Atheists granted hearing on inauguration prayer

[EraOfResponsibility]

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento man known for trying to get "under God" removed from recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, has been granted a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction to stop President-elect Barack Obama from saying "so help me God" when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20th.

Newdow and several other atheists will be in U.S. District Court Jan. 15. Collectively, they filed a lawsuit last week against inaugural organizers, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other participants in the swearing-in ceremony. The lawsuit aims to remove the religious reference from the oath and to prohibit the scheduled invocation and benediction.

In 2001 and 2005, Newdow filed similar lawsuits to bar references at the swearing-in ceremonies of President George W. Bush. He failed.

While he argues that "so help me God" is not in the oath as written in the Constitution and that such references discriminate against atheists, critics cite the Obama's right to religious freedom.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/atheists_granted_hearing_on_in.html?wprss=rss_blog

[Sebass1271]

1. when atheists fight, they give liberals a bad name..

not acceptable. I am a liberal with religious beliefs. He should not try to impose his non-beliefs on me.

[Runcible Spoon]

2. you forgot your sarcasm tag...

or maybe not...:scared:

[Merlot]

5. He's trying to impose his separation of church and state beliefs on everyone

Don't take it personally.

[Bluebear]

8. Right, not acceptable. Those atheists should just shut up and stop fighting about things.

:crazy:

[Fearless]

9. The same could be said about GLBTQ rights too right?

I mean, they're just getting in the way. Why won't they shut up! :sarcasm:


No dice my friend. We are all part of the party whether you like it or not.

[Hellataz]

19. He just doesn't think that the president should take an oath for the country using God

It's not an unreasonable request, Granted Obama has his right to religious freedom, however, if they are using religious speech to swear him into a PUBLIC office, then this man has a right to be protest. If Obama was just going to have a prayer recited as part of the inauguration, then fine, but to swear to God as a standard to hold yourself up to while serving AMERICA, should not be permitted. It sends the message that anyone not believing in God is not part of the America he plans to govern.

It may seem petty to you, but atheists and agnostics (which i am) have a right to feel that their government will be led by the will of ALL americans, not the bible. You can't blame some atheists for having a bad taste in their mouth where government and religion coming together is concerned.

I don't know the exact motivation behind this man's complaint, nor do I begrudge Obama for his religious beliefs. but it's about time that this tie that binds church and state be broken. Religion is a PERSONAL choice and should have no influence in public office, it should be kept to one's self.

[PVnRT]

24. Do what now?

How does one impose no belief? Poor Christians, so very oppressed...

[Soylent Brice]

29. yeah... FSM forbid that this guy wants our leader to adhere to the constitution...

[liberal1973]

34. Sir, you're a idiot

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Yes, please get in the back of the group under the bus

For the umpteenth time YOU are the one demanding to have your religious beliefs foisted off on the rest of us. If anyone was asking for a statement to be made that "there is no God", then that would be in imposition upon you. I've never heard of anyone requesting that, some of us just don't want your and your allies' beliefs to be endorsed by the government, even if it's "ceremonial deism" or whatever other greasy excuse for encroachment that seems to be the ploy.

There's pro-religion, anti-religion and RELIGION NEUTRAL. We are asking for the latter and you are raging that it's an assault upon your aristocratic right to have your beliefs enshrined and endorsed as superior. They're not.

Article One of the Bill of Rights refers to "...law respecting the establishment of religion..."; it doesn't talk about any particular religion, it's the concept itself. Thus, there should be no official endorsement of the unsubstantiated guess of some creature called "God".

You are imperiously demanding special treatment and official endorsement of your particular superstition, which is a demand for aristocratic privilege. Theistic bigots give liberals a much worse name: they defy and insult the very heart and soul of progressivism by their demands to hold sway.

[firedupdem]

3. Why now? Did this person sue when Bush was being sworn in?

Edit...found the answer.

In 2001 and 2005, Newdow filed similar lawsuits to bar references at the swearing-in ceremonies of President George W. Bush. He failed.

[MADem]

4. So Help Me God is optional in the oath. So is SWEARING.

I took that oath often enough--you can swear, or affirm, and "so help me God" isn't in the written oath that you sign.

What are the bets on this?

I'm guessing they'll toss him out on his ass with a "custom and tradition" excuse, and cite the voluntary nature of both SWEAR and So Help Me God as justification...

