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

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

www.cnn.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Really! Give me a break. I'm not the most religious person in the world, but couldn't our energy and time be spent better elsewhere. I mean there's not other pressing issues at the moment is there.

I know we'll hear about the "separation of church and state" which I still don't fully get, but hey, really is that big of a deal?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Maybe the court will keep with the same standard it has had for Obama's Birth Certificate cases.


Lacks standing.

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.' "

Perhaps its a message to send that not everybody wants to see the President sworn in with God in mind. I think its a serious issue.

reply to post by elevatedone


Doesn't one have to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit?
Or are they suing to have that removed as well?

I suppose both sides have their silly people: www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

Michael Newdow....I should have known...at least this time he isn't using his daughter to do his dirty work for him.....


That's like saying I'd love to attend a wrestling match but I don't want to be exposed to the violence. They know of the religious components associated with an inauguration, if they don't like it they don't have to participate.

Instead of suing, I think a better message would be a boycott.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by RRconservative

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.

Maybe I would feel excluded if God wasn't in the inaugural message.



[edit on 31-12-2008 by Muundoggie]

reply to post by elevatedone


Now more than ever we need to reference God and bring him back and not exclude him because of a small minority voicing their opinion.

Yay! Another frivolous lawsuit! I will never understand the point in suing over someone saying a prayer or the phrase 'so help me God'. I'm far from being a believer, but I still bow my head and have a moment of silence as a sign of respect when my family wants to pray before a family dinner. Just because I don't believe and don't feel the need to pray doesn't mean I have to ruin it for anyone else. It is not offensive in the least for someone else to have their moment of prayer and the people who are suing over this are just being intentionally difficult. I would say I hope they grow up soon, but that would be asking too much.

Oh my GOD! Lets just add “Eat my shorts” in the place where everything says ’so help me God’ or ‘under God’, OK.

Will that make everyone happy?

Originally posted by Muundoggie

Maybe I would feel excluded if God wasn't in the inaugural message.

How ?

Only if you are God himself, that would have a good reasoning...

If those who do not believe feel excluded if god was in the message, what in your opinion should be done to make everyone happy ?

I think that it should be removed.

Believing in god or not has no bearing on truth of action or speech, so why try and put forth this little ritual that is supposed to have some sort of higher moral value to it?
Intent of dishonesty is not affected by words. Words only lead those that hold them as moral truth to be fooled into expecting the same from others.

Needless, and offensive to many....ought to go away!

reply to post by LockwithnoKey


You my friend now qualify for Affirmative action because you are now in the minority. It is nothing but words and does no harm. A tradition if I must say. Now if they were holding a knife to one's throat and forcing them to say those words then I would agree with you and say that it was unnecessary.

As another poster mentioned earlier. Isn't there something else to complain about? And I am a die-hard atheist.

reply to post by jam321


I had a sub for my classes weeks ago. When I came back and ask the students about the sub, they complain about how she was lecturing them about Jesus for 50 minutes. They asked me to get a different sub next time. Thats how they felt.

Very funny about taking "so help me God" from the inaguration, but hey they may be doing a favor to "God"

With the way our economy and our nation is heading I don't think that many christians will like to have "God" been blamed for the blunders of the new administraton trying to help fix the mess of the Bush administration and asking "God" to help.

Is not going to happen, this nation is going to need more than "God" to help it this time around.

reply to post by elevatedone


No biggy really.
They have already taken, (the leaders), God out of the equation with their warmongering and injustice. - so why should they lie and put God in there?

Peace

dAlen

Originally posted by 5thElement
If those who do not believe feel excluded if god was in the message, what in your opinion should be done to make everyone happy ?

Not a damn thing. You can't please all of the people all of the time. We have a historical tradition of having God in the oath. Changing that would be done purely top appease a small, vocal minority who claim to be "offended." Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant "Freedom from being Offended" as a right. The reason? Only YOU can decide to be happy or unhappy, offended or not offended, included or disenfranchised. Only YOU.

If they removed God from everything, these people would still find something to bitch about because that's what they do. They thrive on attention and, unfortunately, our system & our media offers the little attention whores all the attention they can soak up. The majority should never be expected to change to appease the minority. Instead the minority should either accept the fact that it is their beliefs and their stances that cause them to alienate themselves or, if "fitting in" is so important to them, change their beliefs to match the majority's. We're not talking about basic human righst here, we're talking about a bunch of asshats trying to obtain freedom from religion, which is an ideal not found in any of our nation's laws or governances.

Burdman;

I usually agree with you and while this may not be the thread for it. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but it is still a stupid thing to whine about.

Ya know, maybe if an atheist becomes president, then they won't have to swear on a bible with a minister present. The difference is, Obama wants to swear on aible and have a minister present. Personally, if I was elected I would swear on the constitution as I am not christian and therefore any oath I made on their book wih their religiousleaders present would be null and void. Maybe these people need to rethink their strategy.