Some Want God/Religion Out Of Inauguration

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

 

[Pearl]

If Obama wants to mention God during his inauguration, then that's his decision. Its his inauguration, not the atheists.

 

[LemonMelon]

If Obama wants to mention God during his inauguration, then that's his decision. Its his inauguration, not the atheists.

Bingo.

And this works both ways, of course.

 

[indra]

I'd love for all the god crap to disappear from the inaguration and money and various oaths and all sorts of things, but it's not going to happen so I just ignore it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If Obama wants to mention God during his inauguration, then that's his decision. Its his inauguration, not the atheists.

The inauguration ought to represent all Americans, including non-theists, the first amendment guarantees a separation of church and state; having a candidate use the taxpayer funded ceremony to endorse the existence of a God which looks after America could be seen as a violation of that.

 

[INDY500]

The inauguration ought to represent all Americans, including non-theists, the first amendment guarantees a separation of church and state; having a candidate use the taxpayer funded ceremony to endorse the existence of a God which looks after America could be seen as a violation of that.

Not if you understand that the First Amendment was intended to only prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church or granting legal preferences for a particular religion or denomination. The Founders wanted religion to flourish in America and saw, from examples in Europe, government as the greatest obstacle to that.

And has it worked. 200 years on and Americans are overwhelming religious of their own freewill and diversity of belief has never been greater.

Which is why atheists are in such a pissy mood lately. This isn't supposed to be happening in a modern society.

I say, God bless our founders and God bless our new president.

 

[corianderstem]

If Obama wants to mention God during his inauguration, then that's his decision. Its his inauguration, not the atheists.

The inauguration and the presidency do not belong to the president. As the president, he represents all Americans, not just Christian Americans, even if Christians are the majority.

That being said ...

I'd love for all the god crap to disappear from the inaguration and money and various oaths and all sorts of things, but it's not going to happen so I just ignore it.

... I agree.

 

[anitram]

And has it worked. 200 years on and Americans are overwhelming religious of their own freewill and diversity of belief has never been greater.

That's why Warren should pray in the name of Allah, or maybe Vishnu. I'm sure the diversity would be celebrated across America with goodwill.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not if you understand that the First Amendment was intended to only prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church or granting legal preferences for a particular religion or denomination. The Founders wanted religion to flourish in America and saw, from examples in Europe, government as the greatest obstacle to that.

And has it worked. 200 years on and Americans are overwhelming religious of their own freewill and diversity of belief has never been greater.

Which is why atheists are in such a pissy mood lately. This isn't supposed to be happening in a modern society.

I say, God bless our founders and God bless our new president.

Endorsing a monotheism is endorsing a particular set of religions, what about polytheistic religions like Hinduism?

If you champion faith based schemes the discrimination is more clear, no elected government will hand out money to satanists or pagans to do charity work because it would be bad press; that is a religious test for public funds which ought to undermine your entire enterprise.

The secularists are saying that the public funds should be spent on non-sectarian projects. That the government shouldn't be giving handouts to churches which bring out the vote (when Obama is giving money to leftist churches around election time you should have a problem with it). If this logic is followed having hucksters like Warren being given a platform payed by public funds to explicitly endorse a particular religion is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. It would be alright if he gets on stage and speaks about the importance of working together, of having some form of faith, or loving other human beings; but when he prays to God, specifically the Christian God, it goes over the line.

You have this strange revisionist history where the most influential founding fathers were churchgoing Christians who all wanted to have more traditional Christianity in the public sphere when the truth is much more complicated.

I am not claiming that they were atheists, but they were first and foremost secularists, and if we take Jefferson at his word he endorsed a wall of separation between church and state which you obviously oppose.

A government which doesn't promote religion or persecute religion is a very good model which very few countries actually have (America may be the only one on paper). This hands off approach goes beyond just not establishing a state church and ensures maximum freedom of belief and association. A secular state protects your religious liberties as much as it protects unbelief, and is a good means of maximising happiness

 

[Kieran McConville]

I think some atheists are in danger of becoming a mirror image to the kind of obsessive one-note zealots who'd die in a ditch to see 'in God we trust' on a bank note or kids standing to pray at school. Which is to say, this obsession with not mentioning God in public, even if the context is not evangelising (which I really would have a problem with), but merely a cultural feature that one would expect to see in a nation with a history that has included, well, Christianity of various kinds.

There are aspects of the meeting of God and earthly power in America that I would find troubling (the apparent influence of the religious right under Bush, and perhaps, Reagan). This is not one of them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's pretty low on the scale of issues, but these arguments do a good job of raising awareness; when various groups make a grab for unwarranted influence of religion in government they justify it on the basis of cultural artifacts that hang around, even though lawsuits like this inevitably fail they let people know that it is a secular country with a diversity of opinion.

As far as kids being made to pray in schools I fail to see how that isn't an important issue, in an Australian context it is evangelism and it is state sponsored.