[eyesroll]

12. I'm thinking it'll be a standing issue.

What's the injury? What legally protected interest is being invaded here? It needs to be concrete, and I don't think "hearing someone say 'so help me god' hurts atheists" qualifies. This is also a ceremonial deism issue, which has generally been found to be allowed.

The invocation/benediction issue might be slightly thornier, but I think it'll still get booted on standing. I don't think the courts want to touch this on the merits.

[MADem]

28. There have been attempts to go after Invokers and Benedicters before.

They're customary at military change-of-command ceremonies (you catch crap if you choose to skip them), and (some people don't know this) both the House and the Senate have a full time chaplain that we taxpayers fund at a VERY hefty salary, whose job it is to pray on occasion (invoking and benedicting) in those chambers, and to invite OTHER chaplains to come to the Congress and say the "opening prayer."

I don't see the complaint prevailing, either. George Bush could have ended his oath with "Yeee HAW!" and it would still be viewed as "administered."

[PurityOfEssence]

13. "So help me God" isn't "optional"; it's not in the Constitution AT ALL.

George Washington said it of his own volition when first swearing the oath and it's been done out of tradition, true belief and subtle coercion ever since.

The option to "affirm" was written into the body of the Constitution to accomodate people like Quakers, who are not supposed to swear. As an interesting note, though, Richard Nixon, who was raised as a Quaker swore instead of affirming.

Sorry to be a snot about it, but it's truly not "optional"; there was never any intent that it was to be used, it's not part of the official oath and that's that. It's a big, if symbolic, difference.

[MADem]

26. I understand that it isn't in the Constitution

The swear/affirm is more of a semantic choice as opposed to an option, as it gets the person to the same place. I understand that it is "optional" by custom and tradition, to include the God bit--or not. My point is this, when administering the oath (or taking it), the "cheat sheet" has it included with (optional) beside it. It also says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)..." The WRITTEN oath, that the person SIGNS, does NOT have it. That's my point.

I have given the oath to people who wanted to do without it, and also to "affirmers."

The unfortunate reality is, that Presidents tend to change traditions, and the oddball becomes ordinary. George being the first got extra attention.

I think it's a horrible new "custom or tradition" for the President to give televised speeches away from the White House in front of cheering audiences, too, that the networks cut in and preempt regular programming to cover. It used to be when a President gave a speech like that, the news would MAYBE mention it but not offer film of it. Since that shit started, the President is regarded as a politician first, more than a national leader. Give me the days of "My fellow Americans" from the Oval Office, then you got the message that something was IMPORTANT.

[Hellataz]

20. Any religious text should not even be an option in any form of public office

We like to say separation between church and state, but no one seems to take it seriously. If we truly had it, then presidential candidates wouldn't have to prove their religious preferences to the public in order to be elected. The day a government official doesn't have to tell the public which religious denomination he/she is without it effecting his/her chances of winning, is the day we are finally free from religious persecution.

[MADem]

27. We don't have separation of church and state. We never did, really.

We've always had an accomodation between state and a sort of generic, non-specific Christianity that included crosses and God--not too much Jesus, at least not back in the old days, though Jesus has been creeping in since, oh, Carter. It'll be an amazing day if we could just stop asking candidates what they are, if anything, because of COURSE they lie. Plenty of Presidents showed up at church a couple of times a year for the photo op. LBJ slept in on Sunday more often than he turned up at church!

In America, to this point in time, you have to prove you're a CHRISTIAN to be President, you can be a JEW for other elective offices, and if you are of a particularly sunny nature, you may get away with being something else...in the HOUSE, anyway.

The "God" text is actually not included in official documents that are signed and filed, it's on the "cheat sheets" that people who administer the oath use, though.

[LARED]

6. I will never understand why

atheist believe these types of actions are discriminatory.

[bluestateguy]

7. This guy needs to find something better to do with his time

The economy is in ruins. The US is in two wars, and global warming is wreaking havoc on the planet.

We don't have time for this guy's shit.

[Fearless]

10. There is plenty of time to go around. If now isn't the time, when will it be the time?

When will we have the time?

[bluestateguy]

11. I'll get back to you on that

It may be a few years.

Take a number, and have seat.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. It looks like he's using his time as he chooses.

Perhaps, you'd be better off ignoring him?

[PVnRT]

25. Yeah, we don't have time for the gays' shit either, right?

Please provide us a list of priorities so we know what we're allowed to care about.

[stopbush]

14. Good to see progress being made on the issue!

At least he's being granted a hearing.

