Atheists seek restraining order against God for the inauguration.
America’s most irritating atheist is at again. That tiresome Michael Newdow and a bunch of other anti-God types have filed suit to bar prayer and references to God at President-elect Barack Obama’s swearing-in on Jan. 20. Newdow also filed lawsuits to remove prayer from President George W. Bush’s inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005, and you may also remember him as the crank who tried to get the phrase “under God” eliminated from the pledge of allegiance.
At least when he went after the pledge of allegiance in 2005 he could halfway make an argument that there is an expectation, particularly for school children, that it be recited regardless of a child’s beliefs. But the oath of office? That’s one person’s vow to make. Millions of people are not being asked to say it too (and in fact should politely keep quiet while he does it).
Named in the suit filed by Newdow, 17 other individuals and 10 groups, according to the Washington Post, are Chief Justice John Roberts, who will administer the oath; Saddleback church Pastor Rick Warren, who will give the invocation; and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, who will give the benediction. Wow, this inaugural is shaping up to be one big religious hurly-burly. Liberals who support gay marriage are upset because of Warren will have a prominent place at the ceremony. Conservatives are upset because Obama will have a prominent place at the ceremony. And now atheists are upset that God will have a prominent place there, too. Obama wasn’t kidding when he said he’d bring everyone together.
But back to Newdow et al. If you don’t believe God exists, then why doesn’t it follow that phrases like “so help me God” have no meaning? And if that’s the case, then why does something meaningless matter? I have news for Newdow -- even if he managed to bar all religious references from public life it wouldn’t matter. The Soviet Union tried that; all it did was send religious fervor underground until communism ended and it came roaring back.
Besides, what would Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts be expected to do if Obama were to defy a ruling in Newdow’s favor, snatch away the Lincoln Bible and swat him on the hand? Scott Walter, the executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hit the nail on the head when he said in a statement:
Newdow's lawsuit over the inauguration is a lot like the streaker at the Super Bowl: a pale, self-absorbed distraction. And anybody who looks at it carefully can see there's not much there.
Photo: Manny Garcia/Getty Images
I think he is representative of the sickness our society is suffering now. Why does he care? What does he expect to get for all this gnashing of teeth? Live and let live...
Posted by: dean0232 | December 31, 2008 at 02:29 PM
> But the oath of office?
Yes, what about the oath of office? Have a look at its real text, in the Constitution.
"So help me god" is NOT part of the oath.
Posted by: Gadfly | December 31, 2008 at 03:25 PM
Would it make Newdow feel better to know Jehovah God wasn't listening to hypocritical prayers that mix politics and religion anyway? Newdow has nothing to fear.
Posted by: peggy | December 31, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Newdow is making a valid point. Religion contaminates politics with irrational prejudice and should be practiced privately in deference to those who want no part of it.
Posted by: michael | December 31, 2008 at 06:24 PM
"But the oath of office? That’s one person’s vow to make. Millions of people are not being asked to say it too"
The oath of office is an official government function and Obama is a government official. As such, he should not attempt to establish a religion in the US.
When the US was 99% Christian, presidents could get away with this. But today, more than 20% are non-religious and another 5% of the population belong to other religions, and those numbers are growing fast. Furthermore, many Christians are bothered by governmental invocations of the name of God.
It may take another decade or two, but sooner or later, references to God will be removed from government events and functions, and both Christians and non-Christians will be better off for it.
Posted by: Mike J | December 31, 2008 at 06:24 PM
The Founding Fathers were religious folks, and the words; "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights" in the preamble prove that. I've been hearing the 'church/state' argument for years, but the constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Using "so help me God" in the oath is NOT creating a state religion and it's not shoving religion down anyone's throat. Nothing can be shoved down anyone's throat unless the throat is open, yes? Don't like the movie? LEAVE. Don't like what's on television? Turn it OFF. Don't like prayer at the inauguration? Don't watch the inauguration. And I want it understood that I am not a religious person. I was raised Catholic and lapsed many years ago. I don't go to church. Newdow doesn't want religion shoved down his throat, but others don't want HIS belief (or lack thereof) shoved down theirs. I agree with Dean0232, "Live and let live".
Posted by: pwhited | December 31, 2008 at 06:24 PM
If you had bothered to read the lawsuit, or Newdow's remarks, you would know that Newdow is NOT suing Barack Obama or trying to prohibit him from adding "so help me god"; Newdow is suing to prevent the chief justice of the supreme court from adding "so help me god," because Roberts is administering the oath of office, and he needs to administer the oath as written in the constitution.
