Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural

[Carlene Prince]

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.

President-elect Barack Obama will use the Bible Abraham Lincoln used for his inauguration.


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


cnn.com

[Tim Elston]

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.

Get over it, Newdow. It's a part of life. The sea of humanity doesn't revolve around you.

[Brian]

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.

Get over it, Newdow. It's a part of life. The sea of humanity doesn't revolve around you.

Yea what he said!

[soulsearcher]

"As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized."

Poor little things.

[rjc]

[Pastor Gary]

"As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized."

Poor little things.

As a Theist, I contend, having to watch a ceremony with the artificial. arbitrary elimination of religious components will make the overwhelming majority of the nation feel excluded and stigmatized. Better a handful than the rest of us...

[Tim Elston]

As a Theist, I contend, having to watch a ceremony with the artificial. arbitrary elimination of religious components will make the overwhelming majority of the nation feel excluded and stigmatized. Better a handful than the rest of us...

We're all such victims.

[Mole_J]

Wasn't this the same guy who tried to get "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance a few years ago?

Never understood this about atheists. If they truly believed that there was no God, then any religion would like mythology and mostly nonsense. Why are some atheists so sensitive in this area?

[TW]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are the words of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A careful reading makes clear the intent of the amendment. It is important to recognize that the word "an" was used, not "the." This was the guarantee that the Federal Government would not establish a "State Religion" such as existed in England and most of Europe at that time. There is a significant difference in the terms "an establishment," and "the establishment." These people are trying to twist the meaning to suit their agenda.

If they find themselves in an uncomfortable position, I'm sorry. However, the law does not guarantee that I will be comfortable at any public event. If I choose to be present, I do so in the full knowledge that someone may say something that I don't agree with or support. They enjoy no greater liberty under the law than I do. Also, I am tired of hearing the "minority card" being played, let's face it we all are members of one minority or another. So get over it!


Just my $.02,
TW

[Mike Vande]

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

He probably will. The recent constitutional crisis over homosexual marriage in Californ-icat-ia was defeated by a smaller majority than the last time. Next time, it may go the all way.
And the same is true of this grinder's axe. Then, they can get rid of all the archaic religious holdovers we, as a species have outgrown, like swearing an oath of any sort for any reason. And that Lincoln Bible the President Elect plans to make his token sop to tradition with, they can finally burn that and be done with it.

[soulsearcher]

If there is no God, why do some people keep trying to get rid of Him? Just a thought.

[Dr. Ron]

I am going to be uncomfortable an stigmatized that Barrack Hussin Obama will be sworn in as president....... I think all presidents should have a name that reflects the total identity of the people they are to represent. I would be much more comfortable if Barry Obama were being sworn in.

However, I will have to just deal with it.....even though I have no intention of watching one minute of the inaguration......never have watched one....I am an equal opportunity tune out of those things that cost the American public a ton of money and do no good.

I think all inagurations should be held in the oval office with just the Chief Justice presiding. Period.....NO fanfare....God knows Obama has had enough of that to gag a magat off a gut wagon.....I am sick of all this arrogant posturing.....I said the same of Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter,

Come on folks......let's get real with this mess.

The first paragraph is sarcasm ......the last ones are for real.....no matter who the guy/girl is.....