When it comes to atheists being militant or fundamentalist (you know, the ones that don't believe in God 7 days a week), that equivalence with religious zealots is usually unjustified. I do get uncomfortable with people who drop God and treat materialism like a religion without thinking about the issues and implications, and I am well aware of the dangers that may be present in a Godless society. But when it comes to a secular state, which guarantees a freedom of choice and doesn't persecute any religions I think even the most rabid belief hating atheist would be promoting a good cause.

 

[Pearl]

The inauguration and the presidency do not belong to the president. As the president, he represents all Americans, not just Christian Americans, even if Christians are the majority.

True, but Obama can't please everyone. He can't please the 85-90% of Americans who believe in a god, and he can't please the rest who do not. He might as well do what is best for him.

And with all the troubles he's going to be having as President, he might as well say "so help me God"

 

[corianderstem]

True, but Obama can't please everyone.

That's for sure!

 

[A_Wanderer]

True, but Obama can't please everyone. He can't please the 85-90% of Americans who believe in a god, and he can't please the rest who do not. He might as well do what is best for him.

Statistically speaking he could maximise his pleasing power by getting Angelina Jolie to speak.

 

[anitram]

There are aspects of the meeting of God and earthly power in America that I would find troubling (the apparent influence of the religious right under Bush, and perhaps, Reagan). This is not one of them.

And it is counterproductive anyway.

Religion is the best means of turning people away from God. Give America another couple of hundred years (if humanity gets that far) and let's see where we're at. I'm pretty confident in predicting a much more secular society.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is an ironic twist that for all the care that the framers took in having a religiously non-interventionist state, a genuinely enlightened concept, it has created some of the most unflinchingly religious movements in the western world (the sorts of sectarian morons who would persecute Muslims, Jews and Catholics); I still see a culturally religious society as better than a nominally religious state (although a strong secular culture of free inquiry and a secular state would be better still).

 

[Kieran McConville]

It's pretty low on the scale of issues, but these arguments do a good job of raising awareness; when various groups make a grab for unwarranted influence of religion in government they justify it on the basis of cultural artifacts that hang around, even though lawsuits like this inevitably fail they let people know that it is a secular country with a diversity of opinion.

Yes, but you can't just wipe a culture clean of its history. It's there for better or worse. I'm all for the secular society, and in fact, I think people should be taught history in far greater scope than they are right now.

As far as kids being made to pray in schools I fail to see how that isn't an important issue, in an Australian context it is evangelism and it is state sponsored.

No, I was referring there to the stereotypical religious right type of figure who would die in a ditch trying to achieve such an aim.

When it comes to atheists being militant or fundamentalist (you know, the ones that don't believe in God 7 days a week), that equivalence with religious zealots is usually unjustified. I do get uncomfortable with people who drop God and treat materialism like a religion without thinking about the issues and implications, and I am well aware of the dangers that may be present in a Godless society. But when it comes to a secular state, which guarantees a freedom of choice and doesn't persecute any religions I think even the most rabid belief hating atheist would be promoting a good cause.

Sure, mostly agreed there. It's the get-god-out-of-everything mentality I have a problem with, because to me it speaks of a lack of critical thinking. Leaving aside the issue that many people do believe in a Christian God, even if one doesn't, a secular western society like ours has a history stretching back to medieval Christendom. For better or for worse we have evolved, if you like, out of that past.

I'm not articulating this very well, but.

The kind of symbolic gesture that a secularist should worry about, in my view, is the 'I'm ruling/going to war/whatever and God wants this'. That 'God Bless the Manifest Destiny of America' crap. Frankly, Obama is apparently a Christian. If he wants to say so help me God, then I haven't the slightest objection to that. Since in the context, he's speaking for himself, really, isn't he? As a human being occuping a certain office.

Here's my final attempt to articulate this right: the occasional nod to God in a society which genuinely held no religious belief (some hypothetical future nation of America perhaps) would of course be ridiculous. But that simply isn't the case in the present time.

 

[mobvok]

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 Obama wants to mention God during his inauguration, then that's his decision. Its his inauguration, not the atheists.

This lawsuit doesn't seek to prevent Obama from saying anything.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No its perfectly true, if we ignored the bible it would undermine huge areas of scholarship; although this can be done without adopting supernatural claims.

The concept of a secular religious curriculum in schools is an idea that gets kicked around by different groups that I would be happy with.

 

[mobvok]

If I understand this right it's the Chief Justice who is tacking on the "so help me God" part of the oath, otherwise based on the article Newdow and company would have no problem with Obama arbitrarily tacking on whatever he wanted to say besides the oath.

Aaccording to Wikipedia strong records only exist since FDR suggesting that "so help me God" was added to the oath of office. The original oath as in the Constitution makes no mention of "so help me God". Much like "under God" to the Pledge, it sounds like religious types are arbitrarily adding God references then acting like their additions are great cultural artifacts that couldn't possibly be changed.