Posted by: Brian Westley | December 31, 2008 at 06:26 PM
90% of Americans believe in GOD!!! atheist? who they thing they are to impose their ideas in every body
Posted by: rleb | December 31, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Following up on Michael's comment, but from a completely different angle. I agree it's one person's oath we are talking about here. Solution? Keeping in or leaving out "So help me God" should be a decision left up to the individual President him (or her)-self. The beliefs of others should not be an influence in either direction. Surely this is the fairest solution?
Posted by: Ver | December 31, 2008 at 08:01 PM
Everyone seems to mix God with religion. Religion is philosophy that attempts to deal with the fact that 95 % of humans throughout history and throughout the world have and have had a sense that there is something within us that is more than us. There are thousands of religions and none of them should have power in our government, but God is NOT a religion. God, (Manitou, Allah, etc.) is the name we give to that sense as we vainly try to explain the sense to ourselves.
Materialistic Determinism is the religion of atheists. Atheists are insensitive to the existance of something that is of us and more than us. The RELIGION of materialistic determinism holds that our government should follow their religion and deny God.
Our government should NOT be controlled by materialistic determinists, any more than by Baptists. They can argue all they want that insensitivity should be the norm for humans, but I'll take sensitivity any day.
Posted by: john hagerhorst | January 01, 2009 at 10:23 AM
If Obama really was Muslim like so many people still think he is, I guarantee you that even Christians would be upset about the idea of having (Muslim) prayer or religious references at a government function.
Posted by: celerystix | January 01, 2009 at 10:23 AM
"So help me the Flying Spaghetti Monster!" The religious nutjobs always insist on dragging their invisible man into everything. What a crock.
Posted by: Harry Fisher | January 01, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Let's be honest. Those who profess to be religious may as well profess to having mental illness; the greater the religiosity the greater the level of illness. Is it lunacy to believe in Santa (after the age of, say, seven)? But in order to placate the accurately described "religious nutjobs" I propose that, because elected officials represent all the citizens, the oath of office either include everyone's deity of choice (Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa, Count Chocula, etc.) or no one's. As mentioned above, all this "so help me God" and "under God" and "In God We Trust" garbage is nowhere to be found in the founding of OUR country. It has all been added later by the various yahoos who have done so much to hurt so many. An added benefit of all this is that, because of the time-consuming recitation of so many deities, it would lengthen the administration of oaths of office so much as to actually shorten the time spent in office, which, as we have so painfully failed to learn, could actually limit the damage such officeholders can commit. These same rules would, of course, apply to anyone giving invocations, etc. The greatest benefit of all this, however, will be the need for a National Deity Registry™, administered by Me, at a cost of 5¢ PER NAME, with the list then rented to oathtakers at $500 per swearing in. While some may grumble, there will surely be at least one American joyfully singing his own abridged version of "Oh, Happy Days."
Posted by: Tio Wally | January 01, 2009 at 06:07 PM
I'm shocked that the LA times would publish such a juvenile argument in their paper. The author is merely a simpleton, but the editors should know better.
Posted by: Bellingman | January 01, 2009 at 06:07 PM
This is not an issue of what percent of Americans belong to a faith or the righteousness of religion. This is about whether religion has a place in government, ever. Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion as well. Nobody is telling anybody they can't or shouldn't practice religion, but I support a movement to remove religion from government-sponsored programs and festivities. Just as you don't want somebody else's religious gestures present at a government event, others shouldn't have to see yours. "Just turn the TV off" as one poster said? That's nonsense. We all have a stake in our country's future and there's nothing wrong with caring enough to do more than look the other way.
Posted by: JayC | January 01, 2009 at 06:07 PM
It's not the religious who are the nutjobs, the nazi's, fascists, all Marxist movements like communism and socialism were all athiest movements and they were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents. Far more than all the wars of the world combined.
The oath, "so help me God" is a part of common law. Our founding fathers were religious men, Christians, not "deists" as the athiests like to claim. That includes George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so many of the others.
You can NOT strip Christianity out of the US, it won't be allowed. Nor can the sham beliefs of "liberation theology" which is little more than an attempt to use faith as a smoke screen for Marxist indoctrination, which is all about enslaving and exploiting the poor.
The suit is all about the dogma of fundamentalist athiests who are pickled in their hatred of Christianity. They are mentally unstable, and are attempting to violate the rights and freedoms of Christians. BTW, I am a liberal democrat.
