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
Let the athiests have their say. They are in no position to change anything.
Posted by: davidwayneosedach | January 21, 2009 at 09:44 AM
If I were elected or appointed to office and the installing judge finished my Oath of Office with "So help me God", as it is in so many jurisdictions, would I have the option as an atheist to say nothing, or "So hepl me Good". What should an atheist do when the Judge tries to cram "So help me God" down my throat.
Posted by: mike | January 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
To professed atheists:
What if you die and you're wrong?
Posted by: Barbara | January 02, 2009 at 05:28 PM
"Atheism is a religion...we all know that...its all the same."
I agree with sellmeyoursoul. Another poster decried scientific materialism as a religion as well.
I don't know whether God exits or not. And so I choose not to "believe". How that makes me religious is beyond me. Scientific materialism is nothing more than the simple acknowledgment of the limits to human perception, and as such is essentially circular. Yet in every aspect of our lives aside from the spiritual, we are all scientific materialists. 2 + 2 = 4. Water freezes. The Earth has gravity. Etc.
As conscious human I do have a need for abstraction and emotional contextualization (?!!!), but there are plenty of ways to satisfy this without religion, much less needing to pick from hundreds (of those that are still even being practiced).
...Self reflection, love for family and friends, quieting of "self", transcendence through art, physicality, etc....
We've come so far as a species in the last 200 years, (and certainly before then), and if the majority of Christians still want to hold onto anachronistic ceremonial gestures, I don't have a big problem with it.
But they should be advised that it is indeed a very particular religious dogma that they are forcing others to embrace - as official ceremonies and pledges exist to do, otherwise why have them?!!! When an oath is taken, does it not weaken the oath to add in pledges with which the participant does agree?
For instance, if you were asked to pledge allegiance to our country under NO God, wouldn't that weaken it a bit?
Kind of like crossing your fingers behind your back...
Posted by: Eli Rector | January 02, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Of the many points I wish to make I will say only one.
Somebdy before me mentioned that Atheists have no place pressing their views on everybody else. In my personal experience I have never had a lesson in school where I was formally taught about being atheist but I have listened to many lessons and school assemblies which did just that. I have never had someone knock at my door to convert me to an athiest but I have had many religious people do the same.
Mike J stated above that the 'constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion'. Do you seriously believe that I am not free to choose to have no religion? That is what Newdow is on about. Religious people belive that I am not even allowed to be atheist. Is it your right to tell me to believe in God? Of course not. Is it my right to tell you not to believe in God? Of course not. But Newdow is not forcing his view on you. He is only lobbying to stop religion being forced on the people as a whole. If he was forcing his view on you he would exchange the word God with something else, but he is not doing that.
Posted by: Nick | January 02, 2009 at 02:00 PM
"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!." Robert
Robert, it shouldn't take the rapture for you to develop a thicker skin. I agree that people on either side of any religious debate should be respectful. That said, we both know that people on all sides hold strong and generally inflexible beliefs. Passions can be inflamed. I personally find it difficult to take Christians who claim to be victims very seriously since they are by far the majority here in the US. You are either so extreme that other Christian sects don't take you seriously or easily offended by any expression of beliefs counter to your own. Perhaps both.
As on American to another, can we agree not to legislate our religious beliefs? That way no one will need to take a stand for or against them. Thanks.
Posted by: sellmeyoursoul | January 02, 2009 at 01:59 PM
"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
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
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
Atheism is a belief system like off is a TV channel. -- George Carlin
Posted by: Tom Wayburn | January 02, 2009 at 02:49 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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