Lawsuit to remove religion from inauguration

[SCRawl]

From here.

A group of atheists is taking legal action in hopes of having all religious references removed from U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony in January.

A lawsuit filed in Federal Court is trying to prevent having the phrase "So help me God" included in the oath of office. It also wants to prevent inaugural prayers from being delivered at the event.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, told Fox News Radio.

"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers."

Barker has teamed up with Michael Newdow to file the suit. Newdow unsuccessfully sought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and sued to remove religion from inaugurations in 2001 and 2005.

There are 18 plaintiffs in total, including atheist and humanist organizations.
Prayer scheduled

Obama has chosen Pastor Rick Warren, the founder of a California mega-church, to deliver the inaugural invocation on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C.

United Methodist Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will also offer a benediction.
Pastor Rick Warren, at a book-signing in New York on Dec. 3, 2008. President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another.Pastor Rick Warren, at a book-signing in New York on Dec. 3, 2008. President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another. (Charles Sykes/Associated Press)

Warren wouldn't indicate Tuesday whether he plans to dedicate his prayer to Jesus Christ, saying only, "I'm a Christian pastor, so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray.

"Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God," Warren wrote in a statement sent to the Associated Press.

Newdow's previous lawsuit had claimed an inaugural prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Could be sore point

Some members of the religious community in the U.S., however, said the absence of holy blessings would be a sore point for conservative Christians.

"If Rick Warren does not pray in Jesus' name, some folks are going to be very disappointed," said Kirbyjon Caldwell, who delivered a prayer at George W. Bush's swearing-in in 2001.

"Since he's evangelical, his own tribe, if you will, will have some angst if he does not do that."

Obama's oath of office will be administered Jan. 20 by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, just before Obama gives the country's 56th inaugural address.

The inauguration festivities will span four days, from Jan. 18 to 21. Events will include a Jan. 20 inauguration parade with dozens of marching bands from across the U.S., including two from Obama's high school in Honolulu.

Former vice-president Al Gore will be the honorary chairman of the 2009 Green Inaugural Ball on Jan. 19 at the National Portrait Gallery.

The inauguration of the first black U.S. president is expected to draw millions of visitors to the U.S. capital.

I know that I'm not the only one here who'd appreciate this to go through, but does this have a hope in hell?

[Edi]

At this point it's counterproductive at best, because it will just give all the disaffected and especially the religious right a rallying point to start driving wedges.

[Rochey]

Agreed. This is going to go nowhere, and will just give the religious right a new topic to screech about being persecuted. I can't see any chance of it actualy getting removed.

[Broomstick]

I know that I'm not the only one here who'd appreciate this to go through, but does this have a hope in hell?

Even some of us folks who have religion would be delighted to see these trappings removed from government events, being big on separation of church and state* - but it ain't got a hope of happening right now.


* In no small part because, somehow, it's only CHRISTIAN prayers and god in these things, with maybe a nod to the Jews' existence. I guess the rest of us don't exist. Or they'd prefer us not to exist.

[The Romulan Republic]

It might also give the religious right more grounds to attack Obama on religion, if the religious stuff were cut from the innauguration. Or is this just paranoia?

[DaveJB]

It might also give the religious right more grounds to attack Obama on religion, if the religious stuff were cut from the innauguration. Or is this just paranoia?

They'd have cause to attack Obama if he voluntarily removed any religious references as a result of this case, but there'd be less cause for complaint if he were forced to take out any mention of religion. Not that I think Obama would try and turn the inauguration into an evangelism ceremony in any event.

Of course it's a moot point anyway - the religious right weren't able to prevent Obama's election, and I doubt anything coming out of this would really drive people towards the GOP's arms (as if people are going to give a crap about it come 2012 anyway).

[Durandal]

The courts seem to buy into the bullshit that "God" can mean anything to anybody, even though it's obviously just a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way of saying "the Christian God". So the best they can hope for is the court directing the officiating religious figures to keep their prayers generic and not mention Jesus or the Holy Spirit or anything like that.

This lawsuit would have a much better chance if it came from a polytheistic church.

[Ryan Thunder]

Is it going to even remotely affect his leadership?