In 50 years or so, we'll chuckle about the place of honor we once gave religious myth in this country. On the other hand, we'll feel shame for having allowed the myths that ARE religion to form the foundation of such unbridled inequality, hatred and bloodshed, even in this great land of ours.

Sadly, I won't be around to witness that day - at least, the odds aren't in my favor. But I have high hopes for my kids and their kids. We may be 50 years behind the rest of the civilized world in throwing off the shackles and stupidities of religious belief, but we're on our way, and we'll get there eventually.

[silverojo]

15. Now, this is just stupid

It's one thing if someone's being FORCED to use "under God". But if someone WANTS to say it, leave him/her the hell alone.

That's what freedom of religion is all about--you can take it or leave it.

Forcing atheism on a religious person is as wrong as forcing religion on an athiest.

[EraOfResponsibility]

16. Very good point there

>>>>Forcing atheism on a religious person is as wrong as forcing religion on an athiest

Very good point.

[SpartanDem]

17. what a nutjob

How in the world does saying "so help me God" with your own will discriminate against atheist? This guy is a pathetic hypocrite who's better no than fundie Jesus freaks who cry every time they can't shove their beliefs down everybody elses throat.

[Hellataz]

22. Because if you don't believe in GOD then how does swearing on him mean anything to you?

That's what religious people don't get, it's so ingrained in your lives,but people that don't believe in god, but still respect your rights to believe what you want just want OUR president to swear on something that means something to us as well. Why does God have to be used? To atheists or agnostics, it's like him swearing on someone comparable to Mickey Mouse or some other fictional character. It means nothing and therefor how can we take that oath seriously?

Religious freedom should have nothing to do with public office.

I bet if he swore to Allah or Buddah there would be some protests on the other side....

[Soylent Brice]

31. well spoken, and hopefully your point sinks in.

the mickey mouse analogy hits it home for me.

[Hellataz]

21. No one's forcing atheism on anyone, he's free to believe what he wants, but leave it out of public

speech. If Obama wants to express his religious freedom, then he could on his own personal time, Religion is a private matter. The moment it became so public was the day it became intrusive on to everyone who doesn't believe the same way they do. It became mandatory to know what you believe and you were judged for it. That's not a tolerant equal world.

Obama should have the religious freedom to include a prayer in his event, but the act of swearing into PUBLIC office should have nothing to do with God.

[Soylent Brice]

30. it's not about being forced.

separation of church and state, constitutionality, the obvious, that's what this is about.

it's hypocritical for priests to be in jeopardy of losing tax exempt status by stumping for politicians at the pulpit, but somehow presidents are allowed to swear to gods when taking the reins of a country that is so profoundly diverse in religious beliefs, AND non-beliefs.

the constitution very clearly states that god be left out of the process. why is that so hard for religious people? when's the last time you heard of a war in the name of science, or a ban on gay marriage because it's against common sense and rationality? it's always in the name of a god, or it's "against god". atheists are some of the most least trusted people in the world, because that's how judgmental religion can make a person. (not all, obviously.) religion draws the lines that divide people.

this guy is exercising his constitutional right by legally petitioning the courts in order to have something that violates the constitution to be dropped.

i don't see the problem here.

[SpartanDem]

35. it's not about church and state

The presidential oath makes no mention of god: 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. Whether Obama says simply "I do" or "So, help me, God, Allah or Buddha" should be left up him as it is personal in nature not the state making declaration unlike the pledge.

[quaker bill]

18. Granting a hearing

can and often is the first step in creating a ruling against the plaintiff. If the facts are not presented it is tough to create a ruling against them "on the merits". Refusing to hear a case can be easily reversed on appeal with little grounds required. Dismissal of the action "on the merits" is a far stronger statement that establishes "the record" and creates "findings of law" and is thus far more difficult and time consuming to reverse on appeal.

Virtually any case, regardless of how lame, can be "heard", that is far, far different than winning even a single point.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Let's look at what Obama's religion's founder taught

Always funny to me that the 'Christians' make big stinks over honoring Christ by doing things he specifically told them not to do. In detail. Jesus on swearing an oath:



"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord." But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No." For whatever is more than these is from the evil one."
Matthew 5:33-37

Hard to imagine a more detailed set of insturctions. The evil one, no less. Do not swear at all. The man also told them never to pray in public "like the hypocrites do". If they listened to a word of it, none of these controversies would be happening at all. And that says all that need be said.

[EraOfResponsibility]

33. Right on Bluenorthwest

that really does say it all.