Local

[Print]  [Email]        

Atheist will attempt to boot God from inauguration

By: Kathleen Miller
Examiner Staff Writer
December 30, 2008

Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist, argues that any reference to God or religion violates the Constitution. (AP file)
A well-known California atheist says he and 17 others, plus atheist and humanist organizations, will file suit today in D.C.’s District Court to strip all references to God and religion from President-elect Barack Obama’s January inauguration ceremony.

Michael Newdow, of Sacramento, Calif., says he wants to remove the phrase “so help me God” from the oath of office, plus ax the invocation prayer from Pastor Rick Warren, already under fire from the left for his opposition to gay marriage.

According to Newdow, any reference to God or religion violates the Constitution.

“Equality is important to me,” Newdow told The Examiner. “We should show equal respects for all of our citizens, regardless of their race, gender or religion.”

The draft of the lawsuit contends: “By placing ‘so help me God’ in its oaths and sponsoring prayers to God, government is lending its power to one side of perhaps the greatest religious controversy: God’s existence or non-existence.”

Newdow has tried this before: He sued to remove religion from the 2001 and 2005 presidential inaugurations, but lost both times.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge John Bates denied his effort to obtain a preliminary injunction to keep the president from uttering the words ‘so help me God’ as he takes the oath of office.

Nonetheless, Newdow thinks his odds are good.

“It depends on if they decide to uphold the principles of the Constitution or not,” Newdow told The Examiner. “If they do, they’re 100 percent.”

Professor Ron Allen, a constitutional law expert at Northwestern University, disagrees.

“You can understand the impulse, it seems as though it’s a governmental activity imbued with religious symbols and a certain sect of religious symbols, Christian obviously, in particular,” Allen said. “No one thinks the government is establishing a church by the president saying ‘so help me God’ at his own initiative when taking the oath. I don’t think the courts will intervene."


To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines



 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

newslaw

Dec 30, 2008

Professor Allen is right. The new President is the one taking the oath, not the plaintiff and not the American public.

 

Jack

Dec 30, 2008

Religion or the lack of should not be an influence in any government function.

 

Kitty

Dec 30, 2008

This country was founded on religious principles. I realize this group does not believe in God but this is taking matters too far. This country needs to GET BACK TO GOD, not move further away!

 

GWS

Dec 30, 2008

Kitty: "This country was founded on religious principles. I realize this group does not believe in God but this is taking matters too far. This country needs to GET BACK TO GOD, not move further away!" ***************************** Folks should worship their GOD in their own way but keep it out of the government. Have you noticed that all the killing in the world among nations is because of their religious beliefs.

 

Christian Alexander (that's only my name, not my faith!)

Dec 30, 2008

As an atheist I can say that this is absolutely ludicrous. If Barack Obama is of a particular faith, he should be able to practice his faith in his inauguration. So if he was Jewish, the corresponding prayer would make sense. That said... it still doesn't cure the fact that selecting Warren is a big mistake. I know he's trying to heal partisan wounds, but he's hurting his base of support. I have no problem with prayer in his inauguration, but i have a problem with a biggot leading the prayer.

 

freethought

Dec 30, 2008

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."

 

believer

Dec 30, 2008

the founding fathers of our nation were god fearing individuals. Thank God! also, Mr. Obama is the one taking the Oath as others have pointed out. He has a constitutional right to swear in with his beliefs

 

DG

Dec 30, 2008

From GWS: "Have you noticed that all the killing in the world among nations is because of their religious beliefs." You really think if religion disappeared, there would be no more wars? Russia's incursion into Georgia is a recent counter to your claim. Religion is almost never the sole driver of war - economic and historical factors often exist which can drive war even in absence of religious factors.

 

KP

Dec 30, 2008

This is absolutely ridiculous. The constitution states that congress will make no laws regarding establishing a religion. Saying "so help me God" and having an invocation neither makes a law nor establishes a state religion. That is why he lost twice before.

 

KatOfCarmel

Dec 30, 2008

If I remember right. It is "freedom of religion", not "Freedom from Religion" Once again proving that atheist are not the smartest folks on this plantet

 

Gul

Dec 30, 2008

As an atheist, I half-agree with this. On the one hand, there should not be a prayer at the inauguration, as that is clearly government performing a religious rite and ceremony. But the oath itself is ridiculous-- while government not endorsing religion is an important part of the first amendment, government not restricting it is even more so. The oath is Obama's to take. It is a personal statement, not one from a government. I'd love to see a president take an affirmation, and govern from a secular perspective, even if (or maybe especially if!) they are personally religious. But that's their choice, not the courts' or legal system's. Government ceremonies however are NOT personal statements, and allowing a president to use the inaugural stage for a prayer is just as wrong as using it for a sacrifice.