Posted by: Mary | January 01, 2009 at 06:07 PM
You idiot. They are NOT seeking a restraining order against God. You can't restrain something that doesn't exist. Duh!
Posted by: Thomas Mc | January 01, 2009 at 06:07 PM
The local attorney's around the Sacramento County area love Newdow. He is a good source of money and dosen't mind having strike three called on him repeatedly. Even the Limo services receive some patronage too. He is good for the local economy in these downturn times.
Posted by: Norm Silver | January 01, 2009 at 06:08 PM
Thank God for atheists! They keep the rest of us honest. The doubter and disbeliever have served humanity very well.
Without them the cosmological world view would be one of the Earth support by elephants on top of tortoises.
Note the use of the word creator in the Constitution was purposely chosen not to invoke a particular god or God. The term creator was used to express the idea that man(kind) had a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (pursuit of 'property' in an earlier attempt). This nation was most adamantly not formed under religious principle. When Madison was asked why the word god was not included he said, "It never came up".
Posted by: Mike91335 | January 01, 2009 at 06:08 PM
God or some force does exist and string theory to M-Theory will prove this...i'm sure.. its Silly.. Newdow's attempt to separate himself from realty seems to be a desperate measure to understand why we are here and why we die or if we die. Atheism is a religion...we all know that...its all the same. His attempt to get rid of the prayer is like he is objecting to everyone wearing ties. See how silly. Like many others have said here. This should not bother him at all ....if he truly contemplated these ideas and concepts. One thing is for sure. Positive and negative energy is real. Good and Evil are real. The question is do we recognize we exist. We either exist or we don't exists. Why would someone deny his or her own existence as Newdow seems to be doing. As Einstein said, its all relative.
Posted by: Doug | January 01, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I have proved to my satisfaction that the God of the Bible does not exist. The God that people worship, pray to, and call upon is completely imaginary, but even an imaginary God can be useful as an image of perfection, as an omniscient observer who knows our every thought and deed and whom we should wish to please, and as an imaginary Father for whom we wish to leave a fitting monument on Earth.
That said, I would like to acquaint the serious reader with http://dematerialism.net/perfect.htm where a number of ideas about divinity are presented. I have written extensively on Christianity at http://www.dematerialism.net/On the Separation.html, the God Question at http://www.dematerialism.net/Question%20of%20God.html, and related subjects at http://dematerialism.net/bookandessays.htm#_Toc169935213 .
Finally, I agree with whoever thinks Michael Newdow is doing a very good thing. He's right, you know.
Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
Posted by: Tom Wayburn | January 02, 2009 at 02:45 AM
Atheism is a belief system like off is a TV channel. -- George Carlin
Posted by: Tom Wayburn | January 02, 2009 at 02:49 AM
Formerly of the live and let live camp, I have since been convinced by Richard Dawkins among others that it is important to take a stand against religious intrusions into government. Deferential treatment for so called religious moderates also opens the door to religious zealots.
Moderates answer to zealotry is to argue, “to each his own“or “they are entitled to their believes,” or some such nonsense. While religious fanatics advocate burning citizens at the stake.
Posted by: Walter | January 02, 2009 at 06:50 AM
Its amazing to me that we live in a country that is supposed to have freedom of speech, but yet what we write on a fourum that has to be moderated because when we post our feelings they cannot be heard because they might offend a certain group. I am a Christian & proud of it. I am offended when these same people that say we offend them by our worship, then turn around & offend us every day & thats ok. Yes somethimg is very wrong with our country...It has lost all signs of "morality" When Jesus raptures his church we Christians will never have to worry about groups of people who don't respect us or our belief. We will be in Heaven. Then all the ones here who hate us can then begin to choose for themselves what best suites them without a Christian anywhere to be found, to cloud their judgement!...PLEASE JESUS,...COME QUICKLY!
Posted by: Robert | January 02, 2009 at 09:30 AM
"Atheism is a religion...we all know that...its all the same." - Doug Hey Doug, speaking as an atheist, which you clearly aren't, you are wrong. There is no "official" dogma of atheism. I can think these lawsuits are silly and not have my "faith" questioned. For me, being an atheist comes down to a sense of questioning everything. Arguably it could be considered elevating science to the level of a religion. Oh, and energy as in e=mc2 is not positive or negative. Unless you have a negative amount of matter. You are thinking of positively or negatively charged particles perhaps? And good and evil are generally relative terms based on a lot of variables. Our existing no more proves the existence of an omnipotent being (god) than eyes disprove evolution.
Posted by: sellmeyoursoul | January 02, 2009 at 01:58 PM