Lawsuit seeks to take 'God' out of inaugural

Post Reply New Topic

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.

It seems like the jury is still out on whether Obama is an atheist himself. His parents were, and reading "Dreams from my Father," even the parts where he talks about religion, he really doesn't come across as a person of faith. I got the impression that he joined his church because he felt that churches strengthen and unite (black) communities, not necessarily because he "found Jesus" or anything of that nature.

I think America needs a atheist president, look at what 8 years of a religious one did. The fact that atheists are going for this lawsuit does make them look whiney, and maybe they do have a point, afterall church and state are supposed to be seperate, but I don't think having the word 'god' in the inauguation is going to hurt anyone.

"Obama should have respect for atheists" By far the funniest thing in that article, I thought so anyway..., Obama is quite manipulative in my opinion.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

First, I conflated your two quotes.

Second, Mr. Obama does not have to deny or betray his beliefs merely to kow-tow to a few whiny Atheists, no matter how highly they think of themselves.

Third, Mr. Obama is above all a politician - he will do just enough of what he wants to establish himself as something other than a pushover, and then try to please enough of the right people to advance or enhance his own position as President.

Athiesm, as at it's core, every much a belief system as religion.

"Belief system" implies a set of multiple, interrelated beliefs... atheism is made up of between 0 and 1 beliefs. "Strong" atheists will assert that there is no god (1 belief) while the more agnostic types may simply lack a belief in god (0 beliefs). If you're saying that's a religion, then it must be the most insubstantial, belief-free religion ever.

Well what you describe as a "zero-belief atheism" is actually not atheism, it's agnosticism. That is the distinction between them.

Where Atheism is concerned, strong mainstream atheism often also includes the belief that organized religion is the single most evil thing to have ever happened in the world and that it has no positive qualities whatsoever.

I think most atheists believe that free will is an illusion, because something like Descartes' Error which claims that the brain is a deterministic device is what they consider "good science", not because of the science, but rather because it supports their theory in the absence of a supreme being.

As religions go though, it's not really significantly less dogmatic as you suggest. A good atheist will automatically support the conclusions of Descartes' Error. If they don't, then they're obviously not a very good atheist.