No.

So, what difference does it make? Why is it worth even bothering with?

[Gandalf]

So, what difference does it make? Why is it worth even bothering with?

Because like "under God", it serves to do naught but put Christian colours on American governmental institutions. That in turn can make it easier for other religious things to make it in.

[Samuel]

Is it going to even remotely affect his leadership?

No.

So, what difference does it make? Why is it worth even bothering with?

Because it is there.

[Rogue 9]

The idea of an oath is to bind the oathtaker's word; hence swearing by something important to the oathtaker (something rendered false or lost if the oath is broken, not that this is ever really done anymore). If the incoming President feels that Christian faith is important enough to him to swear by it, then he should swear by it if he feels it will help him uphold the oath. Conversely, if the President does not believe in the Christian God, then swearing by Him would be useless, since he won't care about the thing he swore by. I think it should be up to whoever's taking the oath, rather than written into it.

Then again...

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil."

So maybe it's just a plain bad idea either way.

[Qwerty 42]

There's only a single part of the inauguration that's legally necessary: taking the Oath of Office, which does not strictly contain any religious references, although "So help me God" has since become a part. The "inaugurations" of Andrew and Lyndon Johnson come to mind. The rest is decided solely by the new President, and as far as I'm concerned he or she can do whatever they want.

[Qwerty 42]

I apologize for the double post.

So, what difference does it make? Why is it worth even bothering with?

Because like "under God", it serves to do naught but put Christian colours on American governmental institutions. That in turn can make it easier for other religious things to make it in.

I'd actually disagree with this: "One Nation, Under God" and "In God We Trust" are all speaking for the entire nation, implying a national association with a particular religion. The statement that's been popularly concatenated onto the end of the Oath of Office reads "so help me God." It's one particular individual asking for assistance from their religious figure in carrying out their duties.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd actually disagree with this: "One Nation, Under God" and "In God We Trust" are all speaking for the entire nation, implying a national association with a particular religion. The statement that's been popularly concatenated onto the end of the Oath of Office reads "so help me God." It's one particular individual asking for assistance from their religious figure in carrying out their duties.

What if you are a polytheist? Should you be permitted to take the Oath as "in Gods we trust?" Would a President legally be allowed to do so, in the unlikely event that a polytheist was ever elected?

[Qwerty 42]

Yes. As a matter of fact, it is not written in the Constitution that the President say "So help me God." It is believed, in fact, that the first President to do so was Lincoln, in 1865. The President could change that however he liked, although a certain amount of flak would be expected from evangelical voters as you may imagine. The Bible is also not a necessity. John Quincy Adams was sworn in on a law book, and Lyndon Johnson wasn't sworn in on a Bible because there wasn't one on Air Force One.

[SCRawl]

I'd actually disagree with this: "One Nation, Under God" and "In God We Trust" are all speaking for the entire nation, implying a national association with a particular religion. The statement that's been popularly concatenated onto the end of the Oath of Office reads "so help me God." It's one particular individual asking for assistance from their religious figure in carrying out their duties.

What if you are a polytheist? Should you be permitted to take the Oath as "in Gods we trust?" Would a President legally be allowed to do so, in the unlikely event that a polytheist was ever elected?

Well, as that's not actually in the oath, it's not going to be an issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as that's not actually in the oath, it's not going to be an issue.

You're right, sorry about the mistake.

[Ryushikaze]

Personally, I doubt this will pass, but I do agree with the sentiment. I personally think that the president should actually be sworn in on a copy of the constitution and federal laws, as that is what they should be held to.

Ah, but we can dream, no?

[Ender]

This guy filed in 2001 and 2005 as well. This is grandstanding, nothing more.

[Darth Wong]

At this point it's counterproductive at best, because it will just give all the disaffected and especially the religious right a rallying point to start driving wedges.

Yeah right, as if they aren't already claiming that atheists are doing much worse than this, regardless of whether it's true. They already have most of the fundie right-wing base convinced that private prayer in their homes is on the verge of being outlawed. I honestly can't see this making any difference in their attitudes; their beliefs are so cartoonishly divorced from reality at this point that this shouldn't bother them at all by comparison.