 

[LemonMelon]

Honestly, I don't understand what the big deal is. If a president-elect is a man of faith, the "so help me God" adds emphasis to the oath itself. It shouldn't be a requirement, but it shouldn't be barred from being spoken either.

 

[yolland]

The inauguration ought to represent all Americans, including non-theists, the first amendment guarantees a separation of church and state; having a candidate use the taxpayer funded ceremony to endorse the existence of a God which looks after America could be seen as a violation of that.

By this logic, shouldn't all federal-level politicians be categorically forbidden from making any allusion whatsoever to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in anything but a strictly private context? Because their very position is by nature 'taxpayer funded' and 'representative of all Americans.'

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh my goodness, I am so offended....they said a prayer. Give me a fing break.

 

[A_Wanderer]

By this logic, shouldn't all federal-level politicians be categorically forbidden from making any allusion whatsoever to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in anything but a strictly private context? Because their very position is by nature 'taxpayer funded' and 'representative of all Americans.'

I ought to clarify that point better, I think it is reasonable to allow politicians to make allusions to God and their religious convictions, and to vote for on issues on the basis of those convictions.

It is fine for a Catholic politician to put forth an anti-abortion bill, and vote in favour because of her religious beliefs, but the proposition should be justified in secular terms.

 

[U2DMfan]

you can't just wipe a culture clean of its history. It's there for better or worse. I'm all for the secular society, and in fact, I think people should be taught history in far greater scope than they are right now.

It's the get-god-out-of-everything mentality I have a problem with, because to me it speaks of a lack of critical thinking. Leaving aside the issue that many people do believe in a Christian God, even if one doesn't, a secular western society like ours has a history stretching back to medieval Christendom. For better or for worse we have evolved, if you like, out of that past.

I'm not articulating this very well, but.

The kind of symbolic gesture that a secularist should worry about, in my view, is the 'I'm ruling/going to war/whatever and God wants this'. That 'God Bless the Manifest Destiny of America' crap. Frankly, Obama is apparently a Christian. If he wants to say so help me God, then I haven't the slightest objection to that. Since in the context, he's speaking for himself, really, isn't he? As a human being occuping a certain office.

You are articulating fine as far as I'm concerned, I (as a secularist) pretty much agree with your whole sentiment. I was secular even when I was religious but your statement about 'lacking' critical thinking is spot on. We have to account for our own cultures in some fashion.

I would add though, I did have a problem placing a Ten Commandments monument on State grounds. I am fine with Obama doing what he is doing, for the reasons you state but I also have to say there is certainly a difference between an indvidual's personal wishes and the State effectively signing off on something.

Let the individuals running the 'State' mouth off about God all they want (short of endorsing a war or someting on such grounds) but when it comes to State matters (not individuals but establishment) just keep it secular.

I don't have a problem with a nativity scene either. The Ten Commandments (which are for better or worse, religious laws) have no place on State grounds.

SO yeah, like you say, you've got to apply some critical thinking here. Right or wrong, I don't think we should categorically ban God from anything and everything, just where it matters.

Fight the fights that need to be fought, secular folk.

 

[Kieran McConville]

The real point I was getting at is that atheists of the kind described in the original news story (which is yer usual holiday season beatup probably, but whatever), need to learn to distinguish between the kind of stuff that really does constitute a melding of religion and state, and the kind of stuff that is harmless, and frankly quite par for the course, given the history of our current culture.

Admittedly I'm trying to be broadminded here - like Awanderer I am Australian, and what I see of American politics is actually far more overtly religious in flavour than I'm comfortable with... but that is more encoded in the language of US rhetoric than in the legalistic structure of the state. So.

And I wonder if there is a bit of misunderstanding of terms in this thread, generally. A secular society is not a synonym for an agnostic society (in the sense of all the people living within a culture), it merely denotes a firm separation between the exercise of state power, and the practise of religious belief. If anything it is there for the benefit of religion as well as state - the genuine theocratic state hurts religion as much as it hurts politics.

People like them (whoops, the aforementioned protagonists), and the peta people who think their fucking hobbyhorse trumps everything else, and yes, the fruitloops who spend their days trying to get the Ten Commandments erected on some fucking stone tablet in front of a courthouse... all of them give me the royal shits.

 

[Irvine511]

^ great post

 

[Liesje]

I don't care if Obama mentions God (or any religious being) in his speeches, but I don't have a problem with religious language being removed from oaths and such.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I don't care what is said.

Side note. I have always found it very interesting that in court you need to swear on a bible to tell the whole true and nothing but the true so help you god. Is this a real thing people do, or just something in the movies/t.v? (I've never been to court) I just find that for all the people who don't believe in the bible, from atheists to Muslims/Hindu/Buddhism what does that mean? That i can totally lie because god is a figment of an imagination and who gives a shit because he ain't going to do anything since he's not real? What do they do for people who DON'T believe in god?

 

[Liesje]

I believe you just raise your right hand for the oath. I've never seen anyone swear on a Bible and did not have to so I assume that is outdated.