamentalist Christian who wanted to make atheists look completely intolerant, I'd do exactly what Newdow is doing.

I just hope someone declares him a vexatious litigant.

[emilyg]

13. Agree.

[onehandle]

16. Yep. nt

[ChazII]

17. Agree with you 100%. n/t

[Raine]

26. TOTALLY correct.

and I'm glad the judge didn't fall into that trap.

[Political Heretic]

28. Absolutely agreed.

[L. Coyote]

29. This is the kind of petty crap that gives nations a bad name

and helps the world understand right wingers and religions control the Country

[Zynx]

37. I'm SO sure that a British observer watchs that and goes "Ah damn it all. There they go again."

I somehow don't think so.

[Milspec]

31. This is really small potato stuff

And BTW I'm going to stick my head in the oven now. Spell checker informed me I had added an "E" to potato.

[rpannier]

5. Newdow needs to get a hobby that does not include frivilous filings

[monmouth]

8. I read on here a few days ago that Obama said to leave "So help me God" in...'nuf said..n/t

[Deja Q]

9. Newdow needs to be neutered.

Don't stomp around like a baby; convince via positive action that yours is the cause to have people side with.

[laconicsax]

18. Methinks that Judge Walton should read the decision in Lemon v Kurtzman

The Supreme Court has consistently held that if legislation or government action does not meet all three of the following criteria, then it is unconstitutional.

1. The law or action must have a secular purpose.
2. The law or action must have a primary purpose that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The law or action must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

Adding 'so help me God' has no secular purpose. Having two prayers has no secular purpose and arguably advance religion.

[Piewhacket]

19. Huh? Oh puuleeze...

that isn't even a CLOSE call. WHAT are these people doing?

A man swears an oath to faithfully execute an office and uphold the constitution, and at the
end he says "so help me God" . That doesn't undermine the legal significance of the oath as a
civilized and solemn formality that demarcates a candidate for office from an officeholder. He
could say "so help me Vishnu", or even solemnly "Klaatu Berata Nicto", or nothing, what's the problem?
Not to mention that it has been traditional like... forever.. for people to invoke a deity
in solemnizing an oath.

If this "so help me God" were required in the oath, that would be a problem, it would present
a most repugnant (to the constitution) entanglement of government and religion. But that isn't
the case here.

Perhaps a person who would not say it would never be elected in the US, but if one were
there would probably be no objection to omission of the phrase.

I'm no friend of entangling religion in government, but in this case my response is:

WTF is this crap?

[PurityOfEssence]

24. What Obama says isn't the problem, it's what Roberts says

Regardless of tradition, for the Chief Justice of the highest court to stand up and say, as if it's mandated by the state, "so help me God", it's giving people the impression that this nation endorses the concept of a supreme being. This LITERALLY not only defines God as undeniable, but puts us all subordinate to it, and defines the U.S. Government as subordinate to it. Let Obama say whatever he wants to, but for it to be asked for him to comply with, which is what will be done, it makes it sound like we are a nation of God.

The prayers and invocations are greyer areas, but this, regardless of prior perpetration, is DEFINITELY crossing the line; the oath is a REQUIRED act, specified in the Constitution and defined with precise text. There's no "God" in there.

Believers who don't want to play fair need to be reminded that they're either unaware of the implications, or pulling a bullshit trick to sucker people into believing that this country endorses the concept of a God. It doesn't. It specifically does not. Article One of the Bill of Rights doesn't talk about a particular religion, it talks about religion itself.

What's the matter folks, is your faith so weak that you have to force everyone to hear it day in and day out just to rub our noses in it? Is the mandate for proselytizing so important that you put it above the laws of your government? I don't want my President's allegiance to be to his guess about the supernatural, I want his allegiance to be to the law of the land. The former creates an aristocracy, and one that is unquestionable by mere mortals and hardly even to be commented on by peons who don't belong to the select group.

Let Obama say it himself if he wants to, but for Roberts to have him repeat it makes it sound like it's required. That's morally and ethically wrong regardless of one's interpretation of the law.

[Zhade]

42. HEAR, HEAR.

NT!

[Bill McBlueState]

20. too bad

Citizens and the courts seem to have gotten used to a certain amount of entanglement between government and religion. But this entanglement doesn't do us any good and only serves to divide.

Nobody who argues in favor of "so help me God" ever says, "Obama should say it because then his god will help him." So what exactly is the purpose of adding words to the Constitutionally specified oath?

[kirby]

21. You know why people do it?

Cuz it is said so many times without question that it becomes a habit. And if someone does not say it, their American-ness is questioned. Kind of like in this thread. ie; Newdow is probably a RWer, his child probably hates him, he just files stupid lawsuits because he has nothing better to to, etc.

[No Elephants]

27. The posts on this thread are a perfect example of why Nedow should win. First,

the attacks go immediately against atheists and Christians. Why should government be doing ANYthing about religion that divides people on the basis of their religious beliefs or lack of them? Is that a good thing for government to be involved in?


Second, people knee jerk. If he is against mixing government or religion, he's automatically an atheist and if he is okay with 'so help me God," he is automatically a Christian. Baloney. there are Christians who want a complete separation of government and religion. There are atheist who are okay with some. And, hello, there are other choices as to faith besides atheist and evangelical.

My guess is, if we are talking about people who actually think, instead of knee jerking, you will find people from every group on both sides. But again, relligious beliefs or lack of them do a plenty good job of dividing Americans. Government's help in dividing people along the lines of religious belief is unnecessary and imprudent, whether it is Constitutional or not.

[rangersmith82]

30. He is the President now

He can include God in anything he damn well pleases.

[Skittles]

32. do you fucking hear what you're saying?

[DavidDvorkin]

33. "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

[Zhade]

43. Um, legally he CAN'T.

You are completely wrong. Are you a fan of autocracy or something?

[Zhade]

39. Newdow is correct, and the judge thinks very little of our intelligence.

"Walton also said he didn't think that prayer at the ceremony "is somehow going to give the impression that the government is endorsing religion.""

Um, yeah, it pretty much does exactly that. Prayer is by definition a religious act.

[rangersmith82]

44. Our President needs our Prayers.....

He has a heck of a job ahead of him, it might be good to have God in his corner.