 

Kevin Cole

Dec 30, 2008

Sometimes it's impossible to overcome the level of ignorance that so many people display: KatOfCarmel: "If I remember right. It is "freedom of religion", not "Freedom from Religion" Once again proving that atheist are not the smartest folks on this plantet" Ignoring your many spelling and grammatical mistakes and getting to the point of your post-of and from are synonymous, for example: kit from carmel means the same thing as kit of carmel and both equal "not one of the smartest people on the planet." The irony is monumental.

 

Kevin Cole

Dec 30, 2008

Are comments moderated?

 

freakzilla

Dec 30, 2008

@ Kitty oh how wrong you are, the founding fathers were perhaps the least fond of religion and that fact didn't aggutate the public at the time as much as it would now.

 

TOAOTH

Dec 31, 2008

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution concludes with the following words: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:---' I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" There is no addendum of "so help me God" in this oath as it is written. The Founding Fathers sought a secular government. Uttering the religious addition became a personal thing for each Oath-taker who followed George Washington. What an amazingly fresh, new, neutral, secular beginning of his administration Mr. Obama would make if he dared to follow the Constitution's words.

 

KatOfCarmel

Dec 31, 2008

I see no errors, but heck if you want to play English teacher go for it. By the way of and from do mean differant things. It does takes some level of IQ to be able to believe in God.

 

CT

Dec 31, 2008

Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom from Religion, hmm? Does Freedom of Speech give someone the right to force you to listen to what they say? No? Then Freedom of Speech ALSO gives you Freedom FROM speech. Likewise, Freedom of Religion does not give anyone the right to force you to acquiesce to what they believe... as such, Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. In other words... forcing your beliefs onto someone is violating their rights... and having the President specify one specific religion is a tacit endorsement of that religion, thus violating the First Ammendment. Oh, and it may be just one person swearing that oath, but it's a person who represents ALL of them... if you think it's not a problem, what if he swore the oath and finished it with "So help me Allah"? No-one would complain, right? It's just one person swearing that oath...

 

Ver

Dec 31, 2008

I agree with KP's point (the current oath neither establishes state religion or creates new laws). Solution for those wanting the situation re-examined? 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?

 

Mark

Jan 1, 2009

@believer: constitutional right to swear in with his beliefs - he does not -the Constitution specifies the wording of the oath of office explicitly

 

morons

Jan 1, 2009

people in positions of leadership need to stop plastering god all over the SURFACE of things, people need god in their homes, no good is done by a fake little ceremony like this, it makes us think we're faithful when in fact the moment its all over we turn back to beating our children to think the way we want them too

 

Free_I_THINK

Jan 2, 2009

As an Atheist I would be against a Government oath of "so help no God" .. But I guess I'm not bigoted like most god pushers.

 

Bill

Jan 5, 2009

Many people, including Mr Newdow believe some odd letter from Thomas Jefferson overides the constitution. Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but the mention of Christ and God are. The Freedom of Religion argument was not to prevent Religion in the Government, but to prevent a National Single Religion. At the time of this country's founding 5 states had official religions.

 

jade

Jan 13, 2009

this country was founded on beliefs of god and i think it should stay that way!

 

cypress-b

Jan 16, 2009

This guy never gets enough of losing does he. Obama should say it if he wants to.

 

teddyboy

Jan 19, 2009

To all my atheist brothers and sisters. Resistance is futile! We will all be assimilated. We will soon be members of the "Religious Chrisitian Collective"!

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Driver Carl Edwards zips his drivers suit in the garage after practice for Sunday's NASCAR Sprint Cup Dickies 500 auto race at Texas Motor Speedway, on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009, in Fort Worth, Texas. (AP Photo/Ralph Lauer)

Edwards' thinking can't hide frustration; 9 Cup wins over 2 years includes 0 in '09

Carl Edwards has found a way to try to mask the frustration of his winless NASCAR Sprint Cup season. Full story

Politics

Demonstrators chant on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009, during a Republican health Care reform rally. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

House Democrats clear impasse over abortion holding up vote on health care legislation

Capping months of months of struggle, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote on sweeping health care legislation late Friday and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. Full story

Entertainment

'Golden Girls' star McClanahan has bypass surgery

Rue McClanahan, who played sexy Southern belle Blanche Devereaux on "The Golden Girls," was recovering Thursday from heart bypass surgery at a New York City hospital